[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 118th Congress]
[118th Congress]
[House Document 117-161]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 325-1041]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



* * * * *
                         sec. liii--impeachment



Sec. 601. Jurisdiction of Lords and Commons as 
to impeachments.

  These are the  provisions of the Constitution of the United States 
on the subject of 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, because they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl., 12, 
63. Nor can they proceed against a commoner 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 
offense; for there they do not assume to themselves 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. So the Lords do only judge, 
but not try the delinquent. 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 treason, 
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.




Sec. 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation 
in impeachment.

  Accusation. The  Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes 
suitors 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 direct some member to impeach him by 
oral accusation, 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.




Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the 
House.

  In the  House various events have been credited with setting an 
impeachment in motion: charges made on the floor on the responsibility 
of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 
528, 535, 536); charges preferred 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 committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). 
In the 93d Congress, the Vice President 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 
resolution, 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 motion, to a select committee (III, 1736). On September 9, 
1998, an independent counsel transmitted 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 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). In the first impeachment of President 
Trump, the House adopted a privileged resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules directing sundry committees to continue their ongoing 
investigations as part of an existing inquiry into potential grounds for 
impeachment (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). In the second 
impeachment of President Trump, the House considered an unreported 
resolution containing a single article of impeachment pursuant to a 
special order of business only several days after the underlying conduct 
occurred (Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).


  A resolution disapproving of the conduct of the Speaker with respect 
to the initiation of an impeachment inquiry constitues a question of the 
privileges of the House (Sept. 25, 2019, p. _; Sept. 27, 2019, p. _).



Sec. 604. A proposition to impeach a question of 
privilege.

  A direct  proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in 
the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the 
rules governing the order of business (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. 12053; July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086; Dec. 6, 2016, p. 15892; 
Dec. 6, 2017, p. _; Jan. 19, 2018, p. _; July 17, 2019, p. _; see 
Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 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 proposition has been 
made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408; 
July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086 (see June 10, 2008, p. 12053)), 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 as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819; Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). A 
proposition to impeach may be called up as privileged (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 
27828) or considered pursuant to a special order of business reported by 
the Committee on Rules (Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _). The 
addition of new articles of impeachment offered by the managers but not 
reported by committee is also privileged (III, 2418), as is a 
proposition to refer to committee the papers and testimony in an 
impeachment of the preceding Congress (V, 7261). After having recognized 
an impeachment resolution as a question of the privileges of the House, 
the Chair refused to respond to an inquiry regarding the substance of 
the resolution, that being a matter for the House by its disposition of 
the matter (Dec. 6, 2016, pp. 15892-93). To a privileged resolution of 
impeachment, an amendment proposing instead censure, 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 impeachment was 
not warranted and, thereafter, called up the report as a question of 
privilege (Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 1.3). Under an expired provision of 
law an independent counsel appointed to investigate the President was 
subject to impeachment (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21560). A resolution 
impeaching the United States Ambassador to the United Nations (July 13, 
1978, p. 20606) or the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 
(Dec. 6, 2016, p. 15892) constitutes a question of the privileges of the 
House under rule IX.


  Propositions relating to an impeachment already made also are 
privileged (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 managers 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; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2), 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, 468). The House has adopted special orders of 
business: (1) providing for the consideration of a specified proposition 
relating to an impeachment once made and denying privilege to any other 
such proposition (sec. 3, H. Res. 767, Dec. 18, 2019, p. _); and (2) 
providing for the adoption of a specified proposition relating to an 
impeachment upon adoption of an article of impeachment and denying 
privilege to any other such proposition (sec. 3, H. Res. 41, Jan. 13, 
2021, p. _).

  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 
Judiciary 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, 
Sec. Sec. 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, including 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).



Sec. 605. Investigation of impeachment 
charges.

  The impeachment  having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342, 2400; 
VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting impeachment having 
been made by memorial (III, 2495, 2516, 2520; VI, 552), or even 
appearing through common 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 resolution raised as a question of 
privilege (Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29820; June 10, 2008, p. 12072 and June 11, 
2008, p. 12218). Under the later practice, resolutions introduced 
through the hopper that directly call for the impeachment of an officer 
have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but resolutions 
calling for an investigation by that committee or by a select committee 
with a view toward 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 
adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
directing sundry committees to continue ``ongoing investigations'' as 
part of an ``existing'' impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, 
p. _). In the second impeachment of President Trump, the House did not 
pursue any formal committee investigation or impeachment inquiry.




Sec. 606. Procedure of committee in 
investigating.

  The House has  almost always examined the charges by its own committee 
before it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee 
has sometimes been a select committee (III, 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; H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). 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 thereupon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the 
committee's action on a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of 
the President's resignation; (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). In 
the first impeachment of President Trump, the House adopted a privileged 
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules directing sundry 
committees to continue ongoing investigations, and directed the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to conduct specified 
investigatory proceedings and to transmit a report of its findings to 
the Committee on the Judiciary for use in the second phase of the 
impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _).




Sec. 606a. Procedure of House in 
considering.

  During the  pendency of an impeachment resolution, remarks in debate 
may include references to personal misconduct on the part of the 
President but may not include language generally abusive toward the 
President and may not include 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. 
3153; Dec. 18, 2019, p. _).




Sec. 607. Impeachment carried to the 
Senate.

  Its committee  on investigation having reported, the House may vote the 
impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91), 
and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may 
direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a 
single Member (III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), five (III, 
2445), seven (III, 2448, 2475; Jan. 15, 2020, p. _), nine (July 22, 
1986, p. 17306; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _), 11 (III, 2300, 2323), or 13 (Dec. 
19, 1998, p. 28112). These Members in several 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 
managers to present the articles before the Senate, notifying the Senate 
of the adoption of articles and election of managers, and authorizing 
the managers 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2; H. Res. 
798, Jan. 15, 2020, p. _; H. Res. 40, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).





Sec. 608. Impeachment process in the 
Senate.

  Process. If the  party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued, giving 
him a 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.




Sec. 608a. First Senate impeachment proceedings against 
President Trump.

  Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate 
informed the House and the Chief Justice that it was ready to receive 
the House managers for the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment 
against President Trump (Jan. 15, 2020, p. _). The House managers 
presented the articles of impeachment by reading two resolutions as 
follows: (1) the appointment of managers (H. Res. 798, Jan. 16, 2020, p. 
_); and (2) the two articles of impeachment (H. Res. 755, Jan. 16, 2020, 
p. _).


  The Senate adopted a resolution governing the initial impeachment 
trial proceedings of President Trump following the tabling of multiple 
amendments to that resolution (S. Res. 483, Jan. 21, 2020, p. _). The 
resolution addressed: (1) the composition of the evidentiary record; (2) 
a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations by House managers 
and President's counsel; (3) a time period for Senators to question the 
parties; (4) a separate time period on the question of whether the 
Senate would subpoena witnesses or documents; and (5) a process for 
deposing subpoenaed witnesses and determining whether they should 
testify at the trial. During debate on that resolution, the Chief 
Justice admonished the House managers and the President's counsel for 
breaches of decorum, citing in part a similar admonishment in the 1905 
impeachment trial of Judge Swayne for use of the term ``pettifogging'' 
(Jan. 21, 2020, p. _; III, 2169). Upon an announcement by the Chief 
Justice pursuant to the terms of the governing resolution, a classified 
document identified by House managers was made available at the trial 
but was not made public or printed (Jan. 22, 2020, p. _). The Senate 
trial of President Trump featured a historical and legal argument from 
the independent counsel who had led the investigation of President 
Clinton which formed the basis for his impeachment in 1998 (Jan. 27, 
2020, p. _). The trial also featured questions from Senators and 
argument on the validity of House subpoenas issued before the House had 
adopted a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry (Jan. 29, 2020, 
p. _; Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Chief Justice refused to read a question 
from a Senator that revealed the name of a whistleblower involved in the 
impeachment charges (Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Senate rejected a motion 
to allow for subpoenas of witnesses and documents (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _).


  The Senate adopted a second resolution governing the remaining 
impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res. 488, Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Such 
resolution: (1) closed the evidentiary record; (2) provided for final 
arguments; (3) provided for the adjournment of the Court of Impeachment; 
and (4) provided for a vote on the articles of impeachment. The Chief 
Justice responded to a parliamentary inquiry by advising that after 
reviewing the precedents he did not view it as appropriate for a Chief 
Justice, an unelected official from another branch of government, to 
break a tie and change the result of a vote of the elected Members of 
the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Counsel for the President in closing 
arguments alleged that the House Committee on the Judiciary had violated 
the rules of the House in not providing for a minority day of hearing 
(Feb. 3, 2020, p. _). Following closing arguments, the Senate Clerk read 
each article and each Senator voted ``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' on each 
article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). The Senate adjudged President Trump not 
guilty by a vote of 48-52 on the first article and 47-53 on the second 
article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of 
the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 5, 
2020, p. _).



Sec. 608b. Second Senate impeachment proceedings against 
President Trump.

  Under  an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate 
informed the House that it was ready to receive the House managers for 
the purpose of exhibiting the article of impeachment against former 
President Trump (Jan. 21, 2021, p. p. _). The House managers presented 
the article of impeachment by reading two resolutions as follows: (1) 
the appointment of managers (H. Res. 40, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _); and (2) 
the article of impeachment (H. Res. 24, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _).


  The President pro tempore of the Senate presided over the impeachment 
trial (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate tabled a threshold point of 
order that the impeachment trial of a former President was 
unconstitutional after the President pro tempore presented the question 
directly to the body (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate then adopted a 
resolution governing the initial impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res. 
16, Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The resolution: (1) set the timing of the 
impeachment trial for two weeks hence; (2) set a timetable for various 
trial briefs by House managers and President's counsel; (3) directed 
that any trial briefs include argument on the jurisdiction of the 
Senate's ability to sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to the 
trial of a former President for acts committed as President; and (4) 
directed parties to prepare to address the question of jurisdiction at 
the outset of the trial proceedings. Prior to the start of the trial, 
the Senate adopted a second resolution governing the trial proceedings 
(S. Res. 47, Feb. 9, 2021, p. _). That resolution addressed: (1) the 
composition of the evidentiary record; (2) initial argument on the 
question of whether the former President was subject to the jurisdiction 
of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment for conduct while President, 
with an automatic vote at the end of such argument and immediate 
dismissal of the article of impeachment upon a determination, by 
majority vote with a quorum present, that the Senate had no 
jurisdiction; (3) a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations 
by House managers and President's counsel in the case of a vote in favor 
of jurisdiction; (4) a time period for Senators to question the parties; 
(5) a separate time period on the question of whether the Senate would 
subpoena witnesses or documents; (6) a process for deposing subpoenaed 
witnesses and determining whether they should testify at the trial; (7) 
a motion by the House managers to admit additional materials into the 
evidentiary record; (8) a time period for final arguments; (9) convening 
on a specified Sunday if the trial was not yet resolved; and (10) the 
provision of a vote on the article of impeachment.

  By a vote of 56-44 the Senate determined that it had jurisdiction to 
sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to former President Trump 
following arguments from the House managers relying in large part on the 
precedent of William Belknap (see Sec. 174, supra), and the President 
pro tempore announced that the trial would proceed (Feb. 9, 2021, p. _). 
The House managers relied on numerous video presentations of the attack 
on the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, in their initial 
presentation (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). As part of their presentation, the 
House managers invoked a newspaper article referencing a call placed to 
a sitting Senator, causing that Senator to attempt to move that the 
remarks of the managers be stricken from the Record (Feb. 10, 2021, p. 
_). The President pro tempore responded by ruling that the managers' 
presentation was not limited to the evidentiary record already provided, 
which was appealed by the moving Senator (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). 
Following a quorum call, the Senator withdrew his appeal and the House 
managers agreed to withdraw the relevant portion of the presentation 
without prejudice to raise the issue at a later time (Feb. 10, 2021, p. 
_).


  Following the initial presentations, the Senate agreed by unanimous 
consent to structure the question response periods (Feb. 12, 2021, p. 
_). During the questioning period, the President pro tempore took the 
initiative to remind Senators of the admonition of Chief Justice Roberts 
from the first impeachment trial of President Trump regarding civility 
in debate (Feb. 12, 2021, p. _; see Sec. 608a, supra). Following the 
question period, the House managers offered a motion to subpoena a 
current Member of the House as a witness following reports of a phone 
call on the day of the violent attack on the Capitol that was 
purportedly relevant to the House managers' case (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). 
Following debate regarding the viability of virtual depositions and a 
call for order from the President pro tempore, the Senate voted 55-45 to 
allow a motion to subpoena witnesses or documents under the rules of 
impeachment (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). After a short recess, the Senate 
returned and, in exchange for the entry into evidence of a statement 
from the current Member of the House regarding the phone call in 
question, the House managers agreed to forego any motions to subpoena 
witnesses, and the parties proceeded to closing arguments (Feb. 13, 
2021, p. _). During the House managers' closing argument, the phone call 
involving the sitting Senator was again raised. The Senator attempted to 
engage in debate, and then appealed the ruling of the President pro 
tempore that debate was not in order (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). He 
eventually withdrew his appeal and the President pro tempore directed 
that the remarks be stricken from the record on the grounds that the 
evidentiary record was closed and that new evidence could not be raised 
during the closing argument (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). Following closing 
arguments, the Senate Clerk read the article and each Senator voted 
``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' thereon (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). The Senate 
adjudged President Trump not guilty on the charge of incitement of 
insurrection by a vote of 57-43 in favor of conviction (less than two-
thirds) (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of 
the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 
13, 2021, p. _).



Sec. 608c. Senate impeachment proceedings against 
President Clinton.

  In the  impeachment trial of President Clinton, the Senate 
adjudged President Clinton not guilty by a vote of 45-55 on the first 
article and a vote of 50-50 on the second article (Feb. 12, 1999, p. 
2375). For a procedural history of that trial, see Sec. 608a of the 
House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).



  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.




Sec. 609. Exhibition and form of 
articles.

  Articles. The accusation  (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an 
indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing 
or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. 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 
exhibited 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 
articles 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 
impeachment 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 
impeachment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see 
Sec. 175, supra (accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4). For a discussion 
of the presentation of the House managers in support of the impeachments 
of President Trump, and related matters, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. 
For a discussion of the same with respect to the impeachment of 
President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 
116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 610. Parliamentary law as to appearance 
of respondent.

  Appearance. If he  appear, and the case be capital, he answers in custody; 
though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but 
on special 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 answer, 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 attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on accusation 
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.




Sec. 611. Requirements of the Senate as to 
appearance of respondent.

  This paragraph  of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete 
so far as the practice of the House and the Senate are concerned. The 
accused may appear in person or by attorney (III, 2127, 2349, 2424), and 
take the stand (VI, 511, 524; 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 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 Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
608b, supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to the Clinton 
impeachment proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for 
the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).



  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 process 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 sequestration and committal been followed (III, 
2118, 2296), later inquiry resulting in the conclusion that the Senate 
had no power to take into custody the body of the accused (III, 2324, 
2367).




Sec. 612. Answer of respondent.

  Answer. The  answer need not 
observe great strictness of the form. He may 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 article 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, 
denying 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 replication in the House (III, 2431). In the Senate proceedings 
on the impeachment 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 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 Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a 
chronology of the same with respect to the Clinton impeachment 
proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th 
Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 613. Other pleadings.

  Replication, rejoinder,  &c. There 
may be a replication, 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 
practice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the 
pleadings proceeded 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 
evidence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond a reasonable doubt as 
the standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and to postpone the 
impeachment trial) before voting in open session to dispose of those 
motions (Oct. 7, 8, 1986, pp. 29151, 29412).


  For a chronology of disposition of motions in the Senate under its 
impeachment rules during the impeachment of President Trump, see 
Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to 
the impeachment of President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules 
and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 614. Examination of witnesses.

  Witnesses. The  practice 
is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there; or 
a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on 
interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in 
their discretion 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, 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 appointment of such a committee to take 
evidence and testimony.


  For a chronology of motions to subpoena witnesses during the Senate 
impeachment proceedings against President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to Senate 
impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the 
House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 615. Relation of jury trial to 
impeachment.

  Jury. In the  case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for 
her trial before a 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 spiritual sat in the 
case, which they do on misdemeanors, 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 delinquent 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 
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 considered, as is before 
stated, as the grand jury; for the conceit of Selden is certainly not 
accurate, 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 
Constitution (III, 2313). In 1868, after mature consideration, the 
Senate overruled the old view of its functions (III, 2057), and decided 
that it sat for impeachment 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 convened 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).



Sec. 615a. The presiding officer.

  An anxiety lest  the Chief 
Justice might have a vote in the approaching trial of the President 
seems to have prompted this earlier 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) 
though in a later trial, the Chief Justice advised that he did not 
believe it appropriate for the Chief Justice to cast a vote that would 
change the result of the vote of the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). 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 administered by an associate justice (III, 2422). 
The President pro tempore of the Senate, pursuant to an earlier order of 
the Senate, appointed a committee to escort the Chief Justice into the 
Senate chamber to preside over the impeachment trial of President 
Clinton (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). The President pro tempore presided over the 
impeachment trial of a former President who was still President at the 
time of his impeachment (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _).




Sec. 615b. Oath and quorum.

  Senators elected after  the 
beginning of an impeachment trial are sworn as in the case of other 
Senators (III, 2375). The 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 conviction is two-thirds of those Senators present and 
voting (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335). In 1868, when certain States were 
without representation, the Senate 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 Clinton, and the Chief Justice in turn 
administered the oath to the Senators (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).





Sec. 616. Attendance of the Commons.

  Presence of  Commons. 
The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld. 
Jud., 124. Indeed, they are to attend throughout, either as a committee 
of the whole House, or otherwise, at discretion, 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 
judgment in case capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not capital; 162. * * 
*.





Sec. 617. Attendance of the House of 
Representatives.

  The  House has consulted its own inclination and 
convenience about attending its managers at an impeachment. It did not 
attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne, Archbald, Louderback, and 
Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516); and after attending at the 
answer of Belknap, decided that it would be represented for the 
remainder of the trial by its managers alone (III, 2453). At the trial 
of President Johnson the House, in Committee of the Whole, attended 
throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is exceptional. 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).





Sec. 618. Voting on the articles in an impeachment 
trial.

  * * * The  Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is 
first taken on the question of guilty or 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 
contention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of 
President Johnson 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 with 
respect to the impeachments of President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, 
supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to articles of 
impeachment against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules 
and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




Sec. 619. Judgment in 
impeachments.

  Judgment. Judgments in  Parliament, for death have been strictly guided per 
legem terrae, which they can not alter; and not at all according to 
their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment 
nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum non ultra legem. Seld. 
Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet 
differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions 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 precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The 
Chancellor 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 punishment hath been imprisonment. 
Seld. Jud., 184. The King's assent is necessary to capital judgments 
(but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in misdemeanors, 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 disqualification (III, 2339, 2397), but no 
vote is required by the Senate on judgment of removal from office 
following conviction, because removal follows automatically 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 contemplated 
(Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873). A resolution impeaching the President may 
provide for only 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; H. 
Res. 755, 116th Cong., Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; H. Res. 24, 117th Cong., 
Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).




Sec. 620. Impeachment not interrupted by 
adjournments.

  Continuance. An  impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of 
Parliament, 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.



[[Page 347]]
========================================================================

  In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess 
(III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505, see also Sec. 592, supra). The 
following 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 Congress (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 presented to the Senate after the Senate had adjourned sine 
die for the 105th Congress (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2), 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 continued in the next Congress 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.1). Although impeachment 
proceedings 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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2).


========================================================================
[[Page 349]]
                  RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


    RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WITH NOTES AND ANNOTATIONS




 
                               __________

                                 Rule I


Approval of the Journal
                               the speaker




621. Journal; Speaker's approval.

  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 the Journal of the last day's proceedings, the 
Speaker shall announce 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 privileged, 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 Legislative 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 Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).

  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; Dec. 15, 2019, p. _; 
Sept. 26, 2021, p. _). Beginning in the second session of the 103d 
Congress, the House has by unanimous consent agreed to convene earlier 
on certain days for morning-hour debate and then recess to the hour 
established for convening under a previous order (see Sec. 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 proposition to a vote (Oct. 3, 1977, p. 31987). 
Similarly, prior practice had permitted 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 Speaker'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 business on the subsequent day (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 
5, Sec. 12.6).

  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 the filing of 
a conference 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 
impeachment (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).

  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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 14.1); 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). The 
House by unanimous consent has permitted an untimely demand for a vote 
on approval of the Journal (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 12.3).

  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). 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). Under 
the rule as in effect from the 92d Congress through the 95th Congress, 
any Member could offer a privileged, nondebatable motion that the 
Journal be read pending the Speaker's announcement of approval and 
before agreement by the House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 13.1).

  In the 118th Congress, the House permitted the automatic approval of 
the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day as part of a larger 
set of procedures effective during a district work period as designated 
by the Speaker (sec. 3(z), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).


Preservation of order
  The House has adopted the provisions of this clause as a matter of 
general parliamentary law prior to the adoption of standing rules at the 
beginning of a Congress (Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; Jan. 9, 2023, p. _), and 
the Clerk has exercised this authority as presiding officer prior to the 
election of a Speaker (Jan. 4, 2023, p. _).




622. Speaker preserves order on floor and in galleries and 
lobby.

    2. The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and, in case of 
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 Rayburn, 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 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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.2), and the Chair has taken 
initiative to remind Members to closely consider their words during 
contentious proceedings in order to maintain decorum in the House (July 
16, 2019, p. _).

  The authority to have the galleries cleared has been exercised but 
rarely (II, 1352; Speaker Albert, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, 
Sec. 4.1). 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. 6858), including during 
the pendency of a vote by electronic device (Dec. 19, 2017, p. _). 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) (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.6). 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, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, 
Sec. 6.6).

  Although Members are permitted to use exhibits such as charts during 
debate (subject to clause 6 of rule XVII), the Speaker may direct the 
removal 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 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). 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; July 27, 2017, p. _). 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 Sec. 678, infra). The Chair also has cautioned 
Members to refrain from using audio devices during debate (May 24, 2005, 
p. 11008), including a mobile device that impairs decorum under clause 5 
of rule XVII (June 22, 2018, p. _). Although a Member may have enlisted 
the assistance of a House Page to manage the placement of an exhibit on 
an easel, it was 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 distinguish between using an 
exhibit in the immediate area the Member is addressing 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 exhibit, was held to impair the 
decorum of the House (June 12, 2003, p. 14627; July 7, 2016, p. 10558; 
June 20, 2018, p. _ (children used as the exhibit)). Mass presence of 
Members in the well while not under recognition (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 6, Sec. 6.1), and a gathering of Members improperly displaying 
electronic and non-electronic exhibits (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4393), each 
constitutes a breach of decorum. The Chair has admonished Members to 
observe proper decorum before the adoption of the rules (Jan. 3, 2017, 
p. 57).

  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 constitutional 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 
Speaker'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; Jan. 20, 2018, p. _).

  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 
standards 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 question of privilege; (4) staff are prohibited in the Chamber or 
rooms leading thereto from distributing handouts and from attempting to 
influence Members 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. 4095).

  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 
appropriate, including coats and ties for male Members and appropriate 
attire for female Members, but that he would recognize for a question of 
the 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, Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.2; see also Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362). 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.3). See 
also Sec. 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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.13; Mar. 29, 2012, p. 4500; July 
19, 2013, pp. 11946, 11947; Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14981), from which there is 
no appeal (see Sec. 629, infra). In the event of disorder in the well, 
the Chair may ask Members to uphold the dignity and decorum of the House 
so that business can be conducted in an orderly fashion (Speaker Ryan, 
June 22, 2016, p. 9736) or may order that the well be cleared (Speaker 
McCormack, Dec. 9, 1963, p. 23831). Even before adoption 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 symbol of order 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.5). A Member's comportment may 
constitute a breach of decorum even though the content of that Member's 
speech is not, itself, unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Under 
this standard the Chair may deny further recognition to a Member engaged 
in unparliamentary debate who ignores repeated admonitions by the Chair 
to proceed in order (unless the Member is permitted to proceed by order 
of the House) (Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535). The Chair has announced that 
time consumed (1) obtaining order (Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4104; Apr. 18, 
2012, p. 5130), (2) admonishing a Member for failing to address remarks 
to the Chair (July 23, 2015, p. 12275), (3) admonishing the gallery 
(Apr. 8, 2003, p. 8761), or (4) responding to a Member interrupting 
debate without being recognized (Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2229; Feb. 6, 2002, p. 
640), would not be charged to the Member under recognition.


Control of Capitol facilities
  During the 116th and 117th Congresses, the Speaker established a 
series of policies requiring the wearing of masks in the Chamber in 
response to a designated public health emergency, each of which 
reiterated the Speaker's authority to enforce those policies as a matter 
of decorum (July 29, 2020, p. _; Nov. 18, 2020, p. _; Dec. 15, 2020, p. 
_; Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; May 11, 2021, p. _; May 19, 2021, p. _; June 14, 
2021, p. _; July 28, 2021, p. _; Feb. 28, 2022, p. _). Pursuant to these 
policies the Chair took the initiative in admonishing Members seeking or 
under recognition who were not wearing masks (e.g., Dec. 16, 2020, p. _) 
or were wearing them improperly (e.g., Mar. 3, 2021, p. _).




623. Speaker's control of the Hall, corridors, and 
rooms.

  3.  Except as otherwise provided by rule or law, the Speaker shall 
have general 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).


Signature of documents
  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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.4). 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.13). The Speaker 
has announced standards for use of the Chamber when the House is not in 
session (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 25; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 
2011, p. 106; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 47; Speaker Boehner, 
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 63; Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 66; Speaker Pelosi, 
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; Speaker 
McCarthy, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).




624. Speaker's signature to acts, warrants, subpoenas, 
etc.

  4.  The Speaker shall sign all acts and joint resolutions passed by 
the two Houses and all writs, warrants, and subpoenas of, or issued by 
order of, 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).



Sec. 625. Signing of enrolled bills.

  Enrolled  bills are 
signed first by the Speaker (IV, 3429) or a Speaker pro tempore under 
clause 8 of rule I. For precedents 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 authorized 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; Mar. 11, 1986, p. 4240; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.9).



Questions of order


Sec. 626. Signing of warrants, subpoenas, 
etc.

  Warrants,  subpoenas, etc., during recesses of Congress are signed only by 
authority specially given (III, 1753, 1763, 1806). The issuing of 
warrants must be specially authorized by the House (I, 287) or pursuant 
to a standing rule (clause 6 of rule XX; Sec. 1026, infra). The House 
has authorized the Speaker to issue a 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).





627. Questions of order.

  5.  The Speaker shall decide all 
questions of order, subject to appeal by a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner. On such an appeal a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner may not speak more than once without permission of the 
House.


  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).



Sec. 628. Practice governing the Speaker in deciding 
points of order.

  The  Speaker may require that a question of order be 
presented in writing (V, 6865). When enough of a proposition has been 
read to show that it is out of order, the question of order may be 
raised without waiting for the reading to be completed (V, 6886, 6887; 
VIII, 2912, 3378, 3437; July 9, 2009, pp. 17309-11), 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. 13500), including withdrawal in favor 
of reservation (June 2, 2015, p. 8358). Present insistence on a point of 
order takes precedence over reservation (Nov. 19, 2009, pp. 28235, 
28243). A point of order against consideration of a measure must be 
raised (or reserved) before commencement of debate on the measure (e.g., 
Feb. 15, 1995, p. 5012; June 1, 2011, p. 8475; July 11, 2013, p. 11417; 
May 29, 2014, pp. 9256, 9257; July 11, 2014, p. 11815) and 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. 4767). In one instance, when the Chair announced an 
abandonment of the gavel in lieu of issuing a ruling on a pending demand 
that words be taken down, another Member took the Chair to rule on such 
demand (July 16, 2019, p. _).


  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, Sec. 67.3; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Sept. 
12, 1996, p. 22901; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420; July 10, 2014, p. 11693) 
and is solely to edify the judgment of the Chair, who may decline to 
hear more when prepared to rule (Mar. 3, 2011, pp. 3171, 3172; Oct. 8, 
2013, p. 15438; July 6, 2016, p. 10453; Mar. 7, 2017, p. 3550; Mar. 15, 
2017, p. 4266; June 7, 2017, p. _; June 21, 2017, p. _) and may decline 
to respond to questions in advance of ruling (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14997). 
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; June 18, 2014, p. 10412; June 7, 2017, p. _), 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. 2174). 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 
Member to revise and extend remarks on a point of order (Sept. 22, 1976, 
p. 31873; May 15, 1997, pp. 8493, 8494; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 20.16; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.18). However, a Member 
has been allowed by unanimous consent to revise and extend remarks, or 
to insert extraneous material, to appear following the ruling on a point 
of order (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.17; May 17, 2017, p. _). 
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 interpretation of a rule is a 
statement made directly from the Chair and not a comment made by the 
Speaker in another context (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 decisions are recorded in the Journal 
(IV, 2840, 2841), but responses to parliamentary 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 5.8); (2) the constitutional 
competency of proposed legislation (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; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 4.2), 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 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 judgment on the propriety of words taken down before they are 
read to the House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 4.3). 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 
indicated 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 executive-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 Leadership 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 19.13; 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 
requirement 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, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.15).

  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 possible 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 anticipatory 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 provisions 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(b) 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 (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 5, Sec. 24.13). 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 committee 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 
decision (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).



Sec. 628a. Practice governing the Speaker in 
entertaining parliamentary inquiries.

  Recognition  for parliamentary inquiry lies 
in the discretion of the Chair (VI, 541; Apr. 7, 1992, p. 8273; Mar. 21, 
2010, p. 4106; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5786; June 18, 2015, p. 9874). As such, 
the Chair may recognize for a demand for the yeas and nays rather than 
entertain a parliamentary inquiry (Aug. 4, 2007, p. 23233). The Speaker 
may recognize and respond to a parliamentary inquiry although the 
previous question may have been demanded (Mar. 27, 1926, p. 6469; Feb. 
14, 2017, p. 2532). Although the Chair has discretion to recognize 
Members for parliamentary inquiries when no other Member is occupying 
the floor for debate, a parliamentary inquiry may not be raised unless 
the Member having the floor yields for that purpose (Oct. 1, 1986, p. 
27465; July 13, 1989, p. 14633; May 29, 2014, p. 4660; June 12, 2014, 
pp. 10057, 10058; Jan. 13, 2015, p. 527; July 7, 2016, pp. 10569-70) and 
the yielding Member is charged time consumed thereby (Deschler-Brown, 
ch. 31, Sec. 15.4; Feb. 5, 2014, p. 2578). A Member under recognition 
for a parliamentary inquiry may not yield to another Member (Nov. 22, 
2002, p. 23510; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788) and may not engage in debate 
(June 24, 2011, p. 10018; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 
5786; June 12, 2014, p. 10058; June 18, 2015, p. 9874). A proper 
parliamentary inquiry relates to an interpretation of a House rule, not 
of a statute or of the Constitution (July 28, 1982, p. 18385; Oct. 10, 
1998, p. 25424; July 18, 2006, p. 14784). The Chair may entertain a 
parliamentary inquiry during argument on a point of order if relevant 
thereto (June 24, 2003, p. 15832).


  The Speaker may take a parliamentary inquiry under advisement, 
especially if not related to the pending proceedings (VIII, 2174; Apr. 
7, 1992, p. 8273). The Chair responds to parliamentary inquiries 
relating in a practical 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. 4106) and announced an 
intention to refuse further recognition on a particular line of improper 
inquiry (Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4093; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5785; June 18, 2015, 
p. 9869).

  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; 
Nov. 5, 2021, p. _), (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. 4093), (3) state the 
vote tally as it stood upon expiration of the minimum time (May 8, 2008, 
p. 8147), or (4) respond to a request to continue to hold a vote open 
beyond the minimum time in order to wait for another Member to arrive 
(Sept. 22, 2022, p. _).

  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. 18146; Feb. 11, 2011, p. 1585; July 11, 2013, p. 11408); (2) 
judge the propriety of words uttered earlier in debate (June 15, 2000, 
p. 11106; July 18, 2007, p. 19560; Nov. 20, 2013, p. 17591; Jan. 8, 
2016, pp. 237, 238); (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. 9652); (5) decide 
whether a Member revealed classified information during debate (June 18, 
2015, p. 9868) or issue an advisory opinion regarding the authority to 
publicize classified documents pursuant to a House rule (Feb. 2, 2018, 
p. _; Feb. 6, 2018, p. _); (6) reexamine and explain the validity of a 
prior ruling (Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477; June 8, 2005, pp. 11945, 11946; 
May 15, 2008, p. 9229); (7) anticipate the precedential effect of a 
ruling (Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25424) or whether a future ruling by the Chair 
will ``result in a vote'' (Oct. 9, 2015, p. 16022); (8) opine as to the 
substantive effect of an objection to a unanimous-consent request (July 
11, 2013, p. 11330); (9) judge the accuracy of the content of an exhibit 
(Nov. 10, 1995, p. 32142); (10) 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; Oct. 11, 2013, 
p. 15713; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788); (11) respond to political commentary 
(June 25, 1998, p. 13978; Apr. 4, 2001, p. 5417; Oct. 8, 2004, p. 22634; 
Mar. 17, 2016, pp. 3369, 3370); (12) comment on the effect of time 
consumed on a pending amendment as a tactic to prevent the offering of 
other amendments under a special order adopted by the House (May 10, 
2000, p. 7508); (13) anticipate whether bill language would trigger 
certain executive actions (Sept. 20, 1989, p. 20969); (14) interpret a 
pending proposition (May 13, 1998, p. 9129; July 9, 2009, p. 17233; Mar. 
20, 2010, p. 4041) (although the 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)) 
or advise whether a pending proposition conflicts with certain ethics 
rules of the House (Mar. 17, 2016, pp. 3369, 3370); (15) interpret, 
construe, or characterize a pending special order of business resolution 
(May 22, 2002, p. 8681; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5787; Feb. 14, 2017, p. 2532) 
(although the Chair may interpret or construe the terms of a previously 
adopted order under which the House may be operating (such as to respond 
to a question of order) (May 22, 2002, p. 8681)); (16) identify which 
points of order were waived by a special order of business for a measure 
then pending (July 11, 2014, p. 11815); (17) judge the appropriateness 
of Senate action (Apr. 10, 2003, p. 9279); (18) characterize proceedings 
of a committee (June 15, 2006, p. 11409; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5785; July 9, 
2015, p. 11116; June 28, 2018, p. _) or speculate as to hypothetical 
committee action (Feb. 6, 2012, p. 1005) or the operation of committee 
rules (July 27, 2007, p. 21124; Oct. 10, 2007, p. 26993), although the 
Chair confirmed that the adoption of a motion to recommit with 
instructions to report ``promptly'' did not necessarily suspend the 
operation of any rule of the House (Feb. 27, 2008, p. 2640) or of a 
committee (Nov. 15, 2007, p. 31789); (19) advise whether a cost estimate 
exists for a measure being considered by a committee (Mar. 8, 2017, p. 
3661) or issue an advisory opinion regarding whether hypothetical 
committee action would violate a rule of the House (Mar. 8, 2017, p. 
3950); (20) speculate whether Members-elect are entitled to compensation 
prior to taking the oath of office (Jan. 7, 2011, p. 228); (21) identify 
the number or party membership of cosponsors of a measure (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 1.1; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5785; Feb. 26, 2015, p. 
2672) or signatories to a discharge petition (Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5785); 
(22) address the legislative schedule (Sept. 28, 2012, p. 14956; Dec. 1, 
2015, p. 19156; Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 19792, 19793; Speaker Ryan, June 13, 
2016, p. 8604; June 21, 2016, p. 9591; June 23, 2016, p. 9861), 
including advising on the Speaker's designation of a time to consider a 
purported question of the privileges of the House noticed under rule IX 
(Mar. 20, 2017, p. 4445); (23) prejudge who would be recognized as the 
leader of successful opposition to the previous question (Oct. 26, 2015, 
p. 16530); (24) explain a technical issue an outside entity may have had 
with the House broadcast feed (Jan. 12, 2017, p. 840); (25) confirm 
differences between a reported text and a separate substitute text (July 
19, 2017, p. _); (26) interpret the meaning of the remarks of another 
Member (Jan. 22, 2018, p. _); (27) advise whether a specified discharge 
petition is at the desk (Mar. 21, 2018, p. _); (28) explain the status 
of current law (June 7, 2018, p. _); (29) advise as to the status of an 
impeachment inquiry in the House (Oct. 15, 2019, p. _); (30) respond to 
inquiries regarding whether the status of an administrative duty of the 
Speaker could give rise to a vacancy in the Office of Speaker under 
clause 8(b)(3) (Jan. 9, 2020, p. _).

  The Chair may clarify a prior response to a parliamentary inquiry 
(July 31, 1996, p. 20700; Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4106).



Sec. 629. Practice, governing appeals.

  The  right of appeal 
insures the House against the arbitrary control of the Speaker and 
cannot be taken away from the House (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; July 11, 2013, p. 11329); 
(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. 17233; Jan. 17, 2019, 
p. _); (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 supporting a demand for tellers (VIII, 3105), for a 
recorded vote (June 24, 1976, p. 20390; June 14, 2000, p. 10841) or for 
the yeas and nays (Sept. 12, 1978, p. 28950), or objecting 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) announcement of the content of a 
catastrophic quorum failure report under clause 5(c) of rule XX 
(Sec. 1024a, infra); (13) determination that a majority vote is required 
on a pending proposition pursuant to the clear and unambiguous terms of 
a special order of business (Feb. 13, 2020, p. _); (14) refusal to 
entertain a prior appeal on any grounds (Feb. 13, 2020, p. _). Although 
an announcement by the Chair that an objection to a unanimous-consent 
request has been heard is not subject to appeal (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 5, Sec. 20.28), the Chair's ruling on the timeliness of the 
objection is subject to appeal (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 21.4). 
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 timeliness of a Member's demand that words 
be taken down is subject to appeal (Jan. 22, 2007, p. 1899). The 
decision of the Chair that a unanimous-consent request to revise and 
extend remarks contains oratory extending beyond a simple declarative 
statement of the Member's attitude toward the underlying measure and 
thus constitutes debate is subject to appeal (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 
5, Sec. 20.28).

  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 has been 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). 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). 
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; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _), and may be closed by motion to close 
debate or to rise for such motion in the House (V, 6947, 6950; VIII, 
3453). Debate on an appeal in the Committee of the Whole must be 
confined to the question of sustaining the ruling of the Chair and may 
not extend to the merits of the underlying proposition (V, 5055; Sept. 
6, 2017, p. _). An appeal may be withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole 
as a matter of right (June 8, 2000, p. 9954).


Form of a question
  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).




630. Putting of the question by the Speaker.

  6.  The Speaker 
shall put a question in this form: ``Those in favor (of the question), 
say `Aye.'''; and after the affirmative voice is expressed, ``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) and amended in the 115th 
Congress to remove a requirement that the Speaker rise to put a question 
(sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). 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 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 otherwise ask for a show of support for a proposition 
(Nov. 18, 1995, p. 33973).


Discretion to vote
  In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a provision, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, considering the 
yeas and nays as ordered upon any request for a recorded vote or the 
yeas and nays, or any objection under clause 6 of rule XX, 
notwithstanding the directive under this clause to follow the procedures 
invoked under rule XX (sec. 3(a), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 
3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).




631. The Speaker's vote. Tie vote.

  7.  The Speaker is not 
required to vote in ordinary legislative proceedings, except 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. 7). 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 5.5). 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 announcement 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). The Speaker has voted for a 
successor in that role where his resignation was effective ``upon the 
election of my successor'' (Speaker Wright, June 6, 1989, p. 10800; 
Speaker Boehner, Oct. 29, 2015, p. 16821).


Speaker pro tempore
  Before the vote by tellers was repealed (Sec. Sec. 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).



632. Speaker pro tempore.

  8.  (a) The Speaker may appoint a 
Member to perform the duties of the Chair. Except as specified in 
paragraph (b), 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 appointment, 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 Speaker may appoint a Member 
to act as Speaker pro tempore only to sign enrolled bills and joint 
resolutions 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 
tempore 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 thereafter, 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.

  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). 
Paragraph (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. 
7). 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).



Sec. 634. Election, oath, and designation of Speaker pro 
tempore.

  The  right of the House to elect a Speaker pro tempore in the 
absence of the Speaker was exercised before the rule was adopted (II, 
1405), although the House sometimes preferred 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 (Speaker Hastert, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 10.3). Elected Speakers pro tempore have signed enrolled bills, 
appointed select committees, administered the oath of office to a 
Member-elect (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.12), 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 11.3). The House may permit the 
Speaker to make appointments beyond the limit in paragraph (a) (e.g., 
Dec. 16, 2009, pp. 32039, 32040), including as part of a larger set of 
procedures effective during a district work period as designated by the 
Speaker (sec. 3(z), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). The House may agree 
by unanimous consent to the Speaker's appointment under this clause of 
Members in the alternative 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. 25).



Other responsibilities
  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; VI, 275; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 12.3). 
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).




635. Drug testing in the House.

  9.  The Speaker, in 
consultation with the Minority Leader, shall develop 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 expenses 
of the system may be paid from applicable 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 the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 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).


Designation of travel


Sec. 635a. Former term limit.

  Clause 9  formerly was occupied 
by a prohibition against the Speaker serving for more than four 
consecutive Congresses, 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).





636. Travel authority.

  10.  The Speaker may designate a 
Member, 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. Expenses for such travel may be paid from applicable accounts 
of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X on vouchers approved 
and signed solely by the Speaker.



Committee appointment
  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. 80). 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 
Sec. Sec. 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 employees for 
foreign travel, except where authorized by the chair of the committee 
for members and employees thereof.




637. Select and conference committees.

  11. The  Speaker 
shall appoint all select, joint, and conference committees ordered by 
the House. At any time after an original appointment, the Speaker may 
remove Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner from, or appoint 
additional Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner 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 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 
conference 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 
ceremony, 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 
responsible for the legislation (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 12, 1977, p. 
33434). However, a resolution condemning the Speaker for refusing to 
follow the Minority Leader's recommended appointments to a select 
committee, and urging the Speaker to make such appointments, presents a 
question of the privileges of the House under rule IX (July 26, 2021, p. 
_). 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 support 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 
originally 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. 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 nongermane portions of the Senate bill (July 24, 
1986, p. 17644). Where a comprehensive matter is committed to 
conference, the Speaker may appoint 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). 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 
report is acted upon, conference appointments should not be construed as 
jurisdictional precedent (Speaker Foley, June 3, 1992, p. 13288).

  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). 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. 23628; 
Nov. 14, 2013, p. 17073; Oct. 19, 2017, p. _), or by expansion of the 
specification of provisions for which a conferee is appointed (Oct. 3, 
2002, p. 19011; Nov. 14, 2005, p. 25816). The Speaker may fill a vacancy 
on a conference committee by appointment but may not accept a 
resignation from a conference committee (as contrasted with the 
authority to remove) absent an order of the House (Nov. 4, 1987, p. 
30808). The Speaker may choose to appoint minority conferees on the 
recommendation of the Minority Leader (Speaker Boehner, Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.11; Dec. 23, 2011, p. 21485).


Recess and Convening Authorities
  For a further discussion of the Speaker's authority to appoint 
conferees, see Sec. 536, supra. For the Speaker's authority to appoint 
Delegates to select, joint, and conference committees, see clause 3(b) 
of rule III (Sec. 676, infra).




638. Short recess authority.

  12.  (a) To suspend the 
business of the House for a short time when no question is 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 
postponed proceedings on a pending question (Apr. 30, 1998, p. 7381) or 
having withdrawn recognition for a special-order speech (Nov. 4, 2009, 
p. 26795), 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 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 short recess under this paragraph (Oct. 
28, 1997, p. 23524; June 25, 2003, p. 16241; July 13, 2009, p. 17493).



Sec. 639. Emergency recess and reconvening 
authority.

  (b)(1)  To suspend the business of the House when notified of an 
imminent threat to its safety, the Speaker 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 safety, 
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 
impairment of the place of reconvening at the time previously appointed, 
then the Speaker may, in consultation 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, 
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner accordingly; or

      (2) reconvene the House before the time previously appointed 
solely to declare the House in recess within the limits of clause 4, 
section 5, article I of the Constitution and notify Members, Delegates, 
and the Resident Commissioner accordingly.

  (d) The Speaker may convene the House in a place at the seat of 
government other than the Hall of the House if, in the opinion of the 
Speaker, the public interest shall warrant it.

  (e) During any recess or adjournment of not more than three days, if 
in the opinion of the Speaker the public interest so warrants, then the 
Speaker, after consultation with the Minority Leader, may reconvene the 
House at a time other than that previously appointed, within the limits 
of clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, and notify 
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner accordingly.


  (f) The Speaker may name a designee for purposes of paragraphs (c), 
(d), and (e).


[[Page 375]]


effected in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(f), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). Notification requirements under this 
clause were applied to Delegates and the Resident Commissioner in the 
116th Congress (sec. 102(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). An 
emergency recess under paragraph (b) has been declared by the Speaker 
pro tempore (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.10 (drill); May 11, 
2005, p. 9163; Oct. 3, 2013, p. 15082; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 11.6; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _) and by the chair of 
the Committee of the Whole (June 29, 2005, p. 14835). For the Speaker's 
inherent authority to declare a recess under clause 2 of rule I, see 
Sec. 622, supra. The Speaker has dispensed with morning-hour debate 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 11.18; see Sec. 951, infra), 
postponed the time for reconvening (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, 
Sec. 11.16; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 11.17), or reconvened the 
House before the time previously appointed (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, 
Sec. 11.14; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 11.15; Mar. 13, 2017, p. 
4145) under paragraph (c) upon notification by the Sergeant-at-Arms of 
an imminent impairment to reconvening. The Speaker has reconvened the 
House before the time previously appointed under paragraph (e) upon a 
determination that doing so was in the public interest (Dec. 3, 2018, p. 
_). The House previously provided the public interest reconvening 
authority now in paragraph (e) by standing order (see Sec. 83a, supra, 
discussing also similar authority in the Senate). The Speaker executes 
by letter the designation under paragraph (f) (e.g., Jan. 6, 2015, p. 
63).



 
  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. 7). Paragraphs (e) and (f) were added in the 114th 
Congress (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35). A clarifying 
change to paragraph (d) was 

                                 Rule II


Elections
                      other officers and officials




640. Election, oath, and removal of officers.

  1.  There 
shall be elected at the commencement of each Congress, to continue in 
office until their successors are chosen and qualified, a Clerk, a 
Sergeant-at-Arms, a Chief Administrative Officer, 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 exercise 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 department concerned provided for by law. 
The Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer 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, 
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 
retained 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 Sec. 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. 
7). For a discussion of the former Office of the Doorkeeper, see Sec.  
663b, 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 Sec. 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 required 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; Sec. 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 Chief Administrative Officer and 
the Inspector General, and oversight of the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms 
(see Sec. 752, infra).


Clerk
  The Speaker has removed an officer prospectively (Speaker Ryan, 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.5). 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 compensation (July 8, 1953, 
p. 8242). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 5501) 
authorizes the Speaker to fill temporary vacancies in the offices of 
Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chaplain, and 
the Speaker has relied on this authority to fill a temporary vacancy in 
the office of Sergeant-at-Arms immediately following the election of the 
other officers and prior to the adoption of rules at the beginning of a 
Congress (Jan. 6, 2023, p. _). A former version of the Act also 
permitted temporary appointments to the former offices of Doorkeeper and 
Postmaster. The Speaker 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; Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5519; Jan. 
11, 2021, p. _; Jan. 6, 2023, p. _), Clerk (Nov. 15, 1975, p. 36901; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.6; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 14.4), Chaplain (Mar. 14, 1966, p. 5712; Mar. 23, 2000, p. 3481; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.3), Doorkeeper (Dec. 20, 1974, p. 
41855), and Chief Administrative Officer (Jan. 9, 1997, p. 279; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.6; Dec. 16, 2015, p. 20274). A 
resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of 
privilege (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.1; Speaker Hastert, Dec. 
6, 2005, p. 27569; May 25, 2011, p. 7885; Jan. 7, 2014, p. 449) even 
when prospective (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.2; Speaker Ryan, 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.2; Speaker Pelosi, Feb. 25, 2019, 
p. _; Apr. 21, 2021, p. _). The Speaker may administer the oath to an 
officer elected prospectively (Speaker Albert, June 26, 1972, p. 22387; 
Speaker Ryan, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.2). 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; Jan. 11, 2021, p. _) and 
may be prospective (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.3; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.3) or retroactive (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 
6, Sec. 16.5).




641. Clerk; commencement of first session.

  2.  (a) At the 
commencement of the first session of each Congress, the Clerk 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, and in the absence of a 
Member acting as Speaker pro tempore pursuant to clause 8(b)(3)(A) of 
rule I, the Clerk shall preserve order and decorum 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. It was amended 
in the 115th Congress to clarify that the authority of the Clerk to 
preside is subordinate to a Member serving as Speaker pro tempore under 
clause 8(b)(3)(A) of rule I (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37).



Sec. 642. Other duties of the Clerk.

  Various  administrative 
duties, similar to those specified in this clause, are imposed on the 
Clerk by law (I, 253; Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 
812), such as: furnishing stationery, blank books, etc., to the 
committees and officers of the House (V, 7322); exercising discretionary 
authority as to reprinting of bills and documents (V, 7319); and 
receiving testimony taken in election contests (I, 703, 705; see also 
Federal Contested Election Act, P.L. 91-138, 83 Stat. 284). The Clerk 
has served temporarily also as Sergeant-at-Arms (July 8, 1953, p. 8242).




Sec. 643. Clerk's duties at organization.

  As  rules are not 
usually adopted until after the election of the Speaker, this paragraph 
is not in force at the time of 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 discussion of procedure in the House before the adoption of 
rules, including the procedure by which the Clerk conducts the election 
of the Speaker, see Sec. Sec. 27, 60, supra. The Clerk, in presiding 
before the election of the Speaker, recognizes Members-elect (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 
expiration of a Congress, the Clerk, by old usage, continues in a new 
Congress (I, 187, 188, 235, 244).-



Sec. 644. The roll of Memberselect.

  The  roll of Members is 
made up by the Clerk from the credentials, in accordance with a 
provision of law (I, 14-62; VI, 2; 2 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 Supreme Court had issued a writ restraining the Secretary of State 
from issuing such certificate (Jan. 3, 1949, p. 8). As part of the 
announcement prior to the call of the roll, the Clerk announces any 
district for which the Clerk has not received a certificate of election 
(Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Jan. 3, 2021, p. _). 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).




Sec. 645. Clerk as presiding officer at 
organizations.

  In  early years the authority of the Clerk to decide 
questions of order pending the election of a Speaker was questioned (I, 
65). The Clerks often declined to make decisions (I, 68-72; V, 5325). 
However, in 1855 and 1997 the Clerk decided a question of order; and in 
1997 the Clerk was sustained on appeal (I, 91; Jan. 7, 1997, pp. 115, 
116). In 2023, the Clerk admonished Members to abide by established 
standards of decorum during nominations for Speaker (Jan. 4, 2023, p. 
_), and provided a general reminder to Members of her authority to 
preserve order and decorum under this clause as incorporated into 
general parliamentary law (Jan. 5, 2023, p. _). 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). The Clerk has announced the House in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair by unanimous consent after the 
call of the roll and before the election of the Speaker (Jan. 3, 2021, 
p. _).


  Before clause 8(b)(3) of rule I, this clause operated also in the case 
of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker arising during a Congress. For 
example, 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.


  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 
Congress (Jan. 3, 1947, p. 33). The Clerk, having been appointed 
pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 5501 by the previous Speaker at the end of the 
105th Congress to fill a vacancy caused by resignation of the Clerk 
elected for that Congress, presided at the organization of the 106th 
Congress (Jan. 6, 1999, p. 41).




Sec. 646. Clerk furnishes a list of reports.

  (b)  At the 
commencement of every regular session of Congress, the Clerk shall make 
and cause to be delivered to each Member, Delegate, and the Resident 
Commissioner a list of the reports that any officer or Department is 
required to make to Congress, citing the law or resolution in which the 
requirement 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. 7).

  (c) The Clerk shall--



Sec. 647. Clerk's duty as to Journal and 
documents.

      (1) note  all questions of order, with the decisions thereon, the 
record of which 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


      (4) send a copy of the Journal to the executive 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 
paragraph (except subparagraph (2)) was found in former clause 3 of rule 
III (I, 251); 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, 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 Sec. 664, infra). Clerical corrections were effected at 
the beginning of the 104th Congress (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 legislature was changed to an 
authorization to send such copies on request (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 
1995, p. 35077). Subparagraphs (3) and (4) were amended 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).



Sec. 648. Attests and seals process and certifies 
passage of bills; oversees engrossment and enrollment process.

  (d)(1)  The 
Clerk shall attest and affix the seal of the House to all writs, 
warrants, and subpoenas issued by order of the House and certify the 
passage of all bills and joint resolutions.



  (2) The Clerk shall examine all bills, amendments, and joint 
resolutions after passage by the House and, in cooperation with the 
Senate, examine all bills and joint resolutions that have passed both 
Houses to see that they are correctly enrolled and forthwith present 
those bills and joint resolutions that originated in the House to the 
President in person after their signature by the Speaker and the 
President of the Senate, and report to the House the fact and date of 
their presentment.

  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
subparagraph (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 
Committee 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 January 2, 1947 as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act 
of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) as an enumerated subject of legislative 
jurisdiction. That responsibility 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. 5873).




Sec. 649. Calendars distributed.

  (e)  The Clerk shall cause 
the calendars of the House to be distributed each legislative 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 
calendars in a form other than printed (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2001, p. 25).

  (f) The Clerk shall--



Sec. 650. Documents.

      (1) retain  in the library at the 
Office of the Clerk for the use of the Members, Delegates, Resident 
Commissioner, 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, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner that has been printed by order of either House of 
Congress in any Congress in which the Member, Delegate, 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).




Sec. 651. Official to act as Clerk upon designation.

  (g)  The 
Clerk shall provide for the temporary absence or disability of the Clerk 
by 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 official 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.



  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
paragraph 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 amended 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. 7).




Sec. 652. Authority to receive messages.

  (h)  The Clerk may 
receive messages from the President and from the Senate at any time when 
the House is in recess or adjournment.



  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
paragraph was found in former clause 5 of rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, 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. 9) 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 Sec. 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.




Sec. 653. Administration of vacant Member's office.

  (i)  The 
Clerk shall supervise the staff and manage the office of a Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who has died, resigned, or been 
expelled until a successor is elected. The Clerk shall perform similar 
duties in the event that a vacancy is declared by the House in any 
congressional district because of the incapacity of the person 
representing such district or other reason. 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.



-  (j) In <> addition to any other 
reports required by the Speaker or the Committee on House 
Administration, the Clerk 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 on December 31 on the financial 
and operational status of each function under the jurisdiction of the 
Clerk. Each report shall include financial statements and a description 
or explanation of current operations, the implementation of new policies 
and procedures, and future plans for each function.
  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
paragraph was found in former clause 6 of rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, 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. 7). Outdated language was 
removed in the 117th Congress to conform to the repeal of a statutory 
provision providing for staff assistance to former Speakers (sec. 2(a), 
H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). The Clerk managed the office of a 
congressional district after the House was notified that a special 
election had been ordered by the State in said district (where a vacancy 
existed due to the lack of a certificate of election) (March 14, 2019, 
p. _).




Sec. 655. Cooperation with others.

  (k)  The Clerk shall fully 
cooperate with the appropriate offices and persons in the performance of 
reviews and audits of financial records and administrative operations.



Sergeant-at-Arms--
  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
paragraphs (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 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).




656. SergeantatArms enforces authority of House.

  3. (a)   
The Sergeant-at-Arms shall attend the House during its sittings and 
maintain order under the direction of the Speaker or other presiding 
officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall execute the commands of the House, 
and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to the Sergeant-
at-Arms by the Speaker.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
paragraph 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 reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). 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, 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 Sec. 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. 4556). 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 (now Ethics) to review GAO audits of such operations 
(Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435). When former rule IV was rewritten in the 104th 
Congress, clause 1 was restated without change (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). The Chair may enlist the Sergeant-at-Arms to 
assist the Chair in maintaining decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19027; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 15.7; June 22, 2018, p. _).

  The Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized to make payments from the 
contingent 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 delegation of Members of Congress duly appointed to 
attend (76 Stat. 686; 2 U.S.C. 5606).

  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 
determined which documents to make available to the public (Sept. 9, 
1998, p. 19769).

  At the organization of the House in a new Congress, the Speaker may 
maintain decorum before adoption of rules by directing the Sergeant-at-
Arms to present the mace as the traditional symbol of order (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.5). Before the election of Speaker, a special 
rule may be adopted conferring the authority of this paragraph, as was 
done in 1849 and 1859 (I, 101, 102).


--   <> (b) The symbol of the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms shall be 
the mace, which shall be borne by the Sergeant-at-Arms while enforcing 
order on the floor.

  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. 5501, 
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 statute (Feb. 28, 
1980, pp. 4349-50); and the same occurred in the 102d Congress (Mar. 12, 
1992, p. 5519).


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
paragraph 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 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. 7). 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).



Sec. 658. Doorkeeping.

  (c)  The Sergeant-at-Arms shall 
enforce strictly the rules relating to the privileges of the Hall of the 
House and be responsible 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 person 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.


-  (e) <> In addition to any other 
reports required by the Speaker or the Committee on House 
Administration, the Sergeant-at-Arms 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 on December 31 on the financial 
and operational status of each function under the jurisdiction of the 
Sergeant-at-Arms. Each report shall include financial statements and a 
description or explanation of current operations, the implementation of 
new policies and procedures, and future plans for each function.
  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
paragraphs (c) and (d) were found in former clauses 3 and 4 of rule IV 
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). They were adopted initially in the 
104th Congress to transfer functions incident to the abolishment of the 
Office of the Doorkeeper (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. 7). For the history of the Office of 
the Doorkeeper, see Sec. 663b, infra.




Sec. 660. Cooperation with others.

  (f) The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
shall fully cooperate with the appropriate offices and persons in the 
performance of reviews and audits of financial records and 
administrative operations.



  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
paragraphs (e) and (f) were found in former clauses 5 and 6 of rule IV 
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). They were adopted initially in the 
104th Congress (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 Committee on House Administration (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).



Sec. 660a. Duties regarding electronic devices.

  (g)(1)  The 
Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized and directed to impose a fine against a 
Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner for the use of an 
electronic device for still photography or for audio or visual recording 
or broadcasting in contravention of clause 5 of rule XVII and any 
applicable Speaker's announced policy on electronic devices.


  (2) A fine imposed pursuant to this paragraph shall be $500 for a 
first offense and $2,500 for any subsequent offense.

  (3)(A) The Sergeant-at-Arms shall promptly notify the Member, 
Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner, the Speaker, the Chief 
Administrative Officer, and the Committee on Ethics of any such fine.

  (B) Such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may appeal the 
fine in writing to the Committee on Ethics not later than 30 calendar 
days or five legislative days, whichever is later, after notification 
pursuant to subdivision (A).

  (C) Upon receipt of an appeal pursuant to subdivision (B), the 
Committee on Ethics shall have a period of 30 calendar days or five 
legislative days, whichever is later, to consider the appeal. The fine 
will be upheld unless the appeal is agreed to by a majority of the 
Committee. Upon a determination regarding the appeal or if no appeal has 
been filed at the expiration of the period specified in subdivision (B), 
the chair of the Committee on Ethics shall promptly notify the Member, 
Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner, the Speaker, the Sergeant-at-
Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer, and shall make such 
notification publicly available. The Speaker shall promptly lay such 
notification before the House.


  (4) The Sergeant-at-Arms and the Committee on Ethics are authorized to 
establish policies and procedures for the implementation of this 
paragraph.

  This clause was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(a)(1), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 3, 2017, p. 36), and it was amended during the 117th Congress to 
modify the process for consideration of appeals by the Committee on 
Ethics (sec. 8, H. Res. 85, Feb. 2, 2021, p. _). Immediately following 
its adoption, the Chair announced procedures regarding its enforcement 
(Jan. 3, 2017, p. 66). The Speaker has inserted in the Record announced 
policies on electronic devices under clause 5 of rule XVII and on the 
implementation of this clause (Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 66; 
Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; 
Speaker McCarthy, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). The Speaker has emphasized this 
rule as part of a larger enforcement announcement regarding proper 
decorum (Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). For annotations under 
clause 5 of rule XVII, see Sec. 962, infra.


Chief Administrative Officer
  During the 117th Congress, the House established fines for the failure 
to wear a mask during a designated public health emergency in 
contravention of the Speaker's announced policies (sec. 4, H. Res. 38, 
Jan. 12, 2021, p. _) and for the failure to complete a required security 
screening for entrance to the House Chamber (H. Res. 73, Feb. 2, 2021, 
p. _). The resolution that imposed a fine related to masks cross-
referenced this clause for enforcement purposes, and established mask-
wearing as a standard of conduct pursuant to clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI.



661. Duties.

  4.  (a) The Chief Administrative Officer shall 
have operational and financial responsibility for functions as assigned 
by the Committee on House Administration and shall be subject to the 
policy direction and oversight of the Committee on House 
Administration.-




Sec. 662. Semiannual reports.

  (b)  In addition to any other 
reports required by the Committee on House Administration, 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 jurisdiction of the Chief 
Administrative Officer. Each report shall include financial statements 
and a description or explanation of current operations, the 
implementation of new policies and procedures, and future plans for each 
function.




Sec. 663. Cooperation with others.

  (c)  The Chief 
Administrative Officer shall fully cooperate with the appropriate 
offices and persons in the performance of reviews and audits of 
financial records and administrative operations.




Sec. 663a. Deduction from salary for certain 
fines.

  (d)(1)  Upon notification from the chair of the Committee on Ethics 
pursuant to clause 3(g)(3)(C), the Chief Administrative Officer shall 
deduct the amount of any fine levied under clause 3(g) from the net 
salary otherwise due the Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner.



  (2) The Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to establish 
policies and procedures for such salary deductions.

  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). Paragraph (a) was amended in the 107th Congress to reflect the 
removal of the requirement that the Committee on House Administration 
provide policy direction to the Chief Administrative Officer (sec. 2(g), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25), but that change was reversed in the 
114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3)(B), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). 
Paragraph (d) was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 3, 2017, p. 36). 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. The Chief 
Administrative Officer makes certain reports on receipts and 
expenditures (2 U.S.C. 4108, 4109), 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).

  During the 117th Congress, the House established a fine for failure to 
wear a mask during a designated public health emergency in contravention 
of the Speaker's announced policies, which required the Chief 
Administrative Officer to deduct the amount of any such fine (sec. 4, H. 
Res. 38, Jan. 12, 2021, p. _). The House also established a fine for the 
failure to complete a required security screening for entrance to the 
House Chamber, which required the Chief Administrative Officer, upon 
failure of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to pay such a 
fine within a specified period, to deduct the amount of the fine from 
the net salary of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner in 
accordance with procedures established by the Committee on House 
Administration (H. Res. 73, Feb. 2, 2021, p. _).



Sec. 663b. Former Office of Doorkeeper.

  Before  the 104th 
Congress (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463), rule V 
enumerated the duties of the Doorkeeper, who 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), including 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).-



Chaplain


Sec. 664. Former Director of Nonlegislative and 
Financial Services.

  The Chief  Administrative Officer supplanted the Director of 
Non-legislative and Financial Services formerly provided for under 
clause 1 of rule VI in the 103d Congress, which corresponded to an 
erstwhile rule LII of the 102d Congress. 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 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 Minority Leader jointly appointed 
the first Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services on October 
23, 1992 (Oct. 29, 1992, p. 34802).





665. Duties of the Chaplain.

  5. The  Chaplain shall offer a 
prayer at the commencement of each day's sitting 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 prescribed 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.5; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.3). Form of resolution electing a Chaplain 
emeritus (VI, 31; Jan. 30, 1950, p. 1095; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 16.21).


Office of Inspector General
  During the 97th Congress, the Supreme Court held that employment of a 
chaplain for the legislative body of Nebraska did not violate the 
Establishment 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 
Chaplain. Murray v. Buchanan, 729 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The House 
adopted a privileged resolution articulating its position in the Murray 
case (H. Res. 413, Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890). During the 113th Congress, 
the Supreme Court held that the practice of opening a town board meeting 
with a prayer offered by a member of the clergy did not violate the 
Establishment Clause in part because of the tradition long followed by 
Congress and state legislatures. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 
565 (2014).



667. Inspector General.

  6. (a)  There is established an 
Office of Inspector General.


  (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 oversight of the Committee on 
House Administration, 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 Appropriations and the Committee on House Administration a 
report of each audit conducted under this clause; and


      (5) report to the Committee on Ethics information involving 
possible violations by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House of any rule of the House or of any law 
applicable to the performance of official duties or the discharge of 
official responsibilities that may require referral to the appropriate 
Federal or State authorities under clause 3(a)(3) of rule XI.

  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
clause 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 Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, 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. 7). 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. 80). Paragraph (c)(4) was amended in the 113th Congress 
to add the Committee on Appropriations (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2013, p. 26).


  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 
Congress (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, Sec. Sec. 661-663a, 
supra), and paragraph (b) (formerly 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 requirements for 
simultaneous reporting (paragraphs (c)(3) and (4), formerly clauses 
2(c)(3) and (4)); delete a provision relating to classification of 
employees (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).


Office of the Historian


Sec. 668. Former Office of the Postmaster.

  Until  the 102d 
Congress, former rule VI provided for an Office of the Postmaster, which 
supervised the post offices of the 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, Jan. 21, 1971, p. 15), and 1972 
(H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36013, 36014). 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).





669. Historian.

  7.  There is established an Office of the 
Historian of the House of Representatives. The Speaker shall appoint and 
set the annual rate of pay for employees of the Office of the Historian.



Office of General Counsel
  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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 Representatives (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 23.1). 
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 was 
removed from the standing rules and established for the remainder of its 
existence by P.L. 98-367. Apart from the Office of the Historian, the 
History of the House Awareness and Preservation 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).




670. General Counsel.

  8. (a)  There is established an Office 
of General Counsel for the purpose of providing legal assistance and 
representation to the House. Legal assistance and representation shall 
be provided without regard to political affiliation. The Speaker shall 
appoint and set the annual rate of pay for employees of the Office of 
General Counsel. The Office of General Counsel shall function pursuant 
to the direction of the Speaker, who shall consult with the Bipartisan 
Legal Advisory Group.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 11 of rule I (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). 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 participation by both the majority and minority 
leaderships in matters of representation and litigation. It was amended 
in the 114th Congress to move composition of the Bipartisan Legal 
Advisory Group to a new paragraph (b) (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2015, p. 34).


  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. 
5571(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. 5571(b)). The House 
may authorize the General Counsel to represent the House or a committee 
or take other action in a judicial proceeding (Feb. 14, 2008, p. 2191; 
sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10; June 28, 2012, pp. 10512, 
10515; sec. 4(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 19.3; secs. 3(f)(1), 3(f)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2015, p. 36; sec. 103(n), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; title III, H. 
Res. 6, Jan. 9, 2019, p. _; H. Res. 430, June 11, 2019, _). The House 
has authorized the Office of General Counsel to retain private counsel 
in support of an ongoing impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 661, Nov. 14, 
2019, p. _).




Sec. 670a. Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.

  (b)  There is 
established a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group composed of the Speaker 
and the majority and minority leaderships. Unless otherwise provided by 
the House, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group speaks for, and 
articulates the institutional position of, the House in all litigation 
matters.



  This paragraph was added in the 114th Congress to affirmatively 
establish the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, whose composition was 
previously included in what is now paragraph (a) (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). The second sentence reflected a separate order of 
the House of the 113th Congress, which also authorized the Bipartisan 
Legal Advisory Group to continue certain civil actions begun in the 
previous Congress (sec. 4(a)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27). In the 
116th Congress the House adopted a resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules reaffirming the authority of the Bipartisan Legal 
Advisory Group to speak for the House in regard to authorizing 
committees to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings (H. Res. 
430, June 11, 2019, p. _).




Sec. 670b. Continuing litigation authority.

  (c)  The House, 
the Speaker, a committee or the chair of a committee authorized during a 
prior Congress to act in a litigation matter is authorized to act as the 
successor in interest to the House, the Speaker, such committee or the 
chair of such committee of a prior Congress, respectively, with respect 
to such litigation matter, and to take such steps as may be appropriate 
to ensure continuation of such litigation matter.



Office of Diversity and Inclusion
  This paragraph was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). It was amended in the 117th Congress to clarify 
that the issuance of subpoenas constituted an appropriate step to ensure 
continuation of a litigation matter (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, 
p. _), but such language was removed in the 118th Congress (sec. 2(n), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). Previously, authority to continue 
judicial proceedings had been granted by separate orders for specific 
matters (e.g., sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10; sec. 4(a)(2), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; secs. 3(f)(1), 3(f)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 
6, 2015, p. 36).



670c. Diversity and Inclusion.

  9. (a)  There is established 
an Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The Speaker, in consultation with 
the Minority Leader, shall appoint a Director of the Office from 
recommendations provided by the chair of the Committee on House 
Administration in consultation with the ranking minority member of such 
committee.


  (b) Subject to the policy direction and oversight of the Committee on 
House Administration, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion shall--

      (1) direct and guide House employing offices to recruit, hire, 
train, develop, advance, promote, and retain a diverse workforce;

      (2) survey and evaluate diversity in House employing offices;

      (3) through the Director of the Office at the end of each session 
of Congress, submit a House of Representatives diversity report to the 
Speaker, the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on House Administration, and the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Legislative 
Branch of the Committee on Appropriations; and

      (4) provide consultation and guidance in furtherance of increasing 
diversity and inclusion in the House.


[[Page 400]]

biennial report on diversity within the House (sec. 104(d), H. Res. 
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 117th Congress the House required the 
office to recommend a methodology for surveying the diversity of witness 
panels at committee hearings, and required the Committees on House 
Administration and Rules to ensure the implementation of such 
recommendations by a date certain (sec. 3(t), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, 
p. _).

Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds
  This clause was adopted in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 8, 
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Prior to its inclusion in the standing rules, the 
office was established in the 116th Congress with responsibility for the 
development of plans for increased diversity in House employment as well 
as a 



670d. Whistleblower Ombuds.

  10. (a)  There is established an 
Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds. The Speaker, in consultation with 
the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee on House 
Administration and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, shall 
appoint a Director of the Office.


  (b) Subject to the policy direction and oversight of the Committee on 
House Administration, and in consultation with any other committee (at 
the request of the chair or ranking minority member of such other 
committee), the Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds shall--

      (1) promulgate best practices for whistleblower intake for offices 
of the House; and


      (2) provide training for offices of the House on whistleblower 
intake, including establishing an effective reporting system for 
whistleblowers, maintaining whistleblower confidentiality, advising 
staff of relevant laws and policies, and protecting information provided 
by whistleblowers.




[[Page 401]]
 
  This clause was adopted in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 8, 
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). It was amended in the 118th Congress to reflect a 
change in the name of a committee (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, 
p. _). Prior to its inclusion in the standing rules, the office was 
established in the 116th Congress and given similar duties (sec. 104(e), 
H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).

                                Rule III


Voting
    the members, delegates, and resident commissioner of puerto rico




671. Personal interest.

  1.  Every Member shall be present 
within the Hall of the House during its sittings, unless excused or 
necessarily prevented, and shall vote on each question put, unless 
having a direct personal or pecuniary 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 
provisions 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. 7). Before 
the House recodified 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).

  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 sufficient 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).



Sec. 672. Control of a Member's own vote.

  It  has been found 
impracticable to enforce the provision requiring every Member to vote 
(V, 5942-5948), and such question, 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, pp. 
18125, 18126), 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 
personal 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).




Sec. 673. Nature of disqualifying personal interest.

  It  is a 
principle of ``immemorial observance'' that a Member should withdraw 
when a question concerning that Member arises (V, 5949); but it has been 
held that the disqualifying 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 
Albert, 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).




Sec. 674. Voting.

  2.  (a) A Member may not authorize any 
other person to cast the vote of such 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.

  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
clause was found in former clause 3 of rule VIII (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. 7). 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
  In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House permitted Members to vote 
by proxy on behalf of other Members during a designated public health 
emergency. A Member authorizing another Member to serve as their proxy 
had to inform the Clerk by signed letter, and such authorization was 
revoked upon a subsequent letter of revocation or when an authorizing 
Member voted in person (sec. 1(a), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 
3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). The Chair did not look behind such 
signed letter (Feb. 26, 2021, p. _). A Member was not permitted to serve 
as a proxy for more than 10 Members concurrently (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 
965, May 15, 2020, p. _). During the 117th Congress, this authority was 
extended to votes taken in the Committee of the Whole and to Delegates 
and the Resident Commissioner voting therein (sec. 3, H. Res. 1230, July 
19, 2022, p. _).




675. Committee service.

  3.  (a) In a Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union, each Delegate and the Resident 
Commissioner shall possess the same powers and privileges as Members of 
the House. Each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner shall be elected 
to serve 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.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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 amendments 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), August 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, 112th Cong., p. 81) 
(technical correction). Paragraph (a) was completely 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 elected 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 subject to 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 Sec. 985, infra). The 
changes effected to this rule 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, Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, 
Sec. 2.17), revoked in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 
5, 2011, p. 80), and reinstated in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(b)(1), 
H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 116th Congress, clause 6 of rule 
XVIII was amended to codify a previous interpretation of this rule that 
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are counted for purposes of 
establishing a quorum in the Committee of the Whole (see Sec. Sec. 982, 
1A983a, and 1A984, infra; Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3550).

  The constitutionality of granting to Delegates the right to vote in 
the Committee of the Whole under this 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 Delegate 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 Commissioner 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 Services, 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 
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 constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX 
(Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.6). 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 (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.4), 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 (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.7) 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 legislation affecting their own territory (VI, 240).

  At the organization of the House, the Delegates and Resident 
Commissioner are sworn (I, 400, 401); but the Clerk does not put them on 
the roll (I, 61, 62; Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.5). A Delegate 
(Jan. 9, 2019, p. _) and the Resident Commissioner (Jan. 10, 2023, p. _) 
have been sworn after opening day of a Congress.

  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 
independence of the Philippines it was represented in the House by a 
Resident Commissioner (Deschler, ch. 7, Sec. 3.3).




Sec. 676. Appointment to select, joint, and conference 
committees.

    (b) The Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may be 
appointed to any select committee, joint committee, or conference 
committee.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph 
(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 
conferences (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), in the 103d 
Congress to authorize their appointment to any conference (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), and in the 116th Congress to authorize their 
appointment to any joint committee (sec. 102(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 
2019, p._).


[[Page 406]]

could be appointed to a select committee only with the 
permission of the House (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.10).



 
  Before the adoption and refinement of this paragraph, a Delegate or 
the Resident Commissioner could not be appointed to a conference 
committee (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.9; July 20, 1973, p. 
25201); and they 

                                 Rule IV


Use and admittance
                          the hall of the house




677. Use of the Hall of the House.

  1. The Hall  of the House 
shall be used only for the legislative business of the House and for 
caucus and conference 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 
consolidated 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. 80). The Speaker has announced 
standards for use of the Chamber when the House is not in session 
(Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 25; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, 
106; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 47; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 6, 
2015, p. 63; Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 66; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 
2019, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; Speaker McCarthy, Jan. 
9, 2023, p. _).



Sec. 678. Persons and officials admitted to the floor 
during sessions of the House.

  2.  (a) Only the following persons shall be 
admitted to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto:


      (1) Members of Congress, Members-elect, Delegates, Delegates-
elect, the Resident Commissioner, and the Resident Commissioner-elect.

      (2) Contestants in election cases during the pendency of their 
cases on the floor.

      (3) The President and Vice President of the United States and 
their private secretaries.

      (4) Justices of the Supreme Court.

      (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 Commissioner when that Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner has an amendment under consideration (subject to clause 5).

      (9) The Architect of the Capitol.

      (10) The Librarian of Congress and the assistant 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 Resident Commissioners; former 
Parliamentarians of the House; and former elected officers and minority 
employees nominated as elected officers 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 recommendation of that committee is under 
consideration in the House.

      (17) Such persons as have, by name, received the thanks of 
Congress.


  (b) The Speaker may not entertain a unanimous consent request or a 
motion to suspend this clause or clauses 1, 3, 4, or 5.

  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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 practice, 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. 80). In the 116th 
Congress, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) were amended to clarify that 
Delegates-elect and the Resident Commissioner-elect, as well as 
contestants in election cases for Delegate or the Resident Commissioner, 
have floor privileges, and paragraph (a)(14) was amended to extend such 
privileges to Governors of the Territories (sec. 102(d), H. Res. 6, Jan. 
3, 2019, p. _). Paragraph (a)(14) was further amended in the 117th 
Congress to extend such privileges to the Mayor of the District of 
Columbia (sec. 2(d)(1), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _), but language 
extending such privileges to the Mayor and to the Governors of 
Territories was repealed in the 118th Congress (sec. 2(p), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

  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, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.5). The 
Legislative Reorganization 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., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.7) and has 
likewise governed admittance for a specified joint meeting by resolution 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.2). ``Heads of departments'' means 
members of the President's Cabinet, and not subordinate executive 
officers, and ``foreign ministers'' means ministers from foreign 
governments only.


  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 Sec. 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 proliferation of 
committee and other staff on the floor (Aug. 22, 1974, p. 30027; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.6; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 15.8). 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, Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.8; 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; 
Aug. 1, 2011, p. 12698) or other children (May 18, 1995, p. 13490; Oct. 
7, 1999, p. 24425; Apr. 25, 2013, pp. 5952, 5953; Apr. 21, 2016, p. 
4913; Apr. 26, 2018, p. _).



Sec. 679. Admission to the floor when the House is not 
sitting.

  3. (a)  Except as provided in paragraph (b), all persons not entitled 
to the privilege 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 meeting of the House, persons 
employed in its service, accredited members of the press entitled to 
admission to the press gallery, and other persons on request of a 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner by card or in writing, may be 
admitted to the Hall of the House.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). It was adopted initially in 1902 (V, 7346).



Sec. 680. Former Members and officers.

  4.  (a) A former 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; a former Parliamentarian 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 foreign principal as 
those terms are defined in clause 5 of rule XXV;

      (2) has any direct personal or pecuniary interest in any 
legislative measure pending before the House or reported by a committee;

      (3) is in the employ of or represents any party or organization 
for the purpose of influencing, directly or indirectly, the passage, 
defeat, or amendment of any legislative proposal; or

      (4) has been convicted by a court of record for the commission of 
a crime in relation to that individual's election to, or service to, the 
House.


  (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.

  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 3 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). It was adopted during the 94th Congress (H. Res. 1435, 
Oct. 1, 1976, pp. 35175-80) to: (1) consolidate in one place and to 
clarify the restrictions on admittance to the floor of former Members, 
officers, and employees; (2) add the restriction now found in paragraph 
(a)(3); and (3) give the Speaker the power to promulgate regulations to 
enforce the rule. During the 109th Congress, the clause was amended to: 
(1) add paragraph (a)(1) to establish plainer proscriptions with respect 
to registered lobbyists, agents of foreign principals, and persons with 
similar representational roles; and (2) specify particular exercises of 
regulatory authority by the Speaker (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, 
Sec. 6.7). 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, pp. 7, 9). During the 117th Congress, 
paragraph (a)(4) expanded the proscription on the privileges of the 
floor to include individuals convicted for crimes related to that 
individual's election or service to the House (sec. 2(d)(2), H. Res. 8, 
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Pursuant to the authority granted by this clause, 
Speakers have issued regulations from time to time (Speaker O'Neill, 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.2; 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).

  The Speaker has emphasized that this clause 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 Rayburn, Oct. 2, 1945, p. 9251; Speaker Gingrich, 
May 24, 1995, p. 14300; Aug. 1, 1996, p. 21031) and the Rayburn Room 
(Feb. 1, 2006, p. 541).

  Even before the addition of what is now paragraph (a)(3), the Speaker 
advised that former Members did not have the privilege of the floor if 
they were in the employ of an organization that was interested in 
legislation before the Congress (Speaker Rayburn, Oct. 2, 1945, p. 
9251). 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.3). 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, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.4). 
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 legislative measures as 
described in (2) above (Aug. 1, 1996, p. 21031).


  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 proceedings 
(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).




Sec. 681. Members' staff.

  5. A person  from the staff of a 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may be admitted to the Hall 
of the House or rooms leading thereto under clause 2 only upon prior 
notice to the Speaker. Such persons, and persons from the staff of 
committees admitted under clause 2, may not engage in efforts in the 
Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto to influence Members with 
regard to the legislation being amended. Such persons are admitted only 
to advise the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or committee 
responsible for their admission. A person who violates this clause may 
be excluded during the session from the Hall of the House and rooms 
leading thereto by the Speaker.



Gallery
  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 4 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 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), and was amended in the 
115th Congress to remove a requirement that personal and committee staff 
remain at the committee tables (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 
37). The Speaker promulgated regulations for the implementation of this 
clause in the 95th Congress (January 26, 1977, p. 2333), which should be 
read in light of the amendment made in the 115th Congress. In the 97th 
Congress the Speaker announced that personal staff of Members did not 
have the privilege of the floor (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 6.9). 
Staff permitted on the floor under this clause are not permitted to 
distribute literature or otherwise attempt to influence Members in their 
votes (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.9; Sept. 27, 1995, p. 26567) 
and may not applaud during debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, 
Sec. 5.10).



682. The various galleries and admission 
thereto.

  6. (a)  The Speaker shall set aside a portion of the west gallery for 
the use of the President, the members of the Cabinet, 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 Resident Commissioner.



  (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 
control one bench. On the request of a Member, Delegate, 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.


[[Page 414]]

  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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. 7).


Prohibition on campaign contributions
  On special occasions the House sometimes makes a special rule for 
admission 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.




683. Prohibition on distribution of campaign 
contributions.

  7. A  Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House, or any other person entitled to admission to the 
Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto by this rule, may not 
knowingly distribute a political campaign contribution in the Hall of 
the House or rooms leading thereto.





 
  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 5 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). It was adopted initially in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).

                                 Rule V


                         broadcasting the house



Sec. 684. Broadcasting of House proceedings.

  1.  The Speaker 
shall administer, direct, and control a system for closed-circuit 
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 communications 
functions as the Speaker considers appropriate. Any such communications 
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 
floor 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 stations, 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--

      (1) may not be used for any partisan political campaign purpose;

      (2) may not be used in any commercial advertisement; and

      (3) may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as 
part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary program.


  3. The Speaker may delegate any of the responsibilities under this 
rule to such legislative entity as the Speaker considers appropriate.

  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 9 of rule I (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). It was adopted 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. 7). The requirement 
that televised broadcasts 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 telecommunications functions within the House 
was added in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39) and 
broadened to all communications functions in the 113th Congress, along 
with a clarification that clause 2(a) applies to proceedings on the 
floor, and a clarification in clause 2(c)(1) of the restrictions on use 
of coverage (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26).

  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 general 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, 
Sec. 3.1). The Speaker, after receipt of that report (H. Rept. 95-881, 
Feb. 15, 1978), directed implementation of full audio coverage, with 
distribution to the media, on June 8, 1978 (p. 16746). Public Law 95-391 
(Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1979) contained the following 
proviso: ``No funds in this bill may be used to implement a system for 
televising and broadcasting the proceedings of the House pursuant to 
House Resolution 866, Ninety-Fifth Congress, under which the TV cameras 
in the Chamber purchased by the House are controlled and operated by 
persons not in the employ of the House.''


[[Page 417]]

graph (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 following expiration of recognition for debate (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.13).


 
  Pursuant to this rule, the Speaker directed the Clerk in the 98th 
Congress to immediately implement periodic wide-angle television 
coverage of all ``special-order'' speeches at the end of legislative 
business (with captions at the bottom of the screen indicating that 
legislative business has been completed) (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, 
Sec. 3.2) but not during ``interim'' special orders (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.4). However, in the 103d and 104th Congresses, 
the Speaker prohibited wide-angle coverage but continued the caption at 
the bottom of the screen not only during special-order speeches but also 
during morning-hour debate (Speaker Foley, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, 
Sec. 3.5; 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.7). Although para

                                 Rule VI


Official reporters
               official reporters and news media galleries




685. Reporters of debates and committee 
stenographers.

  1.  Subject to the direction and control of the Speaker, 
the Clerk shall appoint, and may remove for cause, the official 
reporters of the House, including stenographers of committees, and shall 
supervise the execution of their duties.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 16.3) those responsibilities were 
vested in the Clerk, subject to the direction and control of the 
Speaker.

  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 reporters have become officers of the House a correction of 
the Congressional Record has been held a question of privilege (V, 7014-
7016). The House has directed the Clerk to provide a copy of the audio 
backup file of a committee deposition made by the reporters to the 
prosecuting attorney in a criminal proceeding (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 
6, Sec. 26.7; Sept. 12, 2019, p. _).




Sec. 686. Rules relating to Congressional 
Record.

  The  arrangement, style, etc., of the Congressional Record is 
prescribed by the Joint Committee on Printing pursuant to 44 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 Director of the 
Government Publishing Office 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 feasible, 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 Director of the Government Publishing Office deems it 
necessary in order to meet production and delivery schedules.

  2. Type and style.--The Director of the Government Publishing Office 
shall print the report of the proceedings and debates of the Senate and 
House of Representatives, as furnished 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 permitted. 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 Publishing 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 Director of the 
Government Publishing Office 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 Director of the Government Publishing Office not later than 
7 o'clock p.m. to insure publication the following morning. When 
possible, manuscript copy for tabular matter should be sent to the 
Government Publishing 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 Director 
of the Government Publishing Office will insert the words ``Mr. __ 
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 Director of the Government Publishing Office 
shall not publish in the Congressional 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 Congress 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; 
therefore all corrections must be sent to the Director of the Government 
Publishing Office 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, substitutions for 
correct material, or additions of new subject matter.

  10. The Director of the Government Publishing Office 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 (Sec. 1082, infra) provides that conference 
reports be printed in the daily edition of the Congressional 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 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 Director of the Government 
Publishing Office.--(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 
Director of the Government Publishing Office of the probable cost of 
publishing 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 Director of the Government Publishing Office shall return to the 
Member of the respective House any matter submitted for the 
Congressional 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 
published 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 Congress 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 
material will be duly noted in the Member's statement as appearing 
therein.

  3. Under the general leave request by the floor manager of specific 
legislation only matter pertaining to such legislation will be included 
as per 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 Director of the Government Publishing Office shall 
withhold any Extensions of Remarks which exceed economical press fill or 
exceed production limitations. Extensions withheld for such reasons will 
be printed in succeeding issues, at the direction of the Director of the 
Government Publishing Office, 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 
signature of the Member. Extensions of Remarks will be accepted up to 15 
minutes after adjournment of the House. To insure printing in that day's 
proceedings, 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 
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of 
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to 
technical, grammatical, 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 Committee on Printing Rules, any revision shall consist 
only of technical, grammatical, 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.



Sec. 687. Substantially verbatim account.

  The requirement  of 
rule 7 of the supplemental rules that the Congressional Record be a 
substantially verbatim account of 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 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 
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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.5; 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; Oct. 11, 2011, p. 
15117) and a Member should not expect the official reporters to 
transcribe such remarks (Jan. 24, 2011, p. 583) or the remarks of two 
Members speaking simultaneously (Oct. 11, 2011, p. 15117; Speaker 
Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; 
Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, 
p. 2553, 2554). 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; July 25, 2012, 
p. 12253; June 13, 2016, p. 8610; Oct. 12, 2017, p. _; Jan. 18, 2018, p. 
_); (3) when a Member interrupts another during debate without being 
yielded to (Feb. 15, 2012, p. 1643) or otherwise recognized (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 Publishing 
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; Mar. 15, 2013, 
p. 3671).

  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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.13; 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 parliamentary corrections or insertions in the 
transcript of a ruling or statement 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 (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.15).

  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-order speech ``off the Record'' (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 5, Sec. 16.5). As a general principle 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 Sec. 686, supra, 
and Sec. Sec. 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). In response to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the specific 
content of the reporter's transcript, the Chair advised that the Member 
consult the Record in its regular course (Jan. 17, 2019, p. _).



Sec. 688. Relations of the Committee of the Whole 
to the Congressional Record.

  As a general  rule the Committee of the Whole has no 
control over the Congressional Record (V, 6986); but the chair in the 
preservation of order may direct the exclusion of disorderly words 
spoken by a Member after a call to order (V, 6987). In a case wherein a 
letter read in Committee 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 Committee 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).




Sec. 689. Correction of the Congressional 
Record.

  Although the  House controls the Congressional Record, the Speaker with the 
assent of the House laid down the principle that words spoken by a 
Member in order might not be changed by the House, because this would be 
determining 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 a 
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, 
Sec. 18.6). In addition, privileged motions have been permitted to 
correct the Record as follows: (1) striking unparliamentary words 
inserted in the Record (Deschler, ch. 5, Sec. 17); (2) correcting the 
Record where the remarks of one Member have been attributed to another 
(Deschler, ch. 5, Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2); (3) correcting the Record where 
a Member has improperly altered his remarks during an exchange of 
colloquy with another Member (Deschler, ch. 5, Sec.  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 correction of the 
Record (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.19), because such changes 
for the permanent edition of the Record may be made without the 
permission of the House (Deschler, ch. 5, Sec. 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, Sec. 18).


  Furthermore, the Speaker declines to entertain unanimous-consent 
requests 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 
constitute questions of the privileges of the House (see Sec. 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 alleging improper transcription of that 
address) was held not to constitute a question of privilege (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.22). Propositions to make corrections are 
sometimes considered by the Committee on House Administration.



Sec. 690. Unparliamentary remarks and the Congressional 
Record.

  Where  a Member had uttered disorderly words on the floor without 
challenge, the House decided that it was not precluded from action when 
the words, after being withheld for revision, appeared in the Record, 
and struck them (V, 6979, 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 
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 
recommendation 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 language 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 Sec. 961, 
infra), although a question of privilege may not subsequently arise 
therefrom (V, 7023; VI, 596).




Sec. 692. ``Leave to print'' in the Congressional 
Record.

  The practice  of inserting in the Congressional Record speeches not actually 
delivered on the floor has developed by consent of the House as the 
membership has increased and it has become difficult at times for every 
Member to fully debate 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) 
although a Member may not request leave to insert the remarks of another 
Member (see supplemental rule 5 of the ``Laws and Rules for Publication 
of the Congressional Record''), the House may grant general leave for 
all Members to insert remarks (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.33); 
(4) 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 22.21; Sept. 27, 1996, p. 25633); (5) 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.19; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.21; June 5, 2013, p. 8086). 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 has 
agreed to a single unanimous-consent request to grant general leave for 
all Members with respect to multiple measures considered on the same day 
(Sept. 13, 2018, p. _).


  The House, and not the Speaker, determines what liberty shall be 
allowed 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 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 
matter 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, 
Sec. 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; Sept. 12, 
2019, p. _). 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 21.6). 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 former rules of the Joint Committee on Printing for publication of 
the Record, effective March 1, 1978, required the identification by 
``bullet'' symbols of statements or insertions no part of which were 
actually delivered in debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 17.8). 
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 resolution requesting the 
Joint Committee on Printing to adopt temporary rules to require 
distinctive type styles to replace the bulleting of remarks not actually 
spoken in debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 17.9), and also 
adopted a resolution requesting that those rules be made permanent 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 17.11). 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, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 17.1; Sec. 686, supra).


News media galleries
  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 Speaker has announced that extensions of remarks may be 
submitted electronically (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; Speaker 
McCarthy, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _), making permanent an announced policy from 
the 116th Congress effective during the pendency of a designated public 
health emergency (Speaker Pelosi, Apr. 7, 2020, p. _). 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).




693. Unofficial reporters in the press gallery and on the 
floor.

  2.  A portion of the gallery over the Speaker's chair, as may be 
necessary to accommodate representatives of the press wishing to report 
debates and proceedings, shall be set aside for their use. Reputable 
reporters and correspondents shall be admitted 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 designation 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 representative of each press association.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XXXIV. It was 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. 80). When it was 
transferred to this clause, it was amended to reflect the existing 
practice of including the Periodical Press Gallery under the ambit of 
the rule (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. 
7). 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).


[[Page 429]]



Sec. 694. Unofficial reporters in the radio gallery and on 
the floor.

  3.  A portion of the gallery as may be necessary to accommodate 
reporters of news to be disseminated by radio, television, and similar 
means of transmission, wishing to report debates and proceedings, shall 
be set aside for their use. Reputable reporters and correspondents shall 
be admitted thereto under such regulations as the Speaker may prescribe. 
The Executive Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents' 
Galleries shall supervise such gallery, including the designation 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 representative of each media outlet.




 
  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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. 80). A gender-based reference 
was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2009, p. 7).

                                Rule VII


Archiving
                          records of the house



695. Duties of Clerk and committees as to custody of 
papers before committees.

  1. (a)  At the end of each Congress, the chair of 
each committee shall transfer to the Clerk any noncurrent records of 
such committee, including the subcommittees 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 
acquired in the course of the duties of such officer.

  2. The Clerk shall deliver the records transferred under clause 1, 
together with any other noncurrent records of the House, to the 
Archivist of the United States for preservation at the National 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 available 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 subcommittee.

  (2) An investigative record that contains personal data relating to a 
specific living person (the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy), an administrative 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 condition 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 
availability is specified by order of the committee (entered 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 determines that such availability would be detrimental to 
the public interest or inconsistent with the rights and privileges of 
the House. The Clerk shall notify in writing the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on House Administration of any such 
determination.

  (b) A determination of the Clerk under paragraph (a) is subject to 
later orders of the House and, in the case of a record of a committee, 
later orders of the committee.

  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 governing the applicability and implementation of this rule.

  (c) A committee may withdraw from the National Archives and Records 
Administration any record of the committee delivered to the Archivist 
under this rule. Such a withdrawal shall be on a temporary basis and for 
official use of the committee.
Definition of record

  6. (a) In this rule the term ``record'' means any official, permanent 
record of the House (other than a record of an individual Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner as described in paragraph (b)), 
including--

      (1) 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

      (2) 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.


  (b) Records created, generated, or received by the congressional 
office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner in the 
performance of official duties are exclusively the personal property of 
the individual Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and such 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has control over such 
records.

  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 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. 7). Clause 6(b) 
was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 
37).


[[Page 433]]

Withdrawal of papers
  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).




696. Custody of papers in the files of the House.

  7.  A 
memorial or other paper presented to the House may not be withdrawn from 
its files without its leave. If withdrawn 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 settlement 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.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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 renumbered January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Gender-based references were 
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 
7).

  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 beginning 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



Sec. 697. Response to subpoenas.

  1. (a)  When a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House is 
properly served with a judicial subpoena or order, such Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee shall comply, 
consistently with the privileges and rights of the House, with the 
judicial subpoena or order as hereinafter provided, unless otherwise 
determined under this rule.


  (b) For purposes of this rule, ``judicial subpoena or order'' means a 
judicial 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 relating to the official functions of the 
House.

  2. (a) Upon receipt of a properly served judicial subpoena or order, a 
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House shall promptly notify the Speaker in writing of its receipt 
together with either:

      (1) a determination as to whether the issuance of the judicial 
subpoena or order is a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court and 
is consistent with the privileges and rights of the House; or

      (2) a statement that such Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House intends to make a determination with 
respect to the matters described in subparagraph (1).

  (b) The notification required by paragraph (a) shall promptly be laid 
before the House by the Speaker.

  3. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) or otherwise ordered by 
the House, upon notification to the House that a judicial subpoena or 
order is a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court and is 
consistent with the privileges and rights of the House, the Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall 
comply with the judicial subpoena or order by supplying copies.

  (b) Under no circumstances may minutes or transcripts of executive 
sessions, or evidence of witnesses in respect thereto, be disclosed or 
copied. During a period of recess or adjournment of longer than three 
days, the Speaker may authorize compliance or take such other action as 
the Speaker considers appropriate under the circumstances. Upon the 
reconvening of the House, all matters that transpired under this clause 
shall promptly be laid before the House by the Speaker.


  4. 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 Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee, 
or of the House itself, to assert such privileges or rights before a 
court in the United States.


[[Page 436]]

authority was clarified and revised later in the 96th 
Congress (H. Res. 722, Sept. 17, 1980, pp. 25777-90) and formed the 
basis for the present rule. In the 107th Congress the rule was amended 
to broaden its application to administrative subpoenas (sec. 2(c), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25), but this change was reversed in the 115th 
Congress (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). The rule was re-
written entirely in the 115th Congress to consolidate and clarify the 
notification process and eliminate a requirement that the Clerk transmit 
a copy of this rule to the court (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 
37).
  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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 subpoena, the House would adopt a resolution authorizing the 
person to respond. 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 

  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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.3); responding to a 
contemporaneous request for such records from a Special Counsel 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.3); and authorizing an officer of 
the House to release certain documents in response to another such 
request from the Special Counsel (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 26.6).

  A response to an administrative subpoena also raises a question of the 
privileges of the House (Deschler, ch. 11, Sec. 14.8). A Member or 
employee receiving such a subpoena may inform the House (July 30, 1998, 
p. 18298; May 3, 1999, p. 8040).




 
  Although clause 2 requires the Speaker to promptly lay before the 
House a communication notifying the Speaker of the receipt of a 
subpoena, the rule does not require that the text of a subpoena be 
printed in the Record (July 31, 1992, p. 20602).

                                 Rule IX


                         questions of privilege



Sec. 698. Definition of questions of privilege.

  1.  Questions 
of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House 
collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; 
and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of 
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their 
representative capacity only.




Sec. 699. Precedence of questions of 
privilege.

  2. (a)(1) A resolution  reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or 
offered from the floor by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as 
a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged 
under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution, shall have 
precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. A 
resolution offered from the floor by a Member, Delegate, 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, 
designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule 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 unanimous consent.


  (2) The time allotted for debate on a resolution offered from the 
floor as a question of the privileges of the House shall be equally 
divided between (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 
practice 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-based reference was eliminated in 
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Clause 
2(a)(3) was added in the 116th Congress to restrict the privilege of 
resolutions causing a vacancy in the Office of Speaker to those offered 
by direction of a party caucus or conference (sec. 102(e), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and such restriction was repealed in the 118th 
Congress (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).




Sec. 700. Questions of privileges of the House.

  The  body of 
precedent relating to questions of the privileges of the House includes 
rulings that span the adoption of this rule. The rule was adopted ``to 
prevent the large consumption 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 purpose of hindering the extension of 
constitutional or other privilege'' (VI, 48). Thus a resolution merely 
asserting the position of the House with regard to an external issue 
does not qualify (Oct. 6, 2011, pp. 14941, 14942). A proposition of 
privilege may lose its precedence by association with a matter not of 
privilege (III, 2551; V, 5890; VI, 395; Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15833, 15834, 
15836). Legislative language unacheivable by simple resolution does not 
qualify as a question of the privileges of the House (Dec. 20, 2018, p. 
_ (sustained by tabling of appeal)).




Sec. 701. Questions relating to organization.

  The  privileges 
of the House include questions relating to its organization (I, 22-24, 
189, 212, 290), and the title of its Members to their seats (III, 2579-
2587), which may be raised 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 4.1; H. 
Res. 52, Feb. 7, 1985, 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, Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 6.8); (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 notwithstanding 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); (5) to authorize and 
direct the Speaker to administer the oath of office to a Member-elect 
(Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 4.3).



  A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of 
the privileges of the House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.1; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.2). A resolution declaring vacant 
the Office of Speaker is presented as a matter of high constitutional 
privilege (VI, 35), but in the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House had 
in place a rule providing that such a resolution constituted a question 
of the privileges of the House only if offered by direction of a party 
caucus or conference (sec. 102(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). For 
further discussion with respect to the organization of the House and the 
title of its Members to seats, see Sec. Sec. 18-30, 46-51, 56, and 58-
60, supra.



Sec. 702. Questions relating to constitutional 
prerogatives.

  The  privileges of the House, as distinguished from those of 
the individual Member, include questions relating to its constitutional 
prerogatives in respect to revenue legislation and appropriations (see, 
e.g., II, 1480-1501; VI, 315; Nov. 8, 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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 provisions in derogation of the sole 
constitutional prerogative of the House and resolving that such bill be 
recommitted to conference (July 27, 2000, p. 16565; July 24, 2018, p. _) 
or that Senate amendments agreed to in conference be returned to the 
Senate (Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127). The constitutional prerogatives of the 
House also include its function with respect to: (1) impeachment and 
matters incidental thereto (see Sec. 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 prerogatives of the 
House (Jan. 29, 1981, p. 1304; Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890), including 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 Sec. Sec. 290-291b, supra. For examples of Senate 
messages requesting the return of Senate measures that intruded on the 
constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures, 
see Sec. 565, supra. For a discussion of the prerogatives of the House 
with respect to treaties affecting revenue, see Sec. 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 
question 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 alleging 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. 24757-59 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (4) a 
resolution alleging that the President, an actor entirely extramural to 
the House, might be in violation of clause 8, section 9, article I of 
the Constitution (``Foreign Emoluments Clause''), and directing the 
House to immediately request the President's tax returns for a review of 
such potential violation (Mar. 28, 2017, pp. 4983-84 (sustained by 
tabling of appeal); June 21, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of 
appeal); July 19, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal)). 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).



Sec. 703. Questions relating to official 
conduct.

  The  privileges of the House include certain questions relating to 
the conduct of Members, officers, and employees (see, e.g., I, 284, 285; 
III, 2628, 2645-2647). Under that standard, the following resolutions 
have been held to constitute questions of the privileges of the House: 
(1) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now 
Ethics) to investigate illegal solicitation of political contributions 
in the House Office Buildings by unnamed sitting Members (July 10, 1985, 
p. 18397); (2) establishing an ad hoc committee to investigate 
allegations of ``ghost'' employment in the House (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 
9029); (3) directing a committee to further investigate the conduct 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 (now 
Ethics) to report to the House the status of an investigation pending 
before the committee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.2; 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 responses 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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 27.5); (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 (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 8.2); (13) directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to establish an 
investigative subcommittee and appoint outside counsel to investigate 
certain allegations 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 (now 
Ethics) 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 (now 
Ethics) and illegal activities between a lobbyist and Members, and 
directing that committee to investigate misconduct of Members and staff 
with that lobbyist (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 
(now Ethics) to establish a subcommittee to investigate (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 24.3); (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 (now Ethics) to 
investigate a Member's conduct and make a recommendation regarding 
expulsion (June 5, 2007, p. 14600); (19) directing the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) 
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. 3855); (21) directing the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate violations of the Code of Official 
Conduct (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3864); (22) alleging receipt of illegal 
campaign contributions and gifts and censuring a Member therefor (July 
31, 2008, p. 17463); (23) alleging receipt of illegal campaign 
contributions and gifts and violations of Federal tax law, directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate, 
and removing a Member as chair of a standing committee pending such 
investigation (Sept. 18, 2008, p. 19600); (24) alleging failure to 
properly report the receipt of gifts in accordance with financial 
disclosure and tax laws, and removing the Member as chair pending an on-
going investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
(now Ethics) (Feb. 10, 2009, p. 3508; Oct. 7, 2009, pp. 23770, 23771); 
(25) alleging a quid pro quo between legislative activity and campaign 
contributions to Members, and directing the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate that relationship (Feb. 25, 
2009, p. 5759; Mar. 5, 2009, p. 6561; Mar. 10, 2009, p. 6765; Mar. 19, 
2009, p. 8106; Mar. 25, 2009, p. 8743; Mar. 30, 2009, p. 9097; Apr. 1, 
2009, p. 9542; May 12, 2009, p. 12213; July 22, 2009, p. 18588) 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. 3846; Mar. 25, 2010, p. 5033; Apr. 15, 2010, pp. 5659, 5660; 
Apr. 22, 2010, pp. 6083, 6084); (26) alleging improper involvement of 
Members with a certain lobbying organization, and directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to report any 
action it has taken with respect thereto (June 3, 2009, p. 13841); (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, pp. 3157, 3158; Apr. 14, 2010, p. 5518); 
(28) establishing a select committee to investigate the actions and 
motivations of the Speaker surrounding the resignation of the House 
Chaplain (Apr. 27, 2018, p. _; May 8, 2018, p. _). On the other hand, a 
resolution alleging inconsistency between statements of the Speaker and 
of an intelligence agency and commissioning an investigation of 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. 13175; June 16, 2009, p. 15272).


  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 Sec. Sec. 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 questions of the privileges of the House. The former 
category included resolutions: (1) terminating all bank and check-
cashing operations in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and directing 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to review 
GAO audits of such operations (Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435); (2) instructing 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 26.3); (6) responding to a contemporaneous request for such records 
from a Special Counsel (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.3); (7) 
authorizing an officer of the House to release certain documents in 
response to another such request from the Special Counsel (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.6). 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 committee to investigate the 
same matter (Feb. 5, 1992, p. 1599); (3) requiring an explanation of a 
reported interference with authorized access to a committee 
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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 18.16); (6) directing the Committee on House Administration to 
transmit to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) 
and to the Department of Justice all records obtained by its task force 
to investigate that matter (July 22, 1992, p. 18786); (7) directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) 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 Administration to release transcripts of the proceedings of its 
task force to investigate that matter, where the investigation was 
ordered as a question 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 Committee on House Administration to redress 
the erroneous naming of a Member 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 designees of the 
bipartisan leadership agree to the contrary (June 9, 1994, p. 12437); 
(12) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now 
Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) 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 
processing of ethics complaints. The moratorium was imposed in the 
expectation 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 reported from the Committee on Rules and were adopted 
with certain amendments (H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19340).


  In the 118th Congress the House directed the Speaker to establish a 
bipartisan task force to conduct a comprehensive review of House ethics 
rules and regulations, and to submit their suggested improvements to the 
House ethics process to a specified group of Members representing 
bipartisan House and committee leadership (sec. 3(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 
2023, p. _).



Sec. 704. Questions relating to integrity of 
proceedings.

  The  privileges of the House include questions relating to the 
integrity of its proceedings, including the processes by which bills are 
considered (III, 2597-2601, 2614; IV, 3383, 3388, 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 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 (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.6).

  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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.16), 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.17); (2) 
directing the Committee on Rules to investigate and report to the House 
within a time certain on alleged alterations of the Record (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.18); (3) addressing whether the Record should 
constitute a verbatim transcript (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 19.20; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.21); (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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.23). 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 motions to correct the Record (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.19; see Sec. 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 
constitute a question of privilege (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 19.22).

  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 Sec. 291a, supra). Privileges of the House involving records also 
include resolutions: (1) furnishing certain requested information to an 
Independent Counsel investigating 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 
Administration'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); (6) providing the transcript of a committee 
hearing to the Attorney General in response to an allegation of 
intentionally false testimony by a sworn witness (May 1, 2019, p. _). 
However, 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 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 
contained unauthorized alterations of the statements of subcommittee 
members in the prior Congress and that unauthorized alterations may have 
occurred in other committee hearing transcripts, and proposing the 
creation of a select committee to investigate and report by a date 
certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18279); (2) alleging the unauthorized 
creation and falsification of documents distributed to the general 
public at a committee hearing and resolving that the Speaker take 
appropriate measures to ensure the integrity of the legislative process 
and report his actions and recommendations 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) alleging 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 (now 
Ethics) 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 (now Ethics) to investigate the abuse 
of power surrounding the inaccuracies (May 22, 2008, p. 10522). 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 
legislative papers (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.8). For a 
discussion of the privileged status of a request of one House for the 
return of a measure messaged to the other, see Sec. 565, supra.

  A resolution alleging that the Chair had improperly ordered the 
interruption of audio broadcast coverage of certain House proceedings 
constitutes a question of privileges of the House (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 4, Sec. 3.14), as does a resolution providing for an experiment in 
the telecasting and broadcasting 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 and unedited 
audio and visual coverage of House proceedings and coverage of record 
votes, had not been implemented (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.7).

  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 Conduct (now Ethics) 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, 
directing 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 
(now Ethics) 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. 3855).

  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 deliberately and improperly refused to recognize a 
legitimate and timely objection 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 (now 
Ethics) 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); (3) 
alleging that the chair 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 
(now House Communications Standards Commission) 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 (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 6.14); (6) 
disapproving the actions of a committee chair for alleged impropriety in 
interfering with a criminal investigation (June 29, 2012, pp. 10729, 
10730); (7) alleging that the chair of a committee violated House rules 
during a hearing and condemning his actions as offensive and 
disrespectful (Mar. 6, 2014, p. 3933) and requiring him to apologize in 
the well of the House (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4394); (8) alleging that a 
chair of a committee abused his power during impeachment proceedings in 
the committee and that the chair of another committee failed to respond 
to a request for a minority day of hearings related to impeachment 
proceedings and condemning the actions of both committee chairs (Dec. 
18, 2019, p. _). 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 hold hearings or allow petitions to be read (III, 2607), 
refusal to permit a committee member 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 
disapproving of that behavior, presents a question of the privileges of 
the House (Sept. 15, 2009, p. 21662). A resolution alleging that a 
Member intimidated guests invited to a joint session of Congress by 
calling for their arrest and condemning that behavior presents a 
question of the privileges of the House (Feb. 6, 2018, p. _). A 
resolution disapproving of the behavior of the Speaker related to the 
handling of a written message from the President accompanying his 
address to a joint session of Congress presents a question of the 
privileges of the House (Feb. 6, 2020, p. _).



Sec. 705. Questions relating to comfort and 
convenience.

  The  privileges of the House include questions relating to the 
comfort and convenience of Members and employees (III, 2629-2636), such 
as resolutions concerning the proper attire for Members in the Chamber 
when the temperature is uncomfortably warm (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, 
Sec. 1.2), the arrangement of furnishings in the Chamber (III, 2631), 
the removal of state flags containing confederate battle flag imagery 
from the House wing of the Capitol and the House Office Buildings (June 
25, 2015, p. 10503, 10504; July 9, 2015, pp. 11113-6), and the removal 
of any item referencing or symbolizing a political party or organization 
that has taken a public position in support of slavery or the 
confederacy from the House wing of the Capitol and the House Office 
Buildings (Sept. 29, 2020, p. _); as well as questions relating to 
safety, such as resolutions requiring an investigation 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 insecure 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.8); 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. 12233).



  A resolution calling into question current health and safety guidance 
related to the continued wearing of masks in the House during an ongoing 
pandemic and directing the Attending Physician to revisit and update 
guidance on mask wearing in the Hall of the House and in committee 
spaces for vaccinated Members and staff, consistent with national 
guidance provided by executive branch health officials, presents a 
question of the privileges of the House (May 19, 2021, p. _).



Sec. 706. May not effect change in rules.

  A motion  to amend 
the Rules of the House does not present a question of privilege (Speaker 
Cannon, sustained by the House, 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; Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 6.13; Jan. 31, 1996, p. 
1887), including directions to the Speaker infringing upon the 
discretionary power of recognition 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 Committee 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). 
Similarly, 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 providing that the House 
recess at a time certain to receive a petition for redress of grievances 
and to permit the petitioner floor access during that time was held not 
to give rise to a question of the privileges of the House (May 24, 1972, 
pp. 18675, 18676). A resolution collaterally 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)), as was a 
resolution dismantling a select committee (Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15833, 
15834, 15836 (sustained by tabling of appeal)).


  A resolution directing that the party ratios of all standing 
committees, 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, 
Sec. 9.1).

  A resolution urging the Speaker to make specified appointments, as 
previously recommended by the Minority Leader, to a select committee, 
and condemning the Speaker for refusing to follow such recommendations 
in making appointments to the select committee, presents a question of 
the privileges of the House (July 26, 2021, p. _).

  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 reprogramming process established in law 
for legislative branch appropriations be subjected to third-party review 
for conformity with external standards of accounting but alleging no 
deviation from duly constituted procedure 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 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 (Precedents 
(Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.6). 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 President 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 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 resolutions have been held not to give rise to a question of 
the privileges of the House: (1) a resolution directing a committee to 
meet and conduct certain business (June 27, 1974, p. 21596; July 31, 
1975, p. 26250; June 25, 2009, p. 16440 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal); July 9, 2009, p. 17242 (sustained by tabling of appeal); July 
23, 2009, p. 18853 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Feb. 27, 2017, p. 
3068 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 7, 2017, pp. 3550-51 
(sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 15, 2017, pp. 4266-67 (sustained 
by tabling of appeal); Mar. 22, 2017, p. 4635 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal); Apr. 5, 2017, p. 5609 (sustained by tabling of appeal); May 17, 
2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal); May 24, 2017, p. _ 
(sustained by tabling of appeal); June 7, 2017, p. _ (sustained by 
tabling of appeal)); (2) a resolution amending a special order of 
business resolution (July 17, 2009, p. 18192 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal); July 24, 2009, p. 19156 (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 
integrity 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), exhorting it to do so 
(Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3707 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Dec. 13, 2011, 
pp. 19859, 19860), expressing its willingness to do so (Oct. 8, 2013, 
pp. 15438, 15439), directing the Speaker to schedule such legislation 
for a vote (Dec. 10, 2015, pp. 19988, 19989 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal), or expressing that the House should immediately consider such 
legislation (Feb. 27, 2018, p. _) (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (4) 
a resolution precluding an adjournment of the House until a specified 
legislative measure is considered (Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2247; Mar. 13, 2008, 
pp. 4075, 4076 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) or precluding an 
assembly during a specified post-election period (Aug. 10, 2010, pp. 
15438, 15439 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Sept. 23, 2010, pp. 
16374-76 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (5) a resolution prohibiting 
the House from considering a measure alleged to violate a House rule and 
to be unconstitutional (May 21, 2013, pp. 7293, 7294). See also 
Sec. 702, supra, for a discussion of legislative propositions purporting 
to present questions of the privileges of the House.



Sec. 707. As distinct from privileged questions.

  The  clause 
of the rule giving questions of privilege precedence over all other 
questions except a motion to adjourn is a recognition 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 Constitution, have been held to have a privilege that superseded 
the rules establishing the order of business, as bills providing for 
census or apportionment (I, 305-308), bills returned with the objections 
of the President (IV, 3530-3536), propositions of impeachment (see 
Sec. 604, supra), and questions 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 relating to adjournment and 
recess of Congress (V, 6698, 6701-6706; Nov. 13, 1997, p. 26538), and a 
resolution declaring the Office of 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 Sec. 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).



Sec. 708. Questions of personal privilege.

  The  privilege of 
the Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which grants conditional 
immunity from arrest (Sec. 90, supra) and an unconditional freedom of 
debate in the House (III, 2670, Sec. 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 question 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 connected with their official duties (II, 1277; III, 2678, 
footnote). Charges against the conduct of a Member are held to involve 
privilege when they 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 personal privilege based on a violation of 
his rights as a Member, such as unauthorized printed alterations in his 
statements made during a subcommittee hearing in a prior Congress 
(because the second phrase of this clause speaks to the ``rights, 
reputation, and conduct of Members, individually'') (June 28, 1983, p. 
17674). A printed characterization by an officer of the House of a 
Member's proposed amendments as ``dilatory and frivolous'' 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 (now Ethics); and, pending the committee's 
disposition of his motion to dismiss, announced his intention to resign 
as Speaker and as a Member (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.4). 
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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.5). 
Speaker Hastert rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss the 
process for selecting a Chaplain, which question was based on press 
accounts (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.2).

  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. 2195); (4) a 
``Dear Colleague'' alleging willful violation of the rules of the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) by its ranking 
minority member (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3858); (5) allegations that he 
accepted an appointment from the administration in exchange for certain 
votes (Mar. 19, 2010, p. 3945); (6) a pending investigation by the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) of her, 
including disciplinary action taken by the committee against 
professional staff assigned to the case (Dec. 9, 2010, pp. 19394-5).

  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 intentional 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 (now Ethics) (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. 17462) 
and violations of Federal tax law (Sept. 10, 2008, p. 18419) and a 
statement of alleged violations by the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct (now Ethics) regarding those accusations (Aug. 10, 
2010, p. 15440).


  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. 3858), 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 4.3; Mar. 31, 2004, p. 5763; July 21, 2009, p. 18508) or conveyed 
by an exhibit in debate (June 28, 2000, p. 12723) and the Chair does not 
interpret remarks in debate challenged on the basis of personal 
privilege (July 25, 2012, pp. 12200, 12201). 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 the character 
or motives of that Member (May 15, 1984, pp. 12207, 12211; May 31, 1984, 
p. 14620; Mar. 27, 2012, p. 4144), newspaper accounts of televised press 
coverage of a committee hearing at which that Member 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).



Sec. 709. Precedence of questions of privileges of the 
House.

  The  body of precedent relating to the precedence of questions of 
privilege spans both the adoption of this rule in 1880 and its amendment 
to require notice in certain cases in 1993.


  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) under antiquated drafting conventions for special orders of 
business that ordered the previous question after debate, the 
consideration 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), motions to suspend the rules (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 Committee on Rules 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); (6) a motion for the 
previous question on a bill reported from Committee of the Whole (May 
24, 1972, pp. 18675, 18676). Because a resolution 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). 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, pursuant 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). 
Members may not announce intent to offer a resolution as a question of 
privilege during morning-hour debate (July 23, 2020, p. _).


  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, 562). Although a resolution raising a question of 
the privileges of the House has precedence over all other questions, it 
is nevertheless subject to disposition 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).




Sec. 711. Precedence of questions of personal 
privilege.

  When  a Member proposes merely to address the House on a question 
of personal privilege, and does not offer a resolution affecting the 
dignity or integrity of the House for action, the practice as to 
precedence is somewhat different. Thus, a Member recognized on a 
question of personal privilege 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 business (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).





Sec. 712. Questions of privilege in relation to 
quorum.

    During a call of the House in the absence of a quorum, only 
such questions of privilege as relate immediately to those proceedings 
may be presented (III, 2545). See also Sec. 1024, infra.




Sec. 713. Consideration of questions of privilege.

    Whenever 
it is asserted on the floor that the privileges 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, Sec. 21.1; Jan. 18, 
2007, p. 1625; Sept. 10, 2008, p. 18422).



[[Page 458]]

either at the time the resolution is noticed (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209) or 
in response to a parliamentary inquiry (Oct. 28, 1997, p. 23527; Mar. 
20, 2017, p. 4445; May 23, 2017, p. _). The Speaker does not rule on the 
privileged status of a resolution at the time that resolution is 
noticed, but only when called up (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209; Sept. 13, 
1994, p. 24389; Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3571).
  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). The 
Speaker may elect to announce the time designated to consider such a 
resolution (Oct. 11, 2017, p. _) but is not otherwise required to do so 




[[Page 459]]
 
  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 committee 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 (now 72 hours) 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, 580; 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). 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 
resignation is controlled by the Member moving the acceptance of the 
resignation (Mar. 8, 1977, pp. 6579-82) if the resigning Member does not 
seek recognition (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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 6.4). A Member recognized only on the question of whether a 
resolution qualifies as a question of privilege is not recognized to 
debate such resolution (Nov. 3, 2005, pp. 24757, 24758; May 21, 2013, 
pp. 7293, 7294). 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


Committees and their legislative jurisdictions
                       organization of committees




714. Number and jurisdiction of standing 
committees.

  1.  There shall be in the House the following standing 
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and related 
functions assigned by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 4. All bills, 
resolutions, and other matters relating to subjects within the 
jurisdiction of the standing committees 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 
Committee 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 
effective 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 
Committees 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 Accountability (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 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 Homeland 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 
comprising each of the standing committees, those specifications were 
eliminated 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 Committee on Ethics (clause 5(a)(3)(A) of rule X), as well 
as the size and preferred 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, however, is 
accomplished by unanimous consent (see Procedure, ch. 17, Sec. Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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 jurisdiction 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 committee involving the same 
subject matter as a bill previously reported confers 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 
private bills relating to claims, pensions, construction of bridges, and 
the correction of military or naval records. In the 104th Congress the 
House adopted 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.



Sec. 715. Agriculture.

      (1)  Adulteration of seeds, insect 
pests, and protection of birds and animals in forest reserves.


      (2) Agriculture generally.

      (3) Agricultural and industrial chemistry.

      (4) Agricultural colleges and experiment stations.

      (5) Agricultural economics and research.

      (6) Agricultural education extension services.

      (7) Agricultural production and marketing and stabilization of 
prices of agricultural products, and commodities (not including 
distribution 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 security.

      (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 domain.

      (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 Department of Agriculture was transferred to the Committee on 
Appropriations (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 (including the Commodity Credit Corporation 
(CCC)) while transferring jurisdiction over foreign distribution and 
nondomestic production of commodities to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Nevertheless, 
the committee has retained limited jurisdiction over measures to release 
CCC stocks for such foreign distribution (Sept. 14, 1989, p. 20428). 
Previously unstated jurisdictions over commodities exchanges and rural 
development were codified effective January 3, 1975.

  The 104th Congress consolidated the committee's jurisdiction over 
inspection 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 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 has had jurisdiction over bills for establishing and 
regulating 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, amending 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 
reported 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 commission (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 
agricultural research center (May 14, 1996, p. 11070). The committee 
shares with the Committee on the Judiciary jurisdiction over a bill 
comprehensively 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 jurisdiction (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 programs on private and non-Federal lands (June 7, 1976, p. 
16768).

  (b) Committee on Appropriations.



Sec. 716. Appropriations.

      (1)    Appropriation of the 
revenue for the 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 entitlement authority as defined in section 3(9) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and referred to the committee under 
clause 4(a)(2).


      (5) Bills and joint resolutions that provide new budget authority, 
limitation on the use of funds, or other authority relating to new 
direct loan obligations and new loan guarantee commitments referencing 
section 504(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  This committee was established in 1865, when all the general 
appropriation 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 appropriation measures 
(VII, 1741).

  In the 95th Congress this paragraph was amended to correct a 
typographical 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). Subparagraph (5) was added in the 114th 
Congress (sec. 2(a)(2)(B), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). 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 provisions (clause 4(a)(3) of rule X). 
The requirement of section 139 of the Legislative 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 responsibility upon the 
Secretary of the Treasury and the Office of Management 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 
responsibility 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).




Sec. 717. Responsibilities under Budget Act.

  Effective  July 
12, 1974, special Presidential messages on rescissions and deferrals of 
budget authority submitted pursuant to 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.



Sec. 718. Armed Services.

      (1)  Ammunition depots; forts; 
arsenals; and Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force 
reservations and establishments.


      (2) Common defense generally.

      (3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum and oil 
shale reserves.

      (4) The Department of Defense generally, including the Departments 
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.

      (5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures relating to 
the maintenance, operation, and administration of interoceanic canals.

      (6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.

      (7) Military applications of nuclear energy.

      (8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 
the Department of Defense.

      (9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including 
financial assistance for the construction and operation of vessels, 
maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair industrial base, 
cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant marine officers and seafarers 
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, Air 
Force, and Space Force.

      (14) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.

      (15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the common 
defense.


      (16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of Defense.

  This committee was established January 2, 1947, as a part of the 
Legislative 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 appropriations from 1885 to 1920 (IV, 4179, 4189; VII, 1741). The 
committee was redesignated the Committee on National Security in the 
104th Congress (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 of a redundant undesignated recitation of a 
special oversight function (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-
based reference was eliminated in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(e)(1), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

  Much of the present legislative jurisdiction in this paragraph was 
adopted 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 applications 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 Committee 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. 80). In the 117th Congress, subparagraphs 
(1) and (13) were amended to incorporate the Space Force and to clarify 
the application of subparagraph (1) to the Marine Corps (sec. 2(f), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

  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 veterans 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 to 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.



Sec. 719. 
Budget.

      (1) Concurrent resolutions on the  budget (as defined in section 3(4) of the Congressional 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 levels of budget totals for the United States Government.


      (2) Budget process generally.


      (3) Establishment, extension, and enforcement of special controls 
over the Federal budget, including the budgetary treatment of off-budget 
Federal agencies and measures providing 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.

  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
paragraph consisted of the committee's legislative jurisdiction (current 
paragraph (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 
constituting 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 levels of budget totals to subparagraph (2) 
(now subparagraph (1)); (2) granting the committee jurisdiction over the 
congressional budget process generally 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 Accountability) jurisdiction 
over budgetary treatment of off-budget Federal agencies and measures 
providing exemption from sequestration 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 and Oversight (now Oversight and Accountability) 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 excluding from the budget the Civil Service Retirement and 
Disability Fund (although the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
retains programmatic 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 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 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 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 process, was broadened to encompass 
also the executive budget process formerly included in the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (now Oversight and 
Accountability) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Clerical and 
stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its rules in 
the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This committee, and 
not the Committee on Ways and Means, has jurisdiction 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 Workforce.

      (1) Child labor.



Sec. 720. Education and the Workforce.

        (2) Gallaudet 
University and Howard University and Hospital.


      (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 disputes.

      (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.

      (14) Organization, administration, and general management of the 
Department of Education.


      (15) Organization, administration, and general management of the 
Department of Labor.

  This committee was established on January 2, 1947, as part of the 
Legislative 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), was redesignated the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(7), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), was again redesignated as the Committee on 
Education and Labor in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(g), H. Res. 6, Jan. 
3, 2019, p. _), and was again redesignated as the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce in the 118th Congress (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 
2023, p. _).

  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 
education, 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 transferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and its 
special oversight function 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 United States Employees' 
Compensation Commission and the deletion of a redundant undesignated 
recitation of general and special oversight functions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 
6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraphs (14) and (15) were added in the 116th 
Congress to give the committee jurisdiction over organizational, 
administrative, and managerial functions of the Departments of Education 
and Labor (sec. 102(h), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).


  The committee has jurisdiction over bills dealing with juvenile 
delinquency (Jan. 22, 1959, p. 1027), runaway youth (July 12, 1973, p. 
23633; Sept. 10, 1973, p. 28970), 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 Management 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 Immigration and Nationality Act and 
including provisions addressing the enforcement of labor laws (Sept. 19, 
1995, p. 25533). The committee has additional jurisdiction (Energy and 
Commerce has primary jurisdiction) over a developmental disabilities 
assistance and family support 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 
Oversight and Accountability 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.



Sec. 721. Energy and Commerce.

        (2) Consumer affairs and 
consumer protection.


      (3) Health and health facilities (except health care supported by 
payroll deductions).

      (4) Interstate energy compacts.

      (5) Interstate and foreign commerce generally.

      (6) Exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing, 
and regulation of energy resources, including all fossil fuels, solar 
energy, 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 regional power marketing authorities); reliability 
and interstate transmission of, and ratemaking for, all power; and 
siting of generation facilities (except the installation of 
interconnections between Government waterpower projects).

      (10) General management of the Department of Energy and management 
and all functions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

      (11) National energy policy generally.

      (12) Public health and quarantine.

      (13) Regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, including 
regulation of research and development reactors and nuclear regulatory 
research.

      (14) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications.


The committee shall have the same jurisdiction with respect to 
regulation of nuclear facilities and of use of nuclear energy as it has 
with respect to regulation of nonnuclear facilities and of use of 
nonnuclear energy.

      (15) Travel and tourism.

  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 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 Fisheries (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 Committee 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, standardization 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 Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 
1975, the committee 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 Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastructure), jurisdiction 
over civil aviation research and development, energy 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 relating to conservation of energy resources (subpara. (7)), 
measures relating to energy information generally (subpara. (8)), 
measures relating to the 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 relating to general management of 
the Department of Energy and all functions of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (subpara. (10)) (H. Res. 549, Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 
6405-10). In the 104th Congress the committee'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 relating to the 
commercial application of energy technology was transferred to the 
Committee on Science (now Science, Space, and Technology), while the 
committee obtained jurisdiction over regulation of the domestic nuclear 
energy industry (subpara. (13)) from the Committee 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) as well as the general oversight responsibility required by clause 
2. 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 
including 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 hospitals 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, international 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 Sec. 822, infra; see also 
General Bridge Act, 33 U.S.C. 525).


  Before the 104th Congress the committee considered bills regulating 
railroads in their interstate commerce relations (IV, 414) and exercised 
jurisdiction 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 (ultimately 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 contained 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.



Sec. 721b. Ethics.

  In  the 90th Congress the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct 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 employees 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). However, 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 relating to 
lobbying activities was removed from the committee (thereby devolving on 
the Committee on the Judiciary) in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 
14, 1975, p. 20). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when 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. 80).


  Under clause 5(a) of rule XIII, the committee is empowered to report 
as privileged resolutions recommending action by the House of 
Representatives 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 recommendations 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 investigation 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 
acceptance of foreign gifts and decorations by Members and employees 
(Jan. 23, 1978, p. 452). In the 96th Congress the committee was assigned 
as additional 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 allowances and franking, casework considerations, 
campaign financing and practices, and involvement with official and 
unofficial organizations.



Sec. 721c. Former Select Committees on 
Ethics.

  In the 95th  Congress, the House established a Select Committee on Ethics 
and granted it exclusive legislative jurisdiction over 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 regulations 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 completion 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 (now 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 Sec. 1125h, infra.

  (h) Committee on Financial Services.

      (1) Banks and banking, including deposit insurance and Federal 
monetary policy.



Sec. 722. Financial Services.

        (2) Economic 
stabilization, defense production, renegotiation, and control of 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 organizations.

      (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 dollar.

      (8) Public and private housing.

      (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 
Legislative 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 Committee 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 foundations 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 jurisdiction 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 Business, the permanent 
Select Committee on Small Business was abolished, and this committee was 
specifically given jurisdiction over Federal monetary 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 finance, and 
international financial and monetary organizations (formerly within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs), while jurisdiction 
over the Commodity Credit Corporation was transferred to the Committee 
on Agriculture, jurisdiction over export controls and international 
economic policy to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, jurisdiction over 
construction of nursing home facilities to what is now the Committee on 
Energy 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 
subparagraphs (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 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 Committee 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 
subparagraph (6) was effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).


  The committee has reported on 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 
providing 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 executive 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 (now Education and the Workforce)) 
(June 15, 1982, p. 13638).

  (i) Committee on Foreign Affairs.



Sec. 723. Foreign Affairs.

      (1)  Relations of the United 
States with foreign nations generally.


      (2) Acquisition of land and buildings for embassies and legations 
in foreign countries.

      (3) Establishment of boundary lines between the United States and 
foreign nations.

      (4) Export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear 
technology and nuclear hardware.

      (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 congresses.

      (8) International education.

      (9) Intervention abroad and declarations of war.

      (10) Diplomatic service.

      (11) Measures to foster commercial intercourse 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 
Relations (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 Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, gave the committee 
jurisdiction 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); international commodity agreements other than those 
relating to sugar (subpara. (6)), formerly within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Agriculture; trading with the enemy (subpara. (16)), 
formerly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce (now Energy and Commerce); and international education 
(subpara. (8)); while transferring 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 redundant 
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, international arbitration, relating to violations of neutrality 
(IV, 4178a), international 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 
corporation to support private American organizations engaged in 
communications 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 Committee on Ways and Means has considered such matters 
(IV, 4021). The committee has exercised general but not exclusive 
jurisdiction over legislation relating to claims affecting international 
relations (IV, 4168; VII, 1882). Pursuant to its jurisdiction over 
international education, the committee (and not the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce) has exercised 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 was made effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d 
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).

  (j) Committee on Homeland Security.



Sec. 723a. Homeland 
Security.

      (1) Overall homeland  security policy.


      (2) Organization, administration, and general management of the 
Department of Homeland Security.

      (3) Functions of the Department of Homeland Security relating to 
the following:

          (A) Border and port security (except immigration policy and 
non-border enforcement).

          (B) Customs (except customs revenue).

          (C) Integration, analysis, and dissemination of homeland 
security information.

          (D) Domestic preparedness for and collective response to 
terrorism.

          (E) Research and development.

          (F) Transportation security.


          (G) Cybersecurity.

  This committee was established in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(a), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42). Subparagraph (2) was amended in the 113th 
Congress to include general management of the department (sec. 2(c), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Subparagraph (3) was amended in the 118th 
Congress to add functions of the Department of Homeland Security related 
to cybersecurity (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). 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. 60-62. 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).




Sec. 723b. Former Select Committees on Homeland 
Security.

  In the  107th Congress the House established a Select Committee on 
Homeland Security (H. Res. 449, June 19, 2002, p. 10722). Its mission 
was to develop recommendations 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 
committees to which the Speaker referred a bill establishing the 
department 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 Homeland 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.



Sec. 724. House Administration.

      (1)  Appropriations from 
accounts for committee salaries and expenses (except for the Committee 
on Appropriations); House Information Resources; and allowance and 
expenses of Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and 
administrative offices of the House.


      (2) Auditing and settling of all accounts described in 
subparagraph (1).

      (3) Employment of persons by the House, including staff for 
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and committees; and 
reporters of debates, subject to rule VI.

      (4) Except as provided in paragraph (r)(11), the Library of 
Congress, including management 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 incorporation of similar 
institutions (except as provided in paragraph (r)(11)).

      (6) Expenditure of accounts described in subparagraph (1).

      (7) Franking Commission.

      (8) Printing and correction of the Congressional 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 President, Members, Senators, 
Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner; corrupt practices; contested 
elections; credentials and qualifications; and Federal elections 
generally.

      (13) Services to the House, including the House Restaurant, 
parking facilities, and administration 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 Representative, of Delegate, and of Resident 
Commissioner.


      (16) Compensation, retirement, and other benefits of the Members, 
Delegates, the Resident 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), Elections (created in 1794 and divided into three committees in 
1895) (IV, 4019), Election of President, Vice President, and 
Representatives in Congress (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 Communications Standards Commission) in subparagraph (7), 
while transferring to the Committee on Resources (now Natural Resources) 
jurisdiction over erection of monuments to the memory of individuals 
(sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). References in 
subparagraphs (1) and (2) to the ``contingent fund'' were eliminated 
without changing 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 recodified 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 committee'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 election 
of the President, Vice President, or Members of Congress; corrupt 
practices; contested elections; credentials and qualifications; Federal 
elections generally; and the electoral count, which formerly was within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Election of the President, Vice 
President, and Representatives 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 Inspector 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 Sec. 752, 
infra). In the 107th Congress the committee retained the responsibility 
to provide policy direction 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) until the 114th Congress restored its 
function of providing policy direction to the Chief Administrative 
Officer (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34; see Sec. 754, 
infra).



Sec. 725. House facilities.

  The  committee has jurisdiction 
over measures relating to the House Restaurant (2 U.S.C. 2041), which 
was first under the 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.


  By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 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 
candidates 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.




Sec. 727. Library.

  Under  the Reorganization Act the 
committee has jurisdiction over some of the subjects formerly within the 
jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on the Library, such as matters 
relating to the Library of Congress and the House Library, statuary and 
pictures, 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 incorporation 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 Smithsonian Institution, which fall under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation (now Transportation and 
Infrastructure). The House members of the Joint Committee on the 
Library, provided for by law (2 U.S.C. 132b), are elected by resolution 
each Congress.





Sec. 728. Congressional Record.

  The  committee has 
jurisdiction over matters relating to printing and correction of the 
Congressional Record, formerly within the jurisdiction of the erstwhile 
Committee on Printing. The House members of the Joint Committee on 
Printing, provided for by law (44 U.S.C. 101), are elected by resolution 
each Congress.


  (l) Committee on the Judiciary.



Sec. 729. Judiciary.

      (1)  The judiciary and judicial 
proceedings, civil and criminal.


      (2) Administrative practice and procedure.

      (3) Apportionment of Representatives.

      (4) Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.

      (5) Civil liberties.

      (6) Constitutional amendments.

      (7) Criminal law enforcement and criminalization.

      (8) Federal courts and judges, and local courts in the Territories 
and possessions.

      (9) Immigration policy and non-border enforcement.

      (10) Interstate compacts generally.

      (11) Claims against the United States.

      (12) Meetings of Congress; attendance of Members, Delegates, and 
the Resident Commissioner; and their acceptance of incompatible offices.

      (13) National penitentiaries.

      (14) Patents, the Patent and Trademark Office, copyrights, and 
trademarks.

      (15) Presidential succession.

      (16) Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints 
and monopolies.

      (17) Revision and codification of the Statutes of the United 
States.

      (18) State and territorial boundary lines.




Sec. 730. Internal Security.

      (19)  Subversive activities 
affecting the in-
ternal security of the United 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 celebrations was transferred to the former Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service (now Oversight and Accountability) (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 subversive activities affecting the internal 
security of the United States was transferred 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 this 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 subparagraphs (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 
Department 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 Homeland Security, see January 4, 2005, pp. 60-62. In the 109th 
Congress the House added subparagraph (7) (sec. 2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 
4, 2005, p. 42) and expanded it to include ``criminalization'' in the 
114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(2)(A), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34).

  Under subparagraph (15) the committee has jurisdiction over 
Presidential nominations to fill vacancies in the Office of Vice 
President, submitted 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; Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). If the House 
has voted to impeach, members of the committee have been appointed as 
managers on the part of the House in presenting 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; H. 
Res. 798, Jan. 15, 2020, p. _; H. Res. 40, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).

  The committee 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 
establishment 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), removal 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 
territorial 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 
committee 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), establishing 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 jurisdiction 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), exercised 
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 Accountability, and not this committee, has jurisdiction 
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 
immigration museum within a facility of the National Park Service (July 
8, 2004, p. 5348).

  (m) Committee on Natural Resources.



Sec. 731. Natural Resources.

      (1)  Fisheries and wildlife, 
including research, restoration, refuges, and conservation.


      (2) Forest reserves and national parks created from the public 
domain.

      (3) Forfeiture of land grants and alien ownership, including alien 
ownership of mineral lands.

      (4) Geological Survey.

      (5) International fishing agreements.

      (6) Interstate compacts relating to apportionment 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 relating to 
claims that are paid out of Native American funds.

      (9) Insular areas 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 Columbia, and the erection of monuments to the memory of individuals.

      (11) Mineral land laws and claims and entries thereunder.

      (12) Mineral resources of public lands.

      (13) Mining interests generally.

      (14) Mining schools and experimental stations.

      (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 Native Americans and 
Native American tribes.


      (21) Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline (except ratemaking).

  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 
committee 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 jurisdiction of the Committee on Mines and Mining, in the 
Committee on Education and Labor (now Education and the Workforce). 
Until the Reorganization 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 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 oversight functions in clause 3.

  The 104th Congress expanded the jurisdiction of the committee by: 
adding 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 subparagraph (10) to reflect the transfer of that matter from the 
Committee on House Administration; adding subparagraph (21), an 
exceptional treatment of pipeline jurisdiction otherwise vested in the 
Committee on Transportation 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 functions 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 conforming changes in 
former paragraphs (e) and (h) of clause 3 were inadvertently omitted. 
The 113th Congress amended subparagraph (9) by changing ``insular 
possessions'' to ``insular areas'' (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, 
p. 26). 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 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 commission on development of Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. as 
a national historic site (Oct. 21, 1965, p. 27803); to authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility investigation of 
potential water resource development (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 Agriculture) to 
exchange a Federal tree nursery for certain State mining patents 
touching a public domain (western) forest (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23193); 
and to transfer interest in a National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration fisheries research laboratory (Oct. 1, 2002, p. 18796). 
The Committee on National Security (now Armed Services), and not this 
committee, has jurisdiction over 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 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 committee, 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 
forfeiture of land grants to railroad and other corporations, preventing 
speculation 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 Accountability.



Sec. 732. Oversight and Accountability.

      (1)  Federal 
civil service, including intergovernmental personnel; and the status of 
officers and employees of the United States, including their 
compensation, classification, and retirement.


      (2) Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia in general 
(other than appropriations).

      (3) Federal paperwork reduction.

      (4) Government management and accounting measures generally.

      (5) Holidays and celebrations.

      (6) Overall economy, efficiency, and management of government 
operations and activities, including Federal procurement.

      (7) National archives.

      (8) Population and demography generally, including the Census.

      (9) Postal service generally, including transportation 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 
Expenditures 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), in the 110th Congress to Oversight and Government Reform (sec. 
215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19), in the 116th Congress to 
Oversight and Reform (sec. 102(f), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and 
in the 118th Congress to Oversight and Accountability (sec. 2(j), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). The former Committee on Expenditures 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 created (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 Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, assigned the 
committee jurisdiction over measures relating to the overall economy and 
efficiency of Government operations and activities, including Federal 
procurement, intergovernmental relationships, and general revenue 
sharing (the latter from the Committee on Ways and Means was stricken 
from the jurisdictional statement 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 Commission (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 excluding from the budget the Civil Service Retirement and 
Disability Fund (although this committee retains programmatic 
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 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure retains programmatic 
jurisdiction); and (3) the Committee on the Budget has additional 
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 authority, 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). In the 104th Congress the committee was also given the 
responsibility to consider and report recommendations concerning 
alternatives to commemorative legislation, although 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 recodified 
its rules in the 106th Congress, including the deletion of a redundant 
undesignated recitation of general and special oversight functions (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  The committee has exercised jurisdiction over bills: waiving 
Reorganization Plans to establish the Rural Electrification 
Administration as an independent 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 courthouse (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 countercyclical 
programs of revenue-sharing grants to State and local governments, 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 
separation 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 under the standing rules (clause 4(c)(3)) or under 
a separate order (see, e.g., sec. 3(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). 
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 domestically 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 information 
requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the 
committee. In the 118th Congress, the House required that the chair of 
the Committee on Oversight and Accountability be included as one of the 
seven members of the committee when making a request under such 
provision (sec. 3(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

  (o) Committee on Rules.



Sec. 733. Rules.

      (1)  Rules and joint rules (other than 
those relating to the Code of Official Conduct) and the order of 
business of the House.



      (2) Recesses and final adjournments of Congress.

  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 paragraph permitting the committee to sit during sessions 
of the House (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). That undesignated 
paragraph, originally designated 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 
Congress (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 Members 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 so named to the committee (see, e.g., H. 
Res. 34, 35, Jan. 30, 1985, pp. 1271, 1273).

  The subject of recesses and adjournments was formerly under the 
jurisdiction 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 
committee 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 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 transferred 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 Congressional 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 
legislative points of order and directing that the President include a 
specified matter in the budget (Feb. 13, 2001, p. 1817).



Sec. 734. Special orders of business.

  Since  1883 the 
Committee on Rules has reported special orders providing times and 
methods for consideration of individual measures or classes of measures, 
thereby enabling the House by majority 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 resolution to adopt rules for the new Congress 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.10; H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 7; 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 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 motion 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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 857-
863, infra.

  (p) Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.



Sec. 735. Science, Space, and Technology.

      (1)  All energy 
research, development, and demonstration, and projects 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 development.

      (5) Marine research.

      (6) Commercial application of energy technology.

      (7) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
standardization of weights and measures, and the metric system.

      (8) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

      (9) National Space Council.

      (10) National Science Foundation.

      (11) National Weather Service.

      (12) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.

      (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 
research and development, environmental research and development, 
nonnuclear energy research and development, and the National Weather 
Service (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 development 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 laboratories (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 jurisdictional 
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 expanded 
its jurisdiction by adding subparagraph (5), from the former Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and subparagraph (6), from the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce (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 the deletion of a 
redundant undesignated recitation of general and special oversight 
functions (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. 80).


  The committee has jurisdiction over proposals dealing with U.S. 
participation in the World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition (June 24, 
1959, p. 11810); over a resolution condemning Soviet Union internal 
exile of an 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 Committees on Armed Services and Interior and Insular 
Affairs (now Natural Resources), over bills to test the commercial 
viability of oil shale technologies 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 jurisdiction 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.



Sec. 736. Small Business.

      (1)  Assistance to and 
protection of small business, including financial aid, regulatory 
flexibility, and paperwork reduction.



      (2) Participation of small-business enterprises in Federal 
procurement and Government 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 stylistic changes were 
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
including the deletion of a redundant undesignated recitation of general 
and special oversight functions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  (r) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.



Sec. 739. Transportation and Infrastructure.

      (1)  Coast 
Guard, including lifesaving service, lighthouses, lightships, ocean 
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, including 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, maintenance, 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 courthouses, 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 improved grounds of the 
United States generally.

      (17) Public works for the benefit of navigation, including bridges 
and dams (other than international bridges and dams).

      (18) Related transportation regulatory agencies (except the 
Transportation Security Administration).

      (19) Roads and the safety thereof.

      (20) Transportation, including civil aviation, railroads, water 
transportation, transportation safety (except automobile safety and 
transportation security functions of the Department of Homeland 
Security), transportation infrastructure, transportation labor, and 
railroad retirement 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 
Committees 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 Amendments 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 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 Commission, 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), (5)-(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 
Committee on Energy and Commerce; and adding subparagraph (2) and 
inserting 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 debate) 
that may edify the reader on the jurisdictional issues surrounding the 
creation of that committee, see January 4, 2005, pp. 60-62.

  The committee has jurisdiction over proposals establishing Treasury 
revolving funds for the Southeastern and Southwestern Power 
Administrations (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 therefrom (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 Engineers 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 Interstate 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 understanding negotiated 
under the International Air Transportation Competition 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 improvement 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. 15, 1981, p. 20598). The 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (now Oversight and 
Accountability), 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 Accountability, 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 Accountability, and not this committee, 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 Accountability) 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 Institution to construct, expand, and 
renovate facilities at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum 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).

  (s) Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

      (1) Veterans' measures generally.



Sec. 740. Veterans' Affairs.

      (2)  Cemeteries of the 
United States in which veterans of any war or conflict 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 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), and was vested 
with jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Committees on World War 
Veterans' Legislation (VII, 2077); Invalid Pensions (IV, 4258); and 
Pensions (IV, 4260). Jurisdiction over veterans' cemeteries administered 
by the Department of Defense 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 committee 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 changes were 
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Technical changes to subparagraphs (6) and 
(7) were effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 
2005, p. 44).

  (t) Committee on Ways and Means.



Sec. 741. Ways and Means.

      (1)  Customs revenue, 
collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.


      (2) Reciprocal trade agreements.

      (3) Revenue measures generally.

      (4) Revenue measures relating to insular possessions.

      (5) Bonded debt of the United States, subject 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 supported 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 
Committee on Appropriations and certain other bills to the Committee on 
Banking 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.

  By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, 
the committee gained legislative jurisdiction over tax exempt 
foundations and charitable trusts (subpara. (8)), formerly within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency (now Financial 
Services) because of their impact on the economy, while it was released 
from: jurisdiction over health care and facilities programs supported 
from general revenues to the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 
jurisdiction over work incentive programs to the Committee on Education 
and Labor (now Education and the Workforce); and jurisdiction over 
renegotiation to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
(now Financial Services) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 
34470). The Committee Reform Amendments also transferred jurisdiction 
over general revenue sharing from this committee to the Committee on 
Government Operations (now Oversight and Accountability); however, 
revenue sharing was stricken from the jurisdictional statement of that 
committee in the 104th Congress (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 Security (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 resulted 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. 60-62.

  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 exemplified 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 jurisdiction 
(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 Indian property (Feb. 1, 1964, p. 1582), providing 
unemployment compensation 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 Infrastructure, and not this committee, 
has jurisdiction over a bill to designate a customs administrative 
building (Dec. 12, 1995, p. 36165). The Committee on the Budget, and not 
this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill establishing a rule of 
sequestration under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 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 Public 
Works and Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastructure), over 
executive communications proposing draft legislation reauthorizing 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 (succeeded by 
the Committee on Natural Resources) over a bill amending the Fishermen's 
Protective Act to authorize the President to prohibit the importation of 
any product from a country violating an international fishery 
conservation program (Mar. 21, 1989, p. 5077); and with three other 
committees over a bill imposing certain international economic sanctions 
including tariffs (May 27, 1992, p. 12658).


General oversight responsibilities
  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).



742. General oversight.

  2. (a)  The various standing 
committees shall have general oversight responsibilities as provided in 
paragraph (b) in order to assist the House in--


      (1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of--

          (A) the application, administration, execution, and 
effectiveness of Federal laws; and

          (B) conditions and circumstances that may indicate the 
necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional legislation; and

      (2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of changes in 
Federal laws, and of such additional legislation as may be necessary or 
appropriate.

  (b)(1) In order to determine whether laws and programs addressing 
subjects within the jurisdiction 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 
committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) shall review and 
study on a continuing basis--

      (A) the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness 
of laws and programs addressing subjects within its jurisdiction;

      (B) the organization and operation of Federal agencies and 
entities having responsibilities 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 
addressing subjects within its jurisdiction (whether or not a bill or 
resolution has been introduced with respect thereto); and

      (D) future research and forecasting on subjects within its 
jurisdiction.



Sec. 743. Oversight subcommittees.

  (2)  Each committee to 
which subparagraph (1) applies having more than 20 members shall 
establish an oversight subcommittee, or require its subcommittees to 
conduct oversight in their respective jurisdictions, to assist in 
carrying out its responsibilities under this clause. The establishment 
of an oversight subcommittee does not limit the responsibility of a 
subcommittee with legislative jurisdiction in carrying out its oversight 
responsibilities.


  (c) Each standing committee shall review and study on a continuing 
basis the impact or probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects 
within its jurisdiction as described in clauses 1 and 3.

  (d)(1) Not later than March 1 of the first session of a Congress, each 
standing committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations, the 
Committee on Ethics, and the Committee on Rules) shall, in a meeting 
that is open to the public, adopt its authorization and oversight plan 
for that Congress. Such plan shall be submitted simultaneously to the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Committee on House 
Administration.

  (2) Each such plan shall include, with respect to programs and 
agencies within the committee's jurisdiction, and to the maximum extent 
practicable--

      (A) a list of such programs or agencies with lapsed authorizations 
that received funding in the prior fiscal year or, in the case of a 
program or agency with a permanent authorization, which has not been 
subject to a comprehensive review by the committee in the prior three 
Congresses;

      (B) a description of each such program or agency to be authorized 
in the current Congress;

      (C) a description of each such program or agency to be authorized 
in the next Congress, if applicable;

      (D) a description of any oversight to support the authorization of 
each such program or agency in the current Congress; and

      (E) recommendations for changes to existing law for moving such 
programs or agencies from mandatory funding to discretionary 
appropriations, where appropriate.

  (3) Each such plan may include, with respect to the programs and 
agencies within the committee's jurisdiction--

      (A) recommendations for the consolidation or termination of such 
programs or agencies that are duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent 
with the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the Federal 
Government;

      (B) recommendations for changes to existing law related to Federal 
rules, regulations, statutes, and court decisions affecting such 
programs and agencies that are inconsistent with the authorities of the 
Congress under Article I of the Constitution; and

      (C) a description of such other oversight activities as the 
committee may consider necessary.

  (4) In the development of such plan, the chair of each committee shall 
coordinate with other committees of jurisdiction to ensure that programs 
and agencies are subject to routine, comprehensive authorization 
efforts.

  (5) Not later than April 15 in the first session of a Congress, after 
consultation with the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority 
Leader, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability shall report to 
the House the authorization and oversight plans submitted by committees 
under subparagraph (1) together with any recommendations that it, or the 
House leadership group described above, may make to ensure the most 
effective coordination of authorization and 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.


Special oversight functions
  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 jurisdiction, were originally contained in section 118(b) of 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and were made 
part of the standing rules on January 22, 1971 (H. Res. 5, p. 144). 
Effective January 3, 1975, general oversight responsibilities 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 oversight 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 Accountability) 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 convening of the first session was deleted (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6). Beginning in the 104th Congress, paragraph 
(d) required that each standing committee adopt by February 15 of the 
first session of a Congress its oversight plans for that Congress. Such 
plans were to be submitted to the Committees on Government Reform and 
Oversight (now Oversight and Accountability) and House Oversight (now 
House Administration), and consideration of resolutions funding each 
committee were contingent on submission of its oversight plans to the 
committees specified (sec. 203(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467). 
That restriction was repealed in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). The paragraph was re-written entirely in the 115th 
Congress to expand the focus of the oversight plan to include 
authorization of programs and agencies within a committee's 
jurisdiction, to exclude the Committees on Appropriations, Ethics, and 
Rules, and to add the Committee on Appropriations as a recipient (sec. 
2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 36). It was again re-written entirely 
in the 116th Congress to delay the submission deadlines in paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (d)(3), to remove the focus on authorization of programs and 
agencies, to require that committee chairs, rather than the committees 
themselves, bear responsibility for the preparation and submission of 
the plans, and to remove the Committee on Appropriations as a recipient 
(sec. 102(i), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p1. _). In the 118th Congress, 
the rule was largely restored to its form during the 115th Congress 
except that the Committee on Appropriations was not restored as a 
recipient of the plans, and the deadline for submission of the plans 
remained as it had been since the 116th Congress (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). Before such revisions, various amendments to 
paragraph (d) were effected in the 106th (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 
47), 107th (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25), 109th (sec. 
2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, pp. 42, 43), 110th (sec. 215(b), H. Res. 
6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19), and 112th Congresses (sec. 2(c)(11), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Following such revisions, paragraph (d)(2)(F) was 
added in the 117th Congress to direct committee chairs, in forming the 
plans, to prioritize issues of inequity (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 
2021, p. _). Paragraph (e) was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 203(a), 
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467).



744. Special oversight.

  3.  (a) The Committee on 
Appropriations shall conduct such studies and examinations of the 
organization and operation of executive departments and other executive 
agencies (including an agency the majority of the stock of which is 
owned by the United States) as it considers necessary to assist it in 
the determination of matters within its jurisdiction.


  (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 outlays 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 Government 
activities relating to domestic educational programs and institutions 
and programs of student 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 relating to 
nuclear and other energy and nonmilitary nuclear energy research and 
development including the disposal of nuclear waste.

  (f) The Committee on Foreign Affairs shall review and study on a 
continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to 
customs administration, intelligence activities relating to foreign 
policy, international financial and monetary organizations, and 
international fishing agreements.

  (g)(1) The Committee on Homeland Security shall review and study on a 
continuing basis all Government activities relating to homeland 
security, including the interaction of all departments 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 organizations 
related to homeland security that fall within 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 Accountability shall review and 
study on a continuing basis the operation of Government activities at 
all levels, including the Executive Office of the President.

  (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 continuing 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.


  (m) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence shall review and 
study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and activities of the 
intelligence 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 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 300). Paragraph 
(e) (formerly paragraph (h)) was added on January 4, 1977, upon the 
abolition of the legislative 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 Accountability 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 adopted 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 Control 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. 80; H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. 
_). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including the transfer to 
this clause of oversight functions of the Committees on Oversight and 
Accountability 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 Homeland 
Security was established in the 109th Congress and given the oversight 
authority set forth in paragraph (g)(1) (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 
2005, p. 42). Paragraph (g)(2) was added in the 111th Congress (sec. 
2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Paragraph (i) was revised in the 
116th Congress to clarify the inclusion of the Executive Office of the 
President under the special oversight authority of the Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability (sec. 102(k), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. 
_).


Additional functions of committees
  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 Congress to provide that the Speaker, the Majority and Minority 
Leaders, and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
House Administration 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 Congress (sec. 201(d), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). In 
the 114th Congress, the House established a select investigative panel 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to be chaired by a member of 
that committee and to be composed of additional members appointed by the 
Speaker (six upon recommendation of the Minority Leader) who would be 
treated as though members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce during 
their service on the panel (H. Res. 461, Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15847-48).



745. Committee on Appropriations; budget 
hearings.

  4.  (a)(1)(A) The Committee on Appropriations shall, within 30 
days after the transmittal of the Budget to Congress each year, hold 
hearings on the Budget as a whole with particular reference to--


      (i) the basic recommendations and budgetary policies of the 
President in the presentation of the Budget; and

      (ii) the fiscal, financial, and economic assumptions 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 of the Council of 
Economic Advisers, and such other persons as the committee may desire.



Sec. 746. Procedure for budget hearings.

  (C)  A hearing under 
subdivision (A), or any part thereof, shall be held in open session, 
except when the committee, in open session and with a quorum present, 
determines by record vote that the testimony to be taken at that hearing 
on that day may be related to a matter of national security. The 
committee may by the same procedure close one subsequent day of hearing. 
A transcript of all such hearings shall be printed and a copy thereof 
furnished to each Member, Delegate, and the Resident 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 
Appropriations of the Senate in accordance with such procedures as the 
two committees jointly may determine.


-  (2) <> Pursuant to section 401(b)(2) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, when a committee reports a bill or 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 
instructions to report it with recommendations (which may include an 
amendment limiting the total amount of new entitlement authority 
provided in the bill or joint resolution). If the Committee 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 
resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
  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 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 117th Congress (sec. 
2(e)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

  (3) In addition, the Committee on Appropriations 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 authority or permanent budget authority and 
shall report to the House from time to time its recommendations for 
terminating or modifying such provisions.


  (4) In the manner provided by section 302 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, the Committee 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), 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 originally 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 changes were 
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
including the transfer of former paragraph (h) to this paragraph as new 
subparagraph (4) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).




Sec. 747a. Former Select Intelligence Oversight 
Panel.

  A former  subparagraph (5) added in the 110th Congress established a 
Select Intelligence Oversight Panel of the Committee on Appropriations 
to review budget requests for and 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. 80).


  (b) The Committee on the Budget shall--



Sec. 748. Budget.

      (1)  review on a continuing basis the 
conduct by the Congressional Budget Office of its functions and duties;


      (2) hold hearings and receive testimony from Members, Senators, 
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and such appropriate 
representatives of Federal departments and agencies, the general public, 
and national organizations 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;

      (4) study on a continuing basis those provisions of law that 
exempt Federal agencies or any of their activities or outlays from 
inclusion in the Budget of the United States Government, and report to 
the House from time to time its recommendations for terminating or 
modifying such provisions;

      (5) study on a continuing basis proposals designed to improve and 
facilitate the congressional 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 coordinating tax expenditures, policies, and programs 
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 
enactment of section 101(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 
Stat. 300). Subparagraph (2), contained in section 301(d) of that Act, 
subparagraph (3), subparagraph (4), contained in section 606 of that 
Act, and subparagraph (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).



Sec. 749. Oversight and Accountability.

  (c)(1)  The Committee 
on Oversight and Accountability shall--


      (A) receive and examine reports of the Comptroller General of the 
United States and submit to the House such recommendations as it 
considers necessary or desirable in connection 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 subparagraph (1), the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability may at any time conduct 
investigations of any matter without regard to clause 1, 2, 3, or this 
clause conferring jurisdiction 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 committee 
having jurisdiction over the matter involved.

  Paragraph (c)(1) became effective January 2, 1947, as part of the 
Legislative 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 findings 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. In the 118th Congress, the House required 
that the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability be 
included as one of the seven members of the committee when making a 
request under such provision (sec. 3(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).



Sec. 749a. Deposition authority.

  (3)(A)  The Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability may adopt a rule authorizing and regulating 
the taking 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; 
and

      (ii) shall ensure that the minority members and staff of the 
committee are accorded equitable treatment with respect to notice of and 
a reasonable opportunity to participate in any proceeding conducted 
thereunder.


  (C) Information secured pursuant to the authority described in 
subdivision (A) shall retain the character of discovery until offered 
for admission 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)). A requirement that a 
member of the committee attend the deposition was added in the 112th 
Congress (sec. 2(e)(14), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80) and removed in 
the 116th Congress (sec. 102(l), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Other 
committees have been granted such authority generally (sec. 3(b), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35 (extended for second session by H. Res. 579, 
Jan. 6, 2016, pp. 45, 46); sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38 
(with expanded circumstances under which a deposition may take place 
without a member of the committee present); sec. 103(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 
3, 2019, p. _ (removing the requirement that a member of the committee 
attend the deposition); sec. 3(b), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _); sec. 
3(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _ (clarifying permitted attendees, 
including attorneys for the deponent) or for specific investigations 
(Dec. 5, 2007, p. 32250; sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10; May 
20, 2010, p. 8758), including a select panel of a standing committee (H. 
Res. 461, Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15847-48).



Sec. 750. House Administration.

  (d)(1)  The Committee on 
House Administration shall--




Sec. 752. Direction of officers.

  (A)  provide policy 
direction for the Chief Administrative Officer, the Inspector General, 
the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and the Office of the 
Whistleblower Ombuds and oversight of the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief 
Administrative Officer, Inspector General, Office of Diversity and 
Inclusion, and Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds;


  (B) oversee the management of services provided to the House by the 
Architect of the Capitol, except those services that lie within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under 
clause 1(r);



Sec. 753. Acceptance of gifts.

  (C)  have the function of 
accepting on behalf of the House a gift, except as otherwise provided by 
law, if the gift does not involve a duty, burden, or condition, or is 
not made dependent on some future performance by the House;


  (D) promulgate regulations to carry out subdivision (C); and

  (E) establish and maintain standards for making documents publicly 
available in electronic form by the House and its committees.




Sec. 754. Approval of certain settlements.

  (2)  An employing 
office of the House may enter into a settlement of a complaint under the 
Congressional Accountability 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 Administration 
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 
committee 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 
provisions were added by section 10 of the House Administrative Reform 
Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, 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 officers. 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), but 
policy direction for the Chief Administrative Officer was restored in 
the 114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). 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. 7). In the 112th Congress subparagraph (1)(E) was 
added (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). In the 117th Congress 
subparagraph (1)(A) was amended to reflect the establishment of the 
Office of Diversity and Inclusion and the Office of the Whistleblower 
Ombuds (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). The 104th Congress 
also prohibited the establishment or continuation of any legislative 
service organization (as that term had been understood in the 103d 
Congress) and directed the Committee 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), but the 114th through 118th Congresses authorized the 
payment of salaries and expenses by certain similar groups (called 
``Congressional Member Organizations'') that had registered with the 
Committee on House Administration during the previous Congress (sec. 
3(p), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 37; sec. 3(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2017, p. 39; sec. 103(p), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(o), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; sec. 3(w), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). 
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 
107th Congress transferred the committee'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).



Sec. 755. Annual appropriations.

  (e)(1)  Each standing 
committee shall, in its consideration of all public bills and public 
joint resolutions within its jurisdiction, ensure that appropriations 
for continuing programs and activities of the Federal Government and the 
government of the District of Columbia will be made annually to the 
maximum extent feasible and consistent with the nature, requirement, and 
objective of the programs and activities involved. In this subparagraph 
programs and activities of the Federal Government and the government of 
the District of Columbia includes programs and activities of any 
department, agency, establishment, wholly owned Government corporation, 
or instrumentality of the Federal Government or of the government 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 program should be modified to 
provide for annual appropriations.


Budget Act responsibilities
  The provisions of this paragraph derive from section 253(c) of the 
Legislative 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 and stylistic changes were effected when the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 
47).



756. Concurrent resolution on Budget.

  (f)(1)  Each standing 
committee shall submit to the Committee on the Budget not later than six 
weeks after the submission 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 
year that are within its jurisdiction or functions; 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 fiscal year.


  (2) The views and estimates submitted by the Committee on Ways and 
Means under subparagraph (1) shall include a specific recommendation, 
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.


Election and membership of standing committees
  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 recommendation 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 submitting views and 
estimates to the Committee on the Budget 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 directing 
standing committees to submit reconciliation recommendations to the 
Committee on the Budget was deleted in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), but committees are still required to submit such 
recommendations under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House 
recodified its 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 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), 
repealed in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(d)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, 
p. 80), reinstated with modifications in the 116th Congress (sec. 
102(jj), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and repealed again in the 118th 
Congress (sec. 2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). A gender-based 
reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).




757. Electing committees.

  5.  (a)(1) The standing committees 
specified in clause 1 shall be elected by the 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 caucus (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 standing 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 resolutions to the House electing Members to 
committees is discussed in detail in Deschler, ch. 17, Sec. 9 (see also 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 8). In the 99th Congress the 
requirement for election of standing committees within the first seven 
calendar days and the conferral 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).



Sec. 758. Budget, composition of.

  (2)  The Committee on the 
Budget shall be composed of members as follows:


      (A) 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;

      (B) one Member designated by the elected leadership of the 
majority party; and


      (C) one Member designated by the elected leadership of the 
minority party.

  This paragraph (formerly clause 1(d) of rule X) was amended in the 
96th Congress to relax the limitation on Members' service on the 
Committee on the Budget to three Congresses (from two) in any period of 
five successive Congresses, to exempt representatives from the party 
leaderships from the limitation, and to permit an incumbent chair who 
had served on the committee 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 period of five successive 
Congresses'' as a measure of permissible terms of 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 Congress 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. 7). 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 116th Congress, the term limits in 
subdivision (B) and the accompanying exemptions in subdivision (C) were 
repealed (sec. 102(m)(1), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).

  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 
leaderships (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 Congress, the House amended this paragraph to remove any numerical 
limitation 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).


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 1(d) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).



Sec. 759. Committee on Ethics.

  (3)(A)  The Committee on 
Ethics shall be composed of 10 members, five from the 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 Congresses (disregarding for 
this purpose any service 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 or fifth 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, Delegates, 
or the Resident Commissioner from the respective party of such 
individual who are not members of the Committee on Ethics to be 
available to serve on investigative subcommittees of that committee 
during that Congress. The lists of Members, Delegates, or the Resident 
Commissioner so named shall be announced to the House.


  (B) Whenever the chair and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ethics jointly determine that Members, Delegates, or the 
Resident Commissioner named under subdivision (A) should be assigned to 
serve on an investigative subcommittee of that committee, each of them 
shall select an equal number of such Members, 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 
Committee 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 sentence to limit service on the committee (P.L. 101-194, 
Nov. 30, 1989), which was amended in the 105th, 106th, and 117th 
Congresses (sec. 2, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19336; H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; sec. 2(n)(1), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 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). Subparagraph (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. 7). This 
subparagraph was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect a change in 
committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). 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).



Sec. 760. Party membership as basis for election.

  (b)(1) Membership on a standing committee during the course of 
a  Congress 
shall be contingent on continuing membership in 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 basis of nomination by that caucus or conference. 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 conference. 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 Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner may not serve simultaneously as a member of more 
than two standing committees or more than four subcommittees of the 
standing committees.

  (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 ``subcommittee'' includes a panel 
(other than a special oversight panel of the Committee on Armed 
Services), task force, special subcommittee, or other subunit of a 
standing committee that is established 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 committee 
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 Committee on Ethics (formerly Standards of Official 
Conduct) from the limitation 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. 80). 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 were eliminated in the 
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).


  The Speaker lays before the House communications relative to the 
removal 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; July 9, 2019, p. _; Jan. 7, 2020, p. _; Dec. 15, 2020, p. _). The 
Speaker may also lay before the House a communication from a Member 
announcing 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 
informational 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 assignments for third-party Members (VIII, 2184-2185). On some 
occasions, the majority party takes that responsibility by separate 
resolution (see, e.g., H. Res. 45, Jan. 24, 1991, p. 2171).




Sec. 761. Committee chairs.

  (c)  One of the members of each 
standing committee shall be elected by the 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 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.


  The requirement that nominations for chairs be submitted by the 
majority 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. 9). 
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 Committee 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. 7), the 112th 
Congress restored it (sec. 2(e)(12), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), 
and the 116th Congress repealed it again (sec. 102(m)(2), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). 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 
incidental 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; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 8.2). 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 ordered by the 
House (H. Res. 396, Mar. 23, 1994, p. 6093). Upon the resignation of a 
chair, the acting chair assumes that role without further action of the 
House (Mar. 3, 2010, p. 2344). The Chair has refused to respond to a 
parliamentary inquiry seeking hypothetical guidance on how a Member, 
having resigned as chair of a committee, could be reinstated in that 
role (Mar. 3, 2010, p. 2344). A Member may resign the role of acting 
chair (Mar. 4, 2010, p. 2573), in which case the member third in rank 
assumes the role of acting chair (Mar. 4, 2010, p. 2589).


  In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a provision, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, to clarify that 
remote participation by the chair was not considered ``absence'' for 
purposes of this paragraph and clause 2(d) of rule XI (sec. 4(c)(1), H. 
Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).



Sec. 762. Requirement for subcommittees.

  (d)(1)  Except as 
permitted by subparagraph (2), a committee may have not more than five 
subcommittees.


  (2)(A) A committee that maintains a subcommittee on oversight may have 
not more than six subcommittees.

  (B) The Committee on Agriculture may have not more than six 
subcommittees.

  (C) The Committee on Appropriations may have not more than 13 
subcommittees.

  (D) The Committee on Armed Services may have not more than seven 
subcommittees.

  (E) The Committee on Foreign Affairs may have not more than seven 
subcommittees.

  (F) The Committee on Oversight and Accountability may have not more 
than seven subcommittees.


  (G) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may have not 
more than six 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 
committees 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 and 116th Congresses it was amended to reflect a 
change in the name of a committee (sec. 215(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, 
p. 19; sec. 102(f), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 115th 
Congress, subparagraph (2) was amended to codify exceptions for the 
Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Transportation and 
Infrastructure (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37) that had been 
carried as separate orders for several Congresses. For citation to such 
separate orders, see Sec. 762 of the House Rules and Manual for the 
114th Congress (H. Doc. 113-181). In the 118th Congress, subparagraph 
(2) was amended to codify an exception for the Committee on Agriculture 
that had been carried as a separate order for several Congresses (sec. 
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). For citation to such separate 
orders, see Sec. 762 of the House Rules and Manual for the 117th 
Congress (H. Doc. 116-177). 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 paragraph (d), the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability 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), and the 
Committee on Financial Services was permitted to have not more than 
seven during the 116th Congress (sec. 103(h), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, 
p. _). 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 Security and combining the subcommittees on Transportation and 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. That committee reduced 
the number of its subcommittees to 10 in the 109th Congress, and 
increased it to 12 in the 110th Congress.


  (e) The House shall fill a vacancy on a standing 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 District of Columbia, Government Operations, Un-
American Activities, or House Administration could be elected to serve 
on not more than two standing committees. It was restored to its 
original form by amendment on January 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 Sec. 760, supra). Party caucuses or conferences have also placed 
restrictions on committee assignments. The role of the respective party 
caucus or conference in making nominations 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).


Expense resolutions
  The House by unanimous consent fixed the relative rank of two Members 
on 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 
committee (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).



763. Primary expense resolution.

  6.  (a) Whenever a 
committee, commission, or other entity (other than the Committee on 
Appropriations) is granted authorization for the payment of its expenses 
(including staff salaries) for a Congress, such authorization initially 
shall be procured by one primary expense resolution reported by the 
Committee on House Administration. A primary expense resolution may 
include a reserve fund for unanticipated expenses of committees. An 
amount from such a reserve fund may be allocated to a committee only by 
the approval of the Committee on House Administration. A primary expense 
resolution reported to <> the House 
may not be considered in the House unless a 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 
resolution for all anticipated activities and programs 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 
anticipated activities and programs of the committee, commission, or 
other entity as may be appropriate to provide the House with basic 
estimates of the expenditures contemplated by the primary expense 
resolution.



Sec. 765. 
Additional expense resolution.

  (b) After the date of adoption by the House  of a primary expense resolution for a 
committee, commission, or other entity for a Congress, authorization for 
the payment of additional expenses (including staff salaries) in that 
Congress may be procured by one or more supplemental expense resolutions 
reported by the Committee on House Administration, as necessary. A 
supplemental expense resolution reported to the House may not be 
considered in the House unless a report thereon 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, commission, or other entity under the supplemental 
expense resolution and the purposes for which those additional funds are 
available; and

      (2) state the reasons for the failure to procure 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--



Sec. 766. Exception for certain initial 
funding.

      (1) a  resolution providing for the payment from committee salary 
and expense accounts of the House of sums necessary to pay compensation 
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 standing committees in a 
Congress additional office equipment, airmail and special-delivery 
postage stamps, supplies, staff personnel, or any other specific item 
for the operation of the standing committees, and containing an 
authorization for the payment from committee salary and expense accounts 
of the House of the expenses of any of the foregoing items provided 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 travel expenses, was made contingent upon adoption by the 
House of resolutions 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 rather 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 to permit a primary expense 
resolution to include a reserve fund for unanticipated expenses of 
committees (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). A technical correction to 
paragraphs (a) and (b) was effected in the 106th Congress to conform 
references to a renamed committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In 
the 117th Congress this clause was amended to facilitate electronic 
availability of reports on expense resolutions (sec. 2(h)(1), H. Res. 8, 
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 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 Congress.


  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 referred 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).




Sec. 767. Funds for committee staffs; expense 
resolutions.

  (d)  From the funds made available for the appointment of 
committee staff by a primary or additional expense resolution, the chair 
of each committee shall ensure that sufficient staff is made available 
to each subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities 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). Before the House recodified its rules in 
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(d) of 
rule X (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. 
7).


  (e) Funds authorized for a committee under this clause and clauses 7 
and 8 are for expenses incurred in the activities of the committee.


Interim funding
  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 2(n)(1) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 
6, 1999, p. 47).



768. Interim funding.

  7. (a)  For the period beginning at 
noon on January 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 accounts of the House for continuance of 
necessary investigations and studies by--


      (1) each standing and select committee established 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 Congress, amounts shall be 
made available for a select 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 termination of funding for investigations and 
studies by such select committee.

  (c) Each committee described in paragraph (a) shall be entitled for 
each month during the period 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 involved, signed by the chair of the committee, except 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 concerned in that 
Congress, payments under this clause shall be made on vouchers signed by 
the ranking member of the committee as it was constituted at the 
expiration of the preceding Congress who is a member of the majority 
party in the present Congress.

  (f)(1) The authority of a committee to incur expenses under this 
clause shall expire upon adoption by the House of a primary expense 
resolution for the committee.

  (2) Amounts made available under this clause shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.


  (3) This clause shall be effective only insofar as it is not 
inconsistent with a resolution reported by the Committee on House 
Administration and adopted by the House after the adoption 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 convening of Congress before the adoption of this standing 
authority. In the 100th Congress, the provision was amended to make the 
automatic committee funding mechanism applicable to the first three 
months of the second 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 committee (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. 7). 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).


Travel
  At its organization the 104th Congress suspended the operation of 
paragraph (f) in favor of special provisions for interim funding in 
light of its abolishment of three standing committees, its reduction in 
the overall number of committee staff, and its institution of biennial 
primary expense resolutions (sec. 101(c)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 
462). The House by unanimous consent has agreed to a resolution 
providing funding for interim expenses of a new select committee (Feb. 
13, 2003, p. 3793) and a new standing committee (Jan. 4, 2005, p. 71). 
The House has adopted a special order of business extending the period 
for interim funding under paragraph (a) (sec. 10, H. Res. 233, Mar. 16, 
2021, p. _).



769. Committee travel.

  8. (a)  Local currencies owned by the 
United States shall be made available to the committee and its employees 
engaged in carrying out their official duties outside the United States 
or its territories or possessions. Appropriated funds, including those 
authorized under this clause and clause 6, may not be expended for the 
purpose of defraying expenses of members of a committee or its employees 
in a country where local currencies are available 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 reimbursed 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 during that day.



Sec. 770. Travel reports.

      (3)  Each member or employee of 
a committee 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 summarize 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.


  (c)(1) In carrying out the activities of a committee outside the 
United States in a country where local currencies are unavailable, a 
member 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 Federal 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 employee 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 connection with its investigations and studies, and certain 
committees were authorized 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 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 
references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (secs. 2(l), 2(m), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).


Committee staffs
  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 standing or select committees when authorized by the chair thereof, 
and by other Members or employees when authorized by the Speaker. 
Consolidated committee reports prepared on a quarterly basis, and 
individual reports required within 30 days after the travel involved, 
must be forwarded to the Clerk of the House and published in the 
Congressional Record.



771. Thirty professional staff.

  9.  (a)(1) Subject to 
subparagraph (2) and paragraph (f), each standing committee may appoint, 
by majority vote, not more than 30 professional staff members to be 
compensated from the funds provided for the appointment of committee 
staff by primary and additional expense resolutions. Each professional 
staff <> member appointed under this 
subparagraph shall be assigned to the chair and the ranking minority 
member of the committee, as the committee considers advisable.





Sec. 773. Minority.

  (2)  Subject to paragraph (f) whenever a 
majority of the minority party members of a standing committee (other 
than the Committee on Ethics or the Permanent Select 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 professional staff 
members under subparagraph (1). The committee shall appoint persons so 
selected whose character and qualifications are acceptable to a majority 
of the committee. If the committee determines that the character and 
qualifications of a person so selected are unacceptable, 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 subparagraph shall 
be assigned to such committee business as the minority party members of 
the committee 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 Appropriations and specifically provided for clerical staff, and 
which was incorporated 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 omitted 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, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). The 
requirement added in 1975 that staff positions made available to 
subcommittee chairs and ranking minority members pursuant to former 
provisions of clause 5 of rule XI be provided from staff positions 
available under this clause unless provided in a primary or additional 
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 Committee on 
Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct) (H. Res. 58, Mar. 1, 
1983, p. 3241). The 101st Congress added an exemption for the Committee 
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-based reference was eliminated in the 111th 
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Subparagraph (2) 
was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect a change in committee name 
(sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). 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).

  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).




Sec. 774. Consultants and training.

  Committees  may, with the 
approval of the Committee on House Administration, procure the temporary 
or intermittent services of consultants and obtain specialized training 
for professional staff, subject to expense resolutions, under the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, sections 303 and 304 (2 U.S.C. 
4301(i) and (j)).




Sec. 775. Staff duties.

  (b)(1)  The professional staff 
members of each standing committee--


      (A) may not engage in any work other than committee business 
during congressional working hours; and

      (B) may not be assigned a duty other than one pertaining to 
committee business.



Sec. 776. ``Associate'' or ``shared'' staff.

  (2)(A) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to staff designated by a 
committee  as 
``associate'' or ``shared'' staff who are not paid exclusively by the 
committee, provided that the chair certifies that the compensation 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 established by, 
the Committee on House Administration 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 Congress, 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 Appropriations 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 in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). 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).




Sec. 777. Pay.

  (c)  Each employee on the professional or 
investigative staff of a standing committee shall be entitled to pay at 
a 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 maximum 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. 4532), the maximum salary for 
staff members is now set by pay order of the Speaker. At the beginning 
of the 101st Congress, references to particular 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 ``clerical'' staff (sec. 
101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). A gender-based reference 
was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2009, p. 7). 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).




Sec. 778. Staff, Committee on Appropriations.

  (d)  Subject to 
appropriations hereby authorized, the Committee on Appropriations may 
appoint by majority vote such staff as it determines to be necessary (in 
addition to the clerk of the committee and assistants for the minority). 
The staff appointed under this paragraph, other than minority 
assistants, 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 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 330). The reference to 
that committee was inadvertently omitted by the 93d Congress (H. Res. 
988, Oct. 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 Committee on the Budget (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 
1995, p. 462). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6(d) of rule XI (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).




Sec. 779. Detailed employees.

  (e)  A committee may not 
appoint to its staff an expert or other personnel detailed or assigned 
from a department or agency of the Government except with the written 
permission of the Committee on House Administration.



  This paragraph was contained in section 202(f) of the Legislative 
Reorganization 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 minority 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 additional 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 
appointed 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 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 pursuant to an expense resolution 
described in clause 6(a), shall be accorded equitable treatment 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 authorize the appointment of 
additional professional 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 
paragraph (a)(1) who are satisfactory to a majority of the minority 
party members are otherwise assigned 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 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). 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 Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24), and 
conforming changes 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. 80).




Sec. 780. Nonpartisan staff.

  (i)  Notwithstanding paragraph 
(a)(2), a committee may employ nonpartisan 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 majority 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) (formerly 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 elimination 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 its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6(i) of rule XI (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).


Select and joint committees


Sec. 781. Former reports on staff.

  Effective  in the 95th 
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70), former clause 6(j) of 
rule XI, which was added on January 3, 1953 (p. 24) and which was 
contained in section 134(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1945, was deleted; that clause required committees to report 
semiannually to the Clerk on the names, professions, and salaries of 
committee employees.





782. Party membership as basis for 
appointment.

  10. (a)  Membership on a select or joint committee appointed by 
the Speaker under clause 11 of rule I during the course of a Congress 
shall be contingent on continuing membership in the party caucus or 
conference of which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 
concerned was a member at the time of appointment. Should a Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner cease to be a member of that caucus 
or conference, 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 
Commissioner ceases to be a member of a party caucus 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 Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before 
the House recodified 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).




Sec. 783. Select and joint committee compliance.

  (b)  Each 
select or joint committee, other than a conference committee, shall 
comply with clause 2(a) of rule XI unless specifically exempted by law.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph 
(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).


Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence


Sec. 784. Aging.

  A  paragraph (i) of former clause 6 of rule 
X was incorporated into the rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), to provide for a permanent 
select committee on aging. That provision was stricken in the 103d 
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49).




785. Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.

  11. (a)(1) There is  established a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
(hereafter in this clause referred to as the ``select committee''). The 
select committee shall be composed of not more than 25 Members, 
Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, of whom not more than 14 may be 
from the same party. The select committee shall include at least one 
Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner from each of the 
following 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 determining 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, hearings, briefings, and materials as employees of the select 
committee and subject to the same security clearance and confidentiality 
requirements as employees of the select committee under this clause.

  (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 committee 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 Resident Commissioner 
appointed to serve as the chair or the ranking minority member of the 
select committee, tenure on the select committee shall not be limited.

  (b)(1) There shall be referred to the select committee proposed 
legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating 
to the following:

      (A) 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.

      (B) Intelligence and intelligence-related activities of all other 
departments and agencies of the Government, including the tactical 
intelligence 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 reorganization 
relates to a function or activity involving intelligence or 
intelligence-related activities.

      (D) Authorizations for appropriations, both direct and indirect, 
for the following:

          (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 agencies of the Government, including the tactical 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities 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 solely 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 committee that contains matter within the 
jurisdiction 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 authority of any other committee to study and 
review an intelligence or intelligence-related activity to the extent 
that such activity directly affects a matter otherwise within the 
jurisdiction of that committee.

  (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 intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities of a department 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 committee 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 consistent with paragraph (g) to 
protect national security.

  (2) The select committee shall obtain annual reports from the Director 
of National Intelligence, 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 intelligence 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 the discretion of the select committee. 
Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the public disclosure in 
such reports of the names of persons engaged in intelligence or 
intelligence-related activities for the United States or the divulging 
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-related activities.

  (3) Within six weeks after the President submits a budget under 
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, or at such time as the 
Committee on the Budget may request, the select committee shall submit 
to the Committee on the Budget the views and estimates described in 
section 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 evidence, 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.

  (e) An employee of the select committee, or a person engaged by 
contract or otherwise to perform services for or at the request of the 
select committee, may not be given access to any classified 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 security of classified information 
during and after the period of the employment or contractual agreement 
of such employee or person with the select committee; and

      (2) received an appropriate security clearance, as determined by 
the select committee in consultation with the Director of National 
Intelligence, that is commensurate with the sensitivity 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 considers necessary to prevent the disclosure, without 
the consent of each person concerned, of information in the possession 
of the select committee 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 disclosing 
classified information in a case in which it determines that national 
interest in the disclosure of classified information clearly outweighs 
any infringement on the privacy of a person.

  (g)(1) The select committee may disclose publicly any information in 
its possession after a determination by the select committee that the 
public interest would be served by such disclosure. With respect to the 
disclosure of information 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 except 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 President unless, before the 
expiration of the five-day period, the President, personally in writing, 
notifies the select committee that the President objects to the 
disclosure of such information, provides reasons therefor, and certifies 
that the 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 disclosure.

  (C) If the President, personally in writing, notifies the select 
committee of objections to the disclosure of information as provided in 
subdivision (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 publicly disclose 
such information without leave of the House.

  (D) Whenever the select committee votes to refer the question of 
disclosure of any information 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 subdivision 
(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 Commissioner. In either case such a motion shall be decided 
without debate or intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.

  (F) Upon adoption by the House of a motion to resolve into closed 
session as described in subdivision (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 session, shall be, ``Shall the 
House approve the recommendation of the select committee?''.

  (G) Debate on the question described in subdivision (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 considered 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 respect to which 
the vote is taken. If the recommendation of the select committee is not 
approved, then the question is considered as recommitted to the select 
committee for further recommendation.

  (3)(A) Information in the possession of the select 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 provided in 
subdivision (B).

  (B) The select committee shall, under such regulations as it may 
prescribe, make information 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 information available, it shall keep a written 
record showing, in the case of particular information, which committee 
or which Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner received the 
information. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who, and a 
committee that, receives 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 intelligence-related information by a 
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House in violation of subparagraph (3) and report to the House 
concerning any allegation that it finds to be substantiated.

  (5) Upon the request of a person who is subject to an investigation 
described in subparagraph (4), the Committee on Ethics shall release to 
such person at the conclusion of its investigation a summary of its 
investigation, together with its findings. If, at the conclusion of its 
investigation, the Committee on Ethics determines that there has been a 
significant breach of confidentiality or unauthorized disclosure by a 
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House, it shall report its findings to the House and recommend 
appropriate 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 officer or employee.

  (h) The select committee may permit a personal representative of the 
President, designated by the President to serve as a liaison to the 
select 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 
continuing appropriations, or an amendment thereto, 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, unless the funds 
shall previously have been authorized 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.

      (5) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities of other 
agencies and subdivisions of the Department of Defense.

      (6) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
Department of State.

      (7) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.

      (8) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities of all 
other departments and agencies of the executive branch.

  (j)(1) In this clause the term ``intelligence and intelligence-related 
activities'' includes--

      (A) the collection, analysis, production, dissemination, 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, 
national security, or related policies of the United States and other 
activity in support of the collection, analysis, production, 
dissemination, or use of such information;

      (B) activities taken to counter similar activities directed 
against the United States;

      (C) covert or clandestine activities affecting the relations of 
the United States with a foreign government, political group, party, 
military force, movement, or other association;

      (D) the collection, analysis, production, dissemination, or use of 
information about activities of persons within the United States, its 
territories and possessions, or nationals of the United States abroad 
whose political and related 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 security 
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 
Federal 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 intelligence-related activities now 
conducted by the department, agency, bureau, or subdivision referred 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.



Sec. 786. Membership, 
administration, jurisdiction.

  This clause (formerly rule XLVIII) was  adopted in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 
658, July 14, 1977, pp. 22932-49) and has had several technical 
amendments: (1) to change the size of the committee from 13 to 14 
members (H. Res. 70, 96th Cong., Jan. 25, 1979, p. 1023); (2) to conform 
references 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 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 Congresses, 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 limitation 
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 
to not more than 21 members, of whom not more than 12 shall be of the 
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, 110th Cong., Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19); (14) to conform jurisdictional 
statements to changes in the intelligence community (sec. 504, H. Res. 
6, 110th Cong., Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)); (15) to 
eliminate gender-based references (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, 111th Cong., 
Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7); (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. 1946); (17) 
to conform references to a renamed committee and to reduce the size of 
the committee to not more than 20 members, of whom not more than 12 
shall be of the same political party (secs. 2(e)(8), 2(e)(11), H. Res. 
5, 112th Cong., Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80); (18) 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 (sec. 2(a)(9), H. Res. 5, 114th Cong., Jan. 
6, 2015, p. 34); (19) to increase the size of the committee to not more 
than 25 members, of whom not more than 14 shall be of the same political 
party (sec. 1(a), H. Res. 78, 118th Cong., Jan. 31, 2023, p. _). By 
order of the House, the size of the committee was increased for the 
107th Congress to not more than 20 members, of whom not more than 11 
could be of the same political party (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, 
Sec. 8.8), for the 113th Congress to not more than 21 members (Feb. 13, 
2013, p. 1374), and for the 117th Congress to not more than 23 members 
(March 12, 2021, p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in the 
106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XLVIII (H. Res. 
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458) reorganized the intelligence 
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 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 intelligence 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 members (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 
recommendations, 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.


[[Page 573]]

(Mar. 15, 1988, p. 3847), and has 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).
  The committee has shared jurisdiction with the Committee on the 
Judiciary over electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence (Nov. 4, 
1977, p. 37070) and with the Committees on Science, Space, and 
Technology and Foreign Affairs over a bill establishing a satellite 
monitoring commission 

  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 10 of rule XVII (formerly rule XXIX) (Feb. 
25, 1980, p. 3618).





 
  In the 107th Congress the committee was given oversight authority 
described in clause 3(m) of rule X (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, 
p. 25).

                                 Rule XI


In general
            procedures of committees and unfinished business



787. Committee procedure.

  1.  (a)(1)(A) The Rules of the 
House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as 
applicable.


  (B) Each subcommittee is a part of its committee and is subject to the 
authority and direction 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 reading (in full) of a 
bill or resolution shall be privileged 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 
reference 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 
paragraph (a) was amended in the form contained in the Legislative 
Reorganization 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 Congress 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). 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 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 Manual that a bill or resolution 
be read in full upon demand, before being read by paragraphs or sections 
for amendment, see Sec. 412, supra.

  Each committee may appoint subcommittees (VI, 532), which should 
include 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 Sec. 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.



Sec. 788. Investigative authority.

  (b)(1)  Each committee may 
conduct at any time such investigations and studies as it considers 
necessary or appropriate 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 investigations and studies.


  (2) A proposed investigative or oversight report 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 conducted jointly by more 
than one committee may be filed jointly, provided that each of the 
committees complies independently with all requirements 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, minority, additional, or dissenting 
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 clause 8 of rule X 
and clause 2(m) of rule XI, eliminated the necessity that each committee 
obtain such authority each Congress by a separate resolution reported 
from the Committee 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 changes were effected when the House recodified its rules 
in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (4) 
was amended in the 114th Congress to include dissenting views to mirror 
an amendment to clause 2(l) (sec. 2(a)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 
34).




Sec. 789. Printing and binding.

  (c)  Each committee may have 
printed and bound such testimony and other data as may be presented at 
hearings 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 accounts 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. 
80). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 
47).



Sec. 790. Activity reports.

  (d)(1)  Not later than January 2 
of each odd-numbered year, a committee shall submit to the House a 
report on the activities of that committee.


  (2) Such report shall include--

      (A) separate sections summarizing the legislative and oversight 
activities of that committee under this rule and rule X during the 
Congress;

      (B) a summary of the authorization and oversight plans submitted 
by the committee under clause 2(d) of rule X;

      (C) a summary of the actions taken and recommendations made with 
respect to the authorization and oversight 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 pursuant to clauses 2(n), 
(o), or (p) of this rule.

  (3) After an adjournment sine die of the last regular session of a 
Congress, or after December 15 of an even-numbered year, whichever 
occurs first, the chair of a committee may file the 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, additional, or 
dissenting 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 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 what is now subparagraph (2) 
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) which requirement for a summary 
comparison was modified in the 115th Congress to reflect the addition of 
authorization and oversight plans in clause 2(d) of rule X (sec. 2(b), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 36), again in the 116th Congress to reflect 
a return to oversight plans in that same clause (sec. 102(j), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and then a third time in the 118th Congress to 
reflect a return to authorization and oversight plans (sec. 2(e)(2), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). What is now subparagraph (3) was added in 
the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). 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 111th 
Congress, the House amended subparagraph (2) 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. 
757), and eliminated a gender-based reference (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 112th Congress, the paragraph was rewritten 
entirely to clarify late-session filing and to increase from biennial to 
semiannual the frequency of reports (sec. 2(e)(13), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 
2011, p. 80), which was reduced to annual in the 113th Congress (sec. 
2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 25) and back to biennial in the 114th 
Congress (sec. 2(a)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). Subparagraph 
(3)(B) was amended in the 114th Congress to include dissenting views to 
mirror an amendment to clause 2(l) (sec. 2(a)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2015, p. 34).


Adoption of written rules
  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).



791. Committee rules.

  2.  (a)(1) Each standing committee 
shall adopt written rules governing its procedure. 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, 
determines 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;

      (C) shall in any event incorporate all of the succeeding 
provisions of this clause to the extent applicable; and

      (D) shall include provisions to govern the implementation of 
clause 4 as provided in paragraph (f) of such clause.

  (2) Each committee shall make its rules publicly available in 
electronic form and submit such rules for publication in the 
Congressional Record not later than 60 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 Congressional Record (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). The 
provision requiring publication 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 the House recodified 
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 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. 80). Subparagraph 
(3) was added in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, 
p. 43). Subparagraph (1)(D) was added in the 114th Congress when this 
requirement was removed from clause 4(f) (sec. 2(a)(6), H. Res. 5, Jan. 
6, 2015, p. 34). Subparagraph (2) was amended in the 116th Congress to 
allow a committee 60 days (instead of 30) to submit its rules for 
publication in the Congressional Record after the election of the chair 
(sec. 102(n), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _) Gender-based references 
were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2009, p. 7).

  Committees have historically adopted rules under which they function 
(I, 707; III, 1841, 1842; VIII, 2214). It is the responsibility of the 
committees, and not the House, to construe and enforce additional 
committee rules on the calling of committee meetings (Speaker Albert, 
July 22, 1974, pp. 24436, 24437). This provision requires a select 
committee to publish its adopted rules in the Record (June 25, 1998, p. 
14014).



Sec. 792. Committee procedure generally.

  Failure  to follow 
certain procedural requirements imposed on committees by this rule may 
invalidate committee actions. Violation of the requirements as to open 
meetings and hearings and other hearing irregularities improperly 
overruled (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 recommittal of the bill. However, a point of order does 
not ordinarily lie in the House against consideration of a bill by 
reason of defective committee procedures occurring before the time the 
bill is ordered reported to the House (Procedure, ch. 17, Sec. 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 Sec. 407, supra). A measure before a committee for 
consideration must be read for amendment by section as in the House (see 
Jefferson's Manual at Sec. Sec. 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 
Sec. Sec. 424, 427, supra) generally apply to proceedings in committees 
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.

  In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted provisions, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, permitting 
committees to conduct proceedings remotely and to allow committee 
members to participate remotely during in-person committee proceedings, 
including by casting their votes or recording their presence remotely. 
In addition, such provisions: (1) permitted committee chairs to declare 
a recess subject to the call of the chair at any time to address 
technical difficulties with remote proceedings; (2) deemed electronic 
versions of motions, amendments, measures or other documents to satisfy 
all requirements under the rules for printed or written documents during 
committee proceedings; and (3) deemed remote proceedings to satisfy all 
requirements under the rules related to broadcasting and audio and 
visual coverage (sec. 4, H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). In the 117th Congress, a requirement that 
committees notify the Speaker in writing of the satisfaction of certain 
prerequisites prior to conducting remote proceedings was eliminated 
(sec. 3(s)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Regular meeting days



793. Committee meetings.

  (b)  Each standing committee shall 
establish regular meeting days for the conduct of its business, which 
shall be not less frequent than monthly. Each such committee 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 if notice is given pursuant to 
paragraph (g)(3).
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 resolution 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 committee 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 filing of the request) a majority of the 
members of the committee may file in the offices of the committee their 
written notice that a special meeting of the committee will be held. The 
written notice shall specify the date and hour of the special 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 notify all members of the committee that such 
special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour and 
the measure or matter to be considered. Such notice shall also be made 
publicly available in electronic form and shall be deemed to satisfy 
paragraph (g)(3)(A)(ii). Only the measure or matter specified 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 
committee as the vice chair of the committee or subcommittee, as the 
case may be, and shall preside during the absence of the chair from any 
meeting. If the chair and vice chair of a committee or subcommittee are 
not present at any meeting of the committee or subcommittee, the ranking 
majority 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, 1995, p. 477). 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. 7). In the 113th 
Congress paragraph (b) was amended to require the holding of a regular 
meeting only if notice thereof is given, and paragraph (c)(2) was 
amended to clarify that a special meeting does not require additional 
notice under paragraph (g) (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26).

  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 committee 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).

  In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House adopted a provision, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, to clarify that 
remote participation by the chair was not considered ``absence'' for 
purposes of this paragraph or clause 5(c) of rule X (sec. 4(c)(1), H. 
Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Committee records



794. Required records.

  (e)(1)(A)  Each committee shall keep 
a complete record of all committee action which shall include--


      (i) in the case of a meeting or hearing transcript, a 
substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made during the 
proceedings, subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical 
corrections authorized by the person making the remarks involved; and

      (ii) a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote 
is taken.



Sec. 795. Public availability.

  (B)(i)  Except as provided in 
item (ii) and subject to paragraph (k)(7), the result of each such 
record vote shall be made publicly available in electronic form within 
48 hours of such record vote. Information so available shall include a 
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition, the 
name of each member voting for and each member voting against such 
amendment, 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 executive session in the 
Committee on Ethics may not be made publicly available without an 
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the committee.



Sec. 796. Committee files.

  (2)(A)  Except as provided in 
subdivision (B), all committee records (including hearings, data, 
charts, and files) shall be kept separate and distinct from the 
congressional office 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 Commissioner, other than members 
of the Committee on Ethics, may not have access to the records of that 
committee respecting the conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or 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 committee 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 otherwise applicable under 
that rule shall be approved by vote of the committee.

  (4) Each committee shall make its publications available in electronic 
form to the maximum extent 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 business 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, or 48 
hours after the disposition or withdrawal of any other amendment, to a 
measure or matter considered by a committee, the chair of such committee 
shall cause the text of each such amendment 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, requiring a complete record of all committee actions, 
including votes on any question 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 availability 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 
Congress to require that record votes be electronically available within 
48 hours (sec. 2(c)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80) and amended in 
the 113th Congress to effect a technical correction (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Paragraph (e)(1) was further amended in the 
117th Congress to eliminate the requirement that the record be made 
available for inspection in committee offices and to effect an 
additional technical correction (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. 
_). 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), 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), and was amended in the 113th 
Congress to effect a technical correction (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2013, p. 26). Paragraph (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. 7, 1997, p. 121). Subparagraphs (5) and (6) 
were added in the 112th Congress (secs. 2(c)(6), 2(c)(9), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and subparagraph (6) was amended in the 117th 
Congress to expand the availability requirement to any amendment 
disposed of or withdrawn (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 
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 Congress (sec. 2(l), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). 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. 80).

  Although all Members have access to committee records under this 
paragraph, it is not without qualification. Committees may prescribe 
regulations to govern the manner of access to their records, such as 
requiring examination only in committee rooms. In addition, this 
paragraph: (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 authorized 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 committee) 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 possible grounds for 
impeachment of the President) and referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020).


Prohibition against proxy voting
  Testimony or evidence taken in executive sessions of a committee is 
under the control and subject to the regulation of the committee and, 
under paragraph (k)(7) (Sec. 803, infra), cannot be released without the 
consent of the committee (June 26, 1961, p. 11233; see also Deschler, 
ch. 17, Sec. 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 paragraph (k)(7) (Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 6, 1977, pp. 
38470-73). Compare this paragraph with clause 11(g)(3) of rule X, which 
only permits access of nonmembers of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence to classified information in the possession of that 
committee when authorized by that committee. 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).




797. Ban on proxies.

  (f)  A vote by a member of a committee 
or subcommittee 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. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Clerical and stylistic changes were 
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).


Open meetings and hearings
  The original form of this paragraph permitted committees to adopt 
written rules permitting proxies in writing, designating the persons to 
execute them and specifying the measures or matters to which they 
applied. Effective 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 committees 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.



798. Open meetings and hearings.

  (g)(1)  Each meeting for 
the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, 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 
compromise sensitive law enforcement information, 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 Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, congressional 
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 committee 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 subdivision (A), in the 
presence of the number of members required under the rules of the 
committee 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 evidence to be received would endanger national 
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 Commissioner may not be excluded 
from non-
participatory attendance at a hearing of a committee or subcommittee 
(other than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) unless the 
House by majority vote authorizes a particular 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 
subparagraph for closing hearings to the public.

  (D) The committee or subcommittee may vote by the same procedure 
described in this subparagraph to close one subsequent day of hearing, 
except that the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
Services, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, 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 commence earlier than one 
week after such notice; or

      (ii) a committee meeting, which may not commence earlier than the 
third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays 
except when the House is in session on such a 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 subdivision (A) at 
the earliest possible time):

      (i) the chair of the committee, with the concurrence of the 
ranking minority member, determines that there is good cause; or

      (ii) the committee so determines by majority vote in the presence 
of the number of members required under the rules of the committee for 
the transaction of business.

  (C) An announcement made under this subparagraph shall be published 
promptly in the Daily Digest and made publicly available in electronic 
form.

  (D) This subparagraph and subparagraph (4) shall not apply to the 
Committee on Rules.

  (4) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a meeting for the 
markup of legislation, or at the time of an announcement under 
subparagraph (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)(A) Each committee shall, to the greatest extent practicable, 
require witnesses who appear before it to submit in advance written 
statements of proposed testimony and to limit their initial 
presentations to the committee to brief summaries thereof.

  (B) In the case of a witness appearing in a non-governmental capacity, 
a written statement of proposed testimony shall include--

      (i) a curriculum vitae;

      (ii) a disclosure of any Federal grants or contracts, or 
contracts, grants, or payments originating with a foreign government, 
received during the past 36 months by the witness or by an entity 
represented by the witness and related to the subject matter of the 
hearing; and

      (iii) a disclosure of whether the witness is a fiduciary 
(including, but not limited to, a director, officer, advisor, or 
resident agent) of any organization or entity that has an interest in 
the subject matter of the hearing.

  (C) The disclosure referred to in subdivision (B)(ii) shall include--

      (i) the amount and source of each Federal grant (or subgrant 
thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) related to the subject 
matter of the hearing; and

      (ii) the amount and country of origin of any payment or contract 
related to the subject matter of the hearing originating with a foreign 
government.

  (D) Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the 
privacy or security of the witness, shall be made publicly available in 
electronic form 24 hours before the witness appears to the extent 
practicable, but 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 conducted 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 subcommittee votes to close a meeting or hearing and to 
provide that a noncommittee 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 subparagraph (2) was amended 
further to permit the Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services, 
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 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), an authority extended to the Committee on Homeland Security in the 
115th Congress (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). 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 paragraph was also amended to 
conform references to renamed committees (sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 
4, 1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 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). Subparagraphs 
(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 committee 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); in the 112th 
Congress to apply the notice requirement to meetings (sec. 2(c)(3), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80); and in the 116th Congress to exclude 
weekends and legal holidays from counting under the meeting notice 
requirement (sec. 102(o), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).

  A new subparagraph (4) was inserted (and subsequent subparagraphs 
redesignated) in the 112th Congress to require availability of committee 
markup text (sec. 2(c)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). 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), in the 112th Congress to require electronic 
availability of such disclosures and enable redactions for witness 
privacy (sec. 2(c)(7), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), in the 114th 
Congress to require the disclosure of contracts or payments from foreign 
governments, to confine the disclosure to the subject matter of the 
hearing, and to enable redactions for witness security (sec. 2(a)(1), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34), and in the 117th Congress to require the 
disclosure of certain fiduciary interests, to extend the disclosure 
requirement for certain contracts and payments from the previous two 
calendar years to 36 months, to expand the foreign payments disclosure 
requirement to include grants, and to direct committees to make public 
the required information 24 hours prior to the witness's appearance 
before the committee (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

  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. 7). 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. 80).

  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
  In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House adopted provisions, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, deeming committee 
proceedings conducted remotely in accordance with regulations 
promulgated by the chair of the Committee on Rules to: (1) be considered 
open to the public; (2) satisfy requirements for non-participatory 
attendance under subparagraph (2)(C); and (3) satisfy notice 
requirements for ``place'' for purposes of subparagraph (3) (sec. 4, H. 
Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).




799. Requirement of quorum.

  (h)(1)  A measure or 
recommendation may not be reported by a committee unless a majority of 
the committee is actually present.


  This subparagraph is from section 133(d) of the Legislative 
Reorganization 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 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 
overruled 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 Sec. 407, supra).


  In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a provision, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, to count for 
purposes of establishing a quorum during committee proceedings all 
Members participating remotely (sec. 4(a)(4), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, 
p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).



Sec. 800. Reduced quorum.

  (2)  Each committee may fix the 
number of its members to constitute a quorum for taking testimony and 
receiving evidence, which may not be less than two.



  (3) Each committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations, the 
Committee on the Budget, 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 committee 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 
committee 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).


  Authority for a committee (other than the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability under clause 4(c) of rule X) to conduct depositions or 
interrogatories before one member or staff of the committee must be 
specifically conferred by the House (see, e.g., Oct. 13, 1988, p. 30467; 
H. Res. 167, 105th Cong., June 20, 1997, p. 11677). Such authority was 
granted to four committees in the 114th Congress (sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35), all but two committees in the 115th Congress (sec. 
3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38), and all but one committee in the 
116th through 118th Congresses (sec. 103(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. 
_; sec. 3(b), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; sec. 3(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 
9, 2023, p. _).



Sec. 800a. Postponing votes in committee.

  (4)(A)  Each 
committee may adopt a rule authorizing the chair of a committee or 
subcommittee--


      (i) to postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered 
on the question of approving 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 subparagraph shall provide that 
when proceedings resume 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 extent 
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. 7).
Limitation on committee sittings




801. Committees not to sit.

  (i)  A committee may not sit 
during a joint session of the House and Senate or during a recess when a 
joint meeting of the House and Senate is in progress.



Calling and questioning of witnesses
  This prohibition was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
1989, p. 72). Other limitations on committee sittings, removed from this 
paragraph in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121), had 
their origins in a separate clause in 1794. That clause 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. It prohibited committees from sitting at any time when the 
House was in session, but was narrowed to proscribe sittings during the 
five-minute rule by the Legislative Reorganization 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, p. 34470), the 
Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Rules were exempted; 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 permitted to sit during proceedings 
under the five-minute rule by unanimous consent granted each Congress 
(Jan. 29, 1975, p. 1677) until it was exempted 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 in the 95th Congress 
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). An exemption for the Committee on 
House Administration was 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 provision for a privileged motion by the 
Majority Leader (sec. 208, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467), who 
controlled one hour of debate thereon (Jan. 23, 1995, p. 2209). Clerical 
and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its rules 
in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).



802. Witnesses.

  (j)(1)  Whenever a hearing is conducted by a 
committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee 
shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them 
before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the 
minority to testify with respect to that measure 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 during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing 
until such time as each member of the committee 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 majority 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 extended questioning of a witness 
under this subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the 
minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.


Hearing procedures
  Paragraph (j)(1) was contained in section 114(b) 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). 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 designated 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 Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 
7). In the 114th Congress a select committee was permitted to increase 
from five to ten minutes the time for questioning a witness under 
subparagraph (2)(A) (sec. 4(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 37).



803. Hearing procedure.

  (k)(1)  The chair at a hearing shall 
announce in an opening statement the subject of the hearing.


  (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 offender 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 
incriminate 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, degrade, or incriminate the witness--

      (A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony or evidence 
shall be presented in executive session if, in the presence of the 
number of members required under the rules of the committee for the 
purpose of taking testimony, 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, determines that 
such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or 
incriminate any person.
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 witnesses.

  (6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5), the chair shall receive 
and the committee shall dispose of requests to subpoena additional 
witnesses.

  (7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and proceedings 
conducted in executive session, may be released or used in public 
sessions only when authorized by the committee, a majority being 
present.

  (8) In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may submit brief and 
pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the record. The 
committee is the sole judge of the pertinence 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 subparagraph (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 
subparagraph (9) that a witness 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). Subparagraph (5) was amended in the 96th Congress to permit a 
committee or subcommittee to hear testimony asserted to be defamatory in 
executive session upon a determination by a majority of those present 
that such testimony is indeed defamatory, degrading, or incriminating 
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16), in the 105th Congress 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), and 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). 
Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified 
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). 
``Investigative'' was removed from the heading and subparagraphs (1), 
(3), and (5) in the 107th Congress to conform the rule to House 
practice, which is to apply this paragraph to all committee hearings 
(sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Gender-based references 
were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2009, p. 7).

  The requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2), and of paragraph 
(m)(2)(A), that a majority of the committee or subcommittee shall 
constitute a quorum for the purposes of closing meetings or hearings or 
issuing subpoenas have been construed to require, under paragraph (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 recipient 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 
committee hearing procedure, see Sec. 704, supra.


Supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views
  In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House adopted a provision, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, permitting 
witnesses and their counsel to appear remotely at committee proceedings 
(sec. 4, H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 
2021, p. _). Such authority was continued for witnesses appearing in a 
non-governmental capacity in the 118th Congress in the absence of an 
emergency, subject to regulations issued by the chair of the Committee 
on Rules (sec. 3(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).




804. Separate views.

  (l)  If at the time of approval of a 
measure or matter by a committee (other than the Committee on Rules) a 
member of the committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental, 
minority, additional, or dissenting views for inclusion in the report to 
the House thereon, all members shall be entitled to not less than two 
additional calendar days after the day of such notice (excluding 
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in 
session on such a day) to file such written and signed views (including 
in electronic form) with the clerk of the committee.



Power to sit and act; subpoena power
  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 amended to reduce 
the guaranteed time for composing separate views from three full days to 
two full days after the day of notice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). 
In the 113th Congress it was amended to clarify that notice inures to 
all committee members (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). It 
was amended in the 114th Congress to include dissenting views (sec. 
2(a)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). In the 117th Congress, it was 
amended to permit signatures on written and signed views to be filed 
with committee clerks in electronic form (sec. 2(l)(1), H. Res. 8, Jan. 
4, 2021, p. _), making permanent a temporary provision adopted in the 
116th Congress in response to a designated public health emergency (sec. 
4(a)(7), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _). 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).



805. Power to sit and to issue subpoenas; oaths.

  (m)(1)  For 
the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under this 
rule and rule X (including any matters referred to it under clause 2 of 
rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is authorized (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 necessary; and

      (B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, 
correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers 
necessary.

  (2) The chair of the committee, or a member designated by the chair, 
may administer oaths to witnesses.

  (3)(A)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (A)(ii), a subpoena may be 
authorized and issued by a committee or subcommittee under subparagraph 
(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 subpoenas shall be signed by the chair of the committee or by 
a member designated by the committee.

  (ii) In the case of a subcommittee of the Committee on Ethics, a 
subpoena may be authorized and issued only by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members.

  (B) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return other than at a 
meeting or hearing of the committee or subcommittee authorizing the 
subpoena.

  (C) Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or subcommittee 
under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed 
by the House.


  (D) Subpoenas for documents or testimony may be issued to any person 
or entity, whether governmental, public, or private, within the United 
States, including, but not limited to, the President, and the Vice 
President, whether current or former, in a personal or official 
capacity, as well as the White House, the Office of the President, the 
Executive Office of the President, and any individual currently or 
formerly employed in the White House, Office of the President, or 
Executive Office of the President.

  Before the adoption of clause 2(m) under the Committee Reform 
Amendments 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 Conduct 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 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 authorize 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 and stylistic changes were 
effected when the House recodified its rules 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 
were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2009, p. 7). 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. 
80). Subparagraph (3)(D) was added in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(m), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

  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). During the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House authorized 
electronic signature of subpoenas and electronic attestation and 
affixation of a seal by the Clerk during the pendency of a designated 
public health emergency (sec. 4(f), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; 
sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). A statute empowers the chair 
of the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker, chairs of joint, select, or 
standing committees, and Members to administer oaths to witnesses (2 
U.S.C. 191; III, 1769).

  Although under this clause the Committee on Ethics may issue subpoenas 
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 
investigation 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)(C) (formerly subparagraph (2)(B)) has 
been interpreted 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 Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability under clause 4(c) of rule X, such authority must be 
conferred by separate action of the House (see, e.g., Dec. 5, 2007, p. 
32250; sec. 3(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

  In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted provisions, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, to: (1) satisfy 
the requirement of a ``place'' for purposes of subparagraph (1); and (2) 
permit the administration of the oath to a witness remotely for purposes 
of subparagraph (2) (sec. 4, H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), 
H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). The authority to administer the oath to 
a witness remotely was continued in the 118th Congress for witnesses 
appearing in a non-governmental capacity, subject to regulations issued 
by the chair of the Committee on Rules (sec. 3(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 
2023, p. _).


  In the 117th Congress the House authorized the issuance of subpoenas 
by certain committee and subcommittee chairs with respect to specified 
investigations prior to the adoption of committee rules for subpoena 
issuance (sec. 3(q), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).



Sec. 805a. Certain hearings required.

  (n)(1)  Each standing 
committee, or a subcommittee thereof, shall hold at 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 instances of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement as 
documented by any report the committee has received from a Federal 
Office of the Inspector General or the Comptroller General of the United 
States.

  (o) Each committee, or a subcommittee thereof, 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 authorize to hear testimony on such disclaimers from 
representatives of any such agency.


  (p) Each standing committee, or a subcommittee thereof, shall hold at 
least one hearing on issues raised by reports issued by the Comptroller 
General of the United States indicating 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.''


Committee on Ethics
  Paragraphs (n), (o), and (p) were added in the 111th Congress (H. Res. 
40, Jan. 14, 2009, p. 575). In the 116th Congress, the House required 
each standing committee (except the Committee on Ethics) to hold a 
hearing for Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner to testify 
about legislation within its jurisdiction (sec. 103(j), H. Res. 6, Jan. 
3, 2019, p. _). In the 117th Congress, the House continued such 
provision while allowing each subcommittee of a standing committee 
(other than a subcommittee on oversight) to satisfy such requirement 
(sec. 3(a), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _) but in the 118th Congress, 
the original langauge was restored (sec. 3(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, 
p. _).



806. Ethics; additional duties.

  3. (a) The  Committee on 
Ethics has the following functions:


      (1) The committee may recommend to the House from time to time 
such administrative actions as it may consider appropriate to establish 
or enforce standards of official conduct for Members, Delegates, the 
Resident Commissioner, officers, and employees of the House. A letter of 
reproval or other administrative action of the committee pursuant to an 
investigation under subparagraph (2) shall only be issued or implemented 
as a part of a report required by such subparagraph.

      (2) The committee may investigate, subject to paragraph (b), an 
alleged violation by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
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 performance 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 committee 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 
appropriate in the circumstances.

      (3) The committee may report to the appropriate Federal or State 
authorities, either with the approval of the House or by an affirmative 
vote of two-thirds of the members of the committee, any substantial 
evidence of a violation by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House, of a law applicable to the 
performance of the duties 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 Commissioner, 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 Commissioner, 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, officers, and 
employees of the House.

      (5) The committee may consider the request of a Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, 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 ethics training to each 
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, and employee of the 
House. Such training shall--

          (i) involve the classes of employees for whom the committee 
determines such training 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 
committee.

      (B)(i) A new Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 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 Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, and employee of the House 
shall file a certification with the committee that the Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee attended ethics training in 
the last year as established by this subparagraph.

  (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, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
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 appoint members to serve as an 
investigative subcommittee.

  (ii) The chair and ranking minority member of the committee jointly 
may gather additional information concerning alleged conduct that is the 
basis of a complaint or of information offered as a complaint until they 
have established an investigative subcommittee or either of them has 
placed on the agenda of the committee the issue of whether to establish 
an investigative subcommittee.

  (2) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by the committee 
on its own initiative, the committee may undertake an investigation 
relating to the official conduct of an individual Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House only--

      (A) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, in writing 
and under oath, from a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 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, Delegate, 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 referral from the board 
of the Office of Congressional Ethics.
If a complaint is not disposed of within the applicable periods set 
forth in the rules of the Committee on Ethics, the chair and ranking 
minority member shall establish jointly an investigative subcommittee 
and forward the complaint, or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee 
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 investigative subcommittee, then an 
investigative subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative 
vote of a majority of the members of the committee.

  (3) The committee may not undertake an investigation 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 committee 
determines that the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged 
violation that occurred in a more recent Congress.

  (4) A member of the committee shall be ineligible to participate as a 
member of the committee 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 political party as the ineligible member to 
act in any proceeding of the committee relating to that conduct.

  (5) A member of the committee may seek disqualification from 
participating in an investigation of the conduct of a Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 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 member seeks to be disqualified. If the 
committee approves and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the 
chair shall so notify the Speaker and request the Speaker to designate a 
Member, Delegate, 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 Government 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 
receipt 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 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 matter, relating to the referral made by the board of 
the Office of Congressional Ethics regarding the Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House who is the 
subject of the applicable referral, has been extended.
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, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 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 required to 
make public the written report and findings described in such 
subdivision unless the committee's vote is inconsistent with the 
recommendation of the board. For purposes of the previous sentence, a 
vote by the committee to dismiss a matter is not inconsistent with a 
report from the board respecting the matter as unresolved 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 
unresolved due to a tie vote, and the matter is extended for an 
additional period as provided in subdivision (A), the committee is not 
required to make a public statement that the matter has been extended.

  (iii) Except as provided by subdivision (E), if the committee 
establishes an investigative subcommittee respecting any such matter, 
then the report and findings of the board shall not be made public until 
the conclusion of the investigative subcommittee process and the 
committee shall issue a public statement of the establishment of an 
investigative subcommittee, which statement shall include the name of 
the applicable Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 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 
committee shall make public the report and upon the expiration of the 
Congress in which the report 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 regarding a referral from the board of the 
Office of Congressional Ethics or of a referral of the matter from the 
board pursuant to a request under paragraph (r), the committee agrees to 
a request from an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory 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 
committee 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 request, 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 period that begins on the 
date the committee makes the public statement described in item (i)(II), 
the committee has not acted on the matter, 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 referral from the board of the 
Office of Congressional Ethics within 60 days before a Federal, State, 
or local election in which the subject of the referral is a candidate. 
The committee may delay any reporting 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 subparagraph 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.

  (9) Whenever a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner is 
indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct in a court 
of the United States or any State, the Committee on Ethics shall, not 
later than 30 days after the date of such indictment or charge--

      (A) empanel an investigative subcommittee to review the 
allegations; or

      (B) submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not 
empaneling such an investigative subcommittee, together with the 
actions, if any, the committee has taken in response to the allegations.

  (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 members, 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 committee 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 
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 
received in the course of my service with the committee, except as 
authorized by the committee 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 
conduct within the meaning of paragraph (a)(2). Breaches of 
confidentiality shall be investigated by the Committee on Ethics and 
appropriate action shall be taken.

  (e)(1) If a complaint or information offered as a complaint is deemed 
frivolous by an affirmative 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 majority 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 authorization (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 
1974, p. 34470). That provision was further amended in the 105th 
Congress to permit the chair and ranking 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). For an example of a disqualification letter, see 
February 17, 2012, p. 2059.

  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 administrative 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 
matters.

  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 
Congress but not concluded (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). 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 
Congress 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 authorities 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, 2007, p. 
19). Paragraphs (b)(2)(C) and (b)(8) were added in the 110th Congress 
(H. Res. 895, Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3471). 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. 7). 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. 80). 
Paragraph (b)(8) was amended in the 113th Congress to clarify the 
circumstances in which certain public statements are not required to be 
made (sec. 2(e)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Paragraph 
(a)(6)(B)(i) was amended in the 114th Congress to include new Members, 
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2015, p. 35). Paragraph (a)(6)(B)(ii) was amended in the 116th Congress 
(sec. 102(p), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _) and paragraph (b)(8) was 
amended in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(n)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. 
_) to include Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner. Paragraph (b)(9) 
was added in the 118th Congress to codify a separate order from the 
110th through 113th and in the 116th and 117th Congresses to address the 
empaneling of an investigative subcommittee where a Member, Delegate, or 
the Resident Commissioner has been indicted or otherwise formally 
charged with criminal conduct (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. 
_). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was 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).


Committee agendas
  In the 110th Congress, the House established an independent Office of 
Congressional Ethics to investigate individually-initiated alleged 
ethics violations and to report its recommendations to the committee 
(Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3741). For subsequent re-establishment of the office, 
and certain modifications to its structure and authority, see 
Sec. 1125h, infra.



806a. Ethics; committee rules.

  (f)  The committee shall 
adopt rules providing that the chair shall establish the agenda for 
meetings of the committee, but shall not preclude the ranking minority 
member from placing any item on the agenda.
Committee staff


  (g)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that--

      (A) the staff be assembled and retained as a professional, 
nonpartisan staff;

      (B) each member of the staff shall be professional and 
demonstrably qualified for the position for which hired;

      (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 counsel may accept public 
speaking engagements or write for publication on any subject that is in 
any way related to the employment or duties 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 counsel 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 subparagraph (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 committee during each Congress 
and as necessary during the Congress.

  (B) Subject to the approval of the Committee on House Administration, 
the committee may retain counsel not employed by the House of 
Representatives whenever the committee determines, by an affirmative 
vote of a majority of the members of the committee, that the retention 
of outside counsel is necessary and appropriate.

  (C) If the committee determines that it is necessary to retain staff 
members for the purpose of a particular investigation or other 
proceeding, then such staff shall be retained only for the duration of 
that particular investigation or proceeding.

  (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 personal staff of the chair or ranking minority member to 
perform service for the committee. Such shared staff may assist the 
chair or ranking minority member on any subcommittee on which the chair 
or ranking minority member serves.
Meetings and hearings

  (h) The committee shall adopt rules providing that--

      (1) all meetings or hearings of the committee or any subcommittee 
thereof, other than any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or 
any sanction hearing held by the committee, shall occur in executive 
session unless the committee or subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of its members opens the meeting or hearing to the public; and

      (2) any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or any 
sanction hearing held by the committee shall be open to the public 
unless the committee or subcommittee by an affirmative 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 
minority member, after consultation with each other, may make public 
statements regarding matters before the committee or any subcommittee 
thereof.
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 
committee, 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.
Duties of chair and ranking minority member regarding properly filed 

        complaints

  (k)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that whenever 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 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 dispose 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, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, 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 necessary 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 complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of 
within the applicable time periods under subparagraph (1), then they 
shall establish an investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint, 
or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee 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 investigative subcommittee, then an investigative 
subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative vote of a 
majority of the members of the committee.
Duties of chair and ranking minority member regarding information not 

        constituting a complaint

  (l) The committee shall adopt rules providing that whenever the chair 
and ranking minority member jointly determine that information submitted 
to the committee does not meet the requirements of the rules of the 
committee for what constitutes a complaint, they may--

      (1) return the information to the complainant 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 authorize the establishment 
of an investigative subcommittee.
Investigative and adjudicatory subcommittees

  (m) The committee shall adopt rules providing that--

      (1)(A) an investigative subcommittee shall be composed of four 
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner (with equal 
representation from the majority and minority parties) whenever such a 
subcommittee is established pursuant to the rules of the committee;

      (B) an adjudicatory subcommittee shall be composed of the members 
of the committee who did not serve on the pertinent investigative 
subcommittee (with equal representation from the majority and minority 
parties) whenever such a subcommittee is established pursuant 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 subcommittee, shall have access to information before 
a subcommittee with which they so consult, and shall not thereby be 
precluded from serving as full, voting members of any adjudicatory 
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

      (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 
determines by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the 
subcommittee that there is substantial reason to believe that a 
violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, 
regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the performance 
of official duties or the discharge of official responsibilities by a 
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House of Representatives, has occurred.
Subcommittee powers

  (o)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that an investigative 
subcommittee or an adjudicatory subcommittee may authorize and issue 
subpoenas only when authorized by an affirmative 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 approved by an affirmative 
vote of a majority of the members of the committee.

  (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 violation 
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 respondent shall be notified in writing and shall 
have 30 calendar days from the date of that notification to file an 
answer to the amended statement 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 subcommittee on a statement of alleged violation, the 
subcommittee shall provide the respondent with a copy of the statement 
of alleged violation it intends to adopt together with all evidence it 
intends to use to prove those charges which it intends to adopt, 
including documentary 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 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 respondent 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 committee;

      (4) evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (1) or (3) shall be 
made available to the respondent and the counsel of the respondent only 
after each agrees, in writing, that no document, information, or other 
materials obtained 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

          (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 
evidence, 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 member determine that 
information the committee has received constitutes a complaint;

          (B) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an 
investigative subcommittee;

          (C) an investigative subcommittee votes to authorize its first 
subpoena or to take testimony 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, unless the respondent requests otherwise, shall be in 
writing and signed by the respondent and respondent's counsel, the chair 
and ranking 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 respondent during any settlement discussions between 
the committee or a subcommittee thereof and the respondent shall not be 
included in any report of the subcommittee or the committee or otherwise 
publicly disclosed without the consent of the respondent; and

      (8) whenever a motion to establish an investigative 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--

      (1) whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a 
statement of alleged violation and transmits a report to that effect to 
the committee, the committee may by an affirmative vote of a majority of 
its members transmit such report to the House of Representatives;

      (2) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a statement of 
alleged violation, the respondent admits to the violations set forth in 
such statement, the respondent waives the right to an adjudicatory 
hearing, and the respondent's waiver is approved by the committee--

          (A) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal to 
the committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to the 
respondent not less than 15 calendar days before the subcommittee votes 
on whether to adopt the report;

          (B) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding the 
final draft to the subcommittee within seven calendar days of receipt of 
that draft;

          (C) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the committee 
regarding the statement 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 respondent'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 report and transmit such report to the House of 
Representatives, together with the respondent's views previously 
submitted pursuant to subdivision (B) and any additional views 
respondent may submit for attachment to the final report; and

      (3) members of the committee shall have not less than 72 hours to 
review any report transmitted 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)(1) 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, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House and if the committee is 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 Federal or State authorities, the committee shall so 
notify the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics in writing. The 
committee may not request the same matter from the board more than one 
time.

  (2) In addition to receiving written notifications from the Office of 
Congressional Ethics under subparagraph (1), the committee shall adopt 
rules providing for a process to receive from the public outside 
information offered as a complaint. The process shall include the 
establishment of a method for the submission of such information to the 
committee in electronic form.


  (s) The committee may not take any action that would deny any person 
any right or protection provided under the Constitution of the United 
States.

  In the 105th Congress a 12-member bipartisan task force was informally 
appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders to conduct a 
comprehensive review of the House ethics process. At the same time an 
order of the House was adopted imposing a moratorium on filing or 
processing ethics 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 Congress, 
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. 3741). Gender-based references were 
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 
7). A technical amendment to paragraph (o)(2) was effected in the 112th 
Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). An erroneous 
designation in paragraph (h) was corrected in the 113th Congress (sec. 
2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Paragraph (s) was added in the 
114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(10), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). 
Paragraph (p) was amended in the 116th Congress to permit the committee 
to adopt rules related to the use of certain trial evidence during its 
investigations (sec. 102(q), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), but such 
changes were repealed in the 118th Congress (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 
9, 2023, p. _). Paragraphs (k), (m), (n), and (r) were amended in the 
117th Congress to clarify the inclusion of Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner (sec. 2(n)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Paragraph 
(r)(2) was added in the 118th Congress to require the committee to 
establish a process for receiving complaints from the public (sec. 2(g), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).


  Section 803 of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (2 U.S.C. 4711) 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 minority 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 
conference 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 

        subcommittee (with equal representation from the majority and 

        minority parties) whenever the committee votes to undertake any 

        investigation;

          ``(2) that the senior majority and minority members on an 

        investigative subcommittee shall serve as the chairman and 

        ranking minority 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 subcommittee to hold a disciplinary hearing on the 

        violation alleged in the statement;

          ``(3) that any statement of alleged violation and any written 

        response 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 accordance with committee rules, but, if no public 

        hearing or meeting is held on the matter, the statement of 

        alleged violation and any written 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 

        purpose 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 

        receiving 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 

        appointed by the chairman, in consultation with the ranking 

        minority member, and shall be comprised of such staff as the 

        chairman determines 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, regulations, and other standards of conduct 

                applicable to such individuals in their official 

                capacities, and any interpretations and advisory 

                opinions of the committee.

                  ``(B) Submitting to the chairman and ranking minority 

                member of the committee any written request from any 

                such Member, 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 formal advisory opinions of general 

                applicability.

                  ``(D) Developing and carrying out, subject to the 

                approval of the chairman, periodic educational briefings 

                for Members, officers and employees of the House on 

                those laws, rules, regulations, or other standards of 

                conduct applicable to them.

          ``(4) No information provided to the Committee on Standards of 

        Official Conduct by a Member, officer or employee of the House 

        of Representatives when seeking advice regarding prospective 

        conduct of such Member, officer or employee may be used as the 

        basis for initiating 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 
committee to take depositions with one member present, notwithstanding 
clause 2(h), 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 investigate illegal solicitation of political contributions 
in the House Office Building 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) inserted 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.20). In the 106th 
Congress the chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
inserted in the Record an explanation of the committee's amendment to 
committee rule 20(f) to reflect that the full committee retains 
discretion whether to report to the House that an investigative 
subcommittee has not adopted a statement of alleged violation (Apr. 13, 
2000, p. 5631).

  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 
proceeding 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 committee 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 
(Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 18, 1980, p. 5752; Feb. 17, 2012, p. 2059).


Audio and visual coverage of committee proceedings
  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 considerations, campaign financing and practices, and 
involvement with official and unofficial organizations. The committee is 
required to issue interpretive guidance regarding the prohibition on use 
of nonpublic information for private profit (sec. 3, P.L. 112-105).



807. Coverage of committee proceedings.

  4.  (a) The purpose 
of this clause is to provide a means, in conformity with acceptable 
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 information of the 
general public, on the basis of accurate and impartial news coverage, 
regarding the operations, procedures, and practices of the House as a 
legislative and representative body, and regarding the measures, public 
issues, and other matters before the House 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 audio and video 
recordings of any coverage under this clause may not be used for any 
partisan political campaign purpose or be made available for such use.



Sec. 808. Media coverage.

  (c) It is,  further, the intent of 
this clause that 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 Government officials and personnel, witnesses, television, 
radio, and press media personnel, and the general public at the hearing 
or other meeting, shall be in strict conformity with and observance 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 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 conformity 
with the purposes, provisions, and requirements of this clause.



Sec. 809. When permitted.

  (e) Whenever  a hearing or meeting 
conducted by a committee or subcommittee is open to the public, those 
proceedings 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 coverage shall be authorized).




Sec. 810. Committee rules.

  (f) Written  rules adopted by each 
committee pursuant to clause 2(a)(1)(D) shall contain provisions 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 sponsorship.

      (2) The allocation among the television media of the positions or 
the number of television cameras permitted by a committee or 
subcommittee chair in a hearing or meeting room shall be in accordance 
with fair and equitable procedures devised by the Executive Committee of 
the Radio and Television Correspondents' 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 positions 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 installed in, or removed from, the hearing or meeting 
room while the committee is in session.

      (6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), floodlights, 
spotlights, strobelights, and flash-
guns may not be used in providing any method of coverage of the hearing 
or meeting.

      (B) The television media may install additional 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.

      (7) If requests are made by more of the media than will be 
permitted by a committee or subcommittee chair for coverage of a hearing 
or meeting by still photography, that coverage shall be permitted on the 
basis of a fair and equitable pool arrangement devised by the Standing 
Committee of Press Photographers.



Sec. 811. Press photographers.

      (8)  Photographers may not 
position themselves between the witness table and the members of the 
committee 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 television and radio 
media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television 
Correspondents' Galleries.



Sec. 812. Accreditation.

      (11)  Personnel providing 
coverage by still photography shall be currently accredited to the Press 
Photographers' Gallery.



      (12) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio 
media and by still photography shall conduct themselves and their 
coverage 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 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 determine the appropriate number (H. Res. 
7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). At the beginning of the 104th Congress 
paragraph (d) was amended to delete the former characterization of 
broadcast and photographic coverage of committee meetings and hearings 
as ``a privilege made available by the House,'' and paragraph (e) was 
amended to eliminate the requirement that a committee 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 considerations 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 conforming 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 references 
were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2009, p. 7). 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. 80). The requirement that committees adopt rules 
implementing this clause was transferred from clause 4(f) to clause 
2(a)(1) in the 114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(6), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 
34). Paragraph (b) was amended in the 114th Congress to conform the 
restriction on use of coverage to clause 2(c)(1) of rule V (sec. 
2(a)(7), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34), and was further amended in the 
117th Congress to modernize the types of coverage subject to such 
restriction (sec. 2(o), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in 
former clause 3 of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).


Pay of witnesses
  In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House adopted provisions, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, deeming remote 
proceedings to satisfy all requirements under this clause for 
broadcasting and audio and visual coverage (sec. 4(e)(3), H. Res. 965, 
May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).




813. Fees of witnesses before the House or 
committees.

  5.  Witnesses appearing before the House or any of its 
committees shall be paid the same per diem rate as established, 
authorized, and regulated by the Committee on House Administration for 
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and employees of the 
House, plus actual expenses of travel to or from the place of 
examination. Such per diem may not be paid when a witness has been 
summoned at the place of examination.



[[Page 645]]

bers 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 (Sec. Sec. 802-803, supra).
  This clause (formerly rule XXXV) was adopted in 1872, with amendments 
in 1880 (III, 1825), 1930 (VI, 393), and on 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 diem for witnesses requested or subpoenaed to 
appear at the same rate as established by the Committee on House 
Administration for Mem


Unfinished business of the session
  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 
Handbook, Committee on House Administration, under the section entitled 
``Hearings and Meetings.''




814. Resumption of business of a preceding 
session.

  6. All business  of the House at the end of one session shall be resumed at 
the 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 
Parliament 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 committees. The practice, however, 
had become so well established that no question 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).




[[Page 646]]
 
  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).

                                Rule XII


Messages
              receipt and referral of measures and matters




815. Entry of messages in the Journal and 
Record.

  1.  Messages received from the Senate, or from the President, 
shall be entered on the Journal and published in the Congressional 
Record of the proceedings 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 its 
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule 
XXXIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).


Referral
  The House may receive a message from the Senate when the Senate is not 
in session (VIII, 3338).



816. Referral procedures.

  2.  (a) The Speaker shall refer 
each bill, resolution, or other matter that relates to a subject listed 
under a standing committee named in clause 1 of rule X in accordance 
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 committee 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 contribute to the achievement of the 
objectives of this clause.

  (c) In carrying out paragraphs (a) and (b) with respect to the 
referral of a matter, the Speaker--

      (1) shall designate a committee of primary jurisdiction (except 
where the Speaker determines that extraordinary circumstances justify 
review by more than one committee as though primary);

      (2) may refer the matter to one or more additional committees for 
consideration in sequence, either initially or after the matter has been 
reported by the committee of primary jurisdiction;

      (3) may refer portions of the matter reflecting 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 specific 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 committees, although it contained matter properly within the 
jurisdiction of several 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 require the Speaker to initially designate a committee 
of primary jurisdiction 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 exception 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 (military applications of nuclear 
energy), Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources) 
(regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, since transferred 
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the 104th Congress), Foreign 
Affairs (nonproliferation of nuclear energy and international 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 (nondefense 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 activities 
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 
Congressional Record. A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the 
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in former clause 5 of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  An order of the House precluding or limiting the potential for 
organizational 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. 35825).

  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 referral 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 referral 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 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 
announced at the convening of the 98th Congress that he would exercise 
his authority, in situations that warranted it, to designate a primary 
committee 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 matters within their respective jurisdictions 
(Speaker Gingrich, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 564).

  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). In modern practice, the Speaker does not refer 
Senate amendments.



Sec. 816a. Sequential referral procedures.

  Under  clause 
2(c), the Speaker has authority to sequentially refer a bill reported 
from a committee to other committees for a 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 matters 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 Speaker sequentially 
referred a bill reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce to the 
Committee on the Judiciary for a specified time for consideration 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 
Appropriations, to the committee having legislative jurisdiction over a 
legislative 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 
recommended 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 referral 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 amendment 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 consideration of designated 
sections of the first committee's recommended amendment (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 
committee 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 Gingrich, Sept. 12, 1995, p. 24791). For example, the Speaker 
sequentially referred 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 
introduced text within its jurisdiction and (2) those portions of an 
amendment within its jurisdiction when the introduced version also 
warranted a sequential 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 Infrastructure), relating only to Corps of Engineers' 
water projects as introduced but amended in committee to address general 
water resource policy affecting 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 amendment 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).



Sec. 816b. Referral procedures to an ad hoc select 
committee.

  Resolutions  authorizing the Speaker to establish an ad hoc committee 
for the consideration of a particular bill under paragraph (c), and 
extending the reporting 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 
messages 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 
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 Sec. 723b, supra.

  Clause 7 provides the mechanism for changes of referrals erroneously 
made.




Sec. 816c. As to division of bills for 
reference.

  The parliamentary  law provides that the House may commit a portion of a bill, 
or a part thereof to one committee and another part thereof to another 
(V, 5558), yet under the practice of the House until January 3, 1975, a 
bill or joint resolution could not be divided for reference even if it 
contained 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).





Sec. 817. Restriction on the reference of claims.

  (d)  A bill 
for the payment or adjudication of a private claim against the 
Government may not be referred to a committee other than the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs or the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 Sec. 822, 
infra). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
this provision was found in former clause 4 of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 
6, 1999, p. 47).


Petitions, memorials, and private bills
  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, Sec. 43.22).




818. Introduction and reference of petitions, 
memorials, and private bills.

  3. If a  Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner has a petition, memorial, or private bill to present, the 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall sign it, deliver it to 
the Clerk, and may specify the reference or disposition to be made 
thereof. Such petition, memorial, or private 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. 
7). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 1 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).




Sec. 819. Duties of Speaker and Members 
in presenting petitions.

  Petitions, memorials,  and other papers addressed to the House may 
be presented by the Speaker as well as by a Member (IV, 3312). Petitions 
from the country at large are presented by the Speaker in the manner 
prescribed by the rule (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 committee may receive a petition only through the House (IV, 
4557). The House in the 114th through 118th Congresses required that 
petitions from state legislatures purporting to call for constitutional 
conventions or to rescind such calls be made publicly available (sec. 
3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35; sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2017, p. 38; sec. 103(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(m), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; sec. 3(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).




Sec. 822. Certain private bills prohibited.

  4. A  private 
bill or private resolution (including an omnibus claim or pension 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 damages, 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 navigable stream; or


      (c) the correction of a military or naval record.


Prohibition on commemorations
  This paragraph derives from section 131 of the Legislative 
Reorganization 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 computation of retired pay for a former member of 
the armed services (after exhaustion of administrative remedies) but 
does not directly correct the military record (Sept. 18, 1984, p. 
25824).



823. Commemoratives prohibited.

  5. (a)  A bill or 
resolution, or an amendment thereto, may not be introduced or considered 
in the House if it establishes or expresses a commemoration.



  (b) In this clause the term ``commemoration'' means a remembrance, 
celebration, or recognition for any purpose through the designation of a 
specified period of time.


Excluded matters
  The 104th Congress added the prohibition against commemorative 
legislation and directed the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight (now Oversight and Accountability) 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 its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in former clause 2(b) of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 
47). The House has waived the prohibition against introduction of 
commemorative legislation by unanimous consent (Oct. 24, 2001, p. 20545) 
and has waived the prohibition against consideration thereof by special 
order of business (H. Res. 179, Mar. 1, 2021, p. _).




824. Correction of errors in reference; and relation to 
jurisdiction.

  6. A  petition, memorial, bill, or resolution excluded under 
this rule shall be returned to the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner from whom it was received. A petition or private bill that 
has been inappropriately referred may, by direction of the committee 
having possession of it, be properly referred in the manner originally 
presented. An erroneous reference of a petition or private bill under 
this clause does not confer jurisdiction 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).


Sponsorship
  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 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 reported (June 1, 
1988, p. 13184).



825. Introduction, reference, and change of 
reference of public bills, memorials, and resolutions.

  7. (a) Bills,  memorials, 
petitions, and resolutions, endorsed with the names of Members, 
Delegates, or the Resident 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 privileged 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 resolution may name 
cosponsors. The name of a cosponsor 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 resolution reports it to the House or 
is discharged from its consideration.

  (2) The name of a cosponsor of a bill or resolution may be deleted 
only by a demand from the floor made by the Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner whose name is to be deleted, or by a unanimous-
consent request from the sponsor. The Speaker may only entertain such a 
demand or request 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 
delete the name of the sponsor of a bill or resolution. 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 request 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. 80). Before the House recodified its 
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision 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 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. 9) and the House in the 112th through 
118th Congresses 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. 80; sec. 3(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(l), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 37; sec. 3(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 39; sec. 
103(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(r), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 
2021, p. _; sec. 3(bb), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

  The motion for a change of reference and subsidiary motions take 
precedence over motions to go into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration 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 receiving 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), and such signature may be in electronic form (Speaker 
Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

  Joint sponsorship of public bills by not more than 25 Members was 
authorized 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 committee, 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 paragraph (b)(2), before the 106th Congress, permitted only 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 remove a cosponsor inadvertently or erroneously listed (Feb. 
9, 1982). In the 106th Congress, paragraph (b)(2) codified that such 
requests could be made by either the sponsor or the cosponsor (H. Res. 
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 117th Congress, paragraph (b)(2) was 
amended to permit the cosponsor to remove themself as a matter of right 
(sec. 2(p), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Requests to delete Members' 
names as cosponsors are not entertained after the last committee of 
referral has reported to the House (or has been discharged from further 
consideration) (Oct. 8, 1985, p. 26668; Feb. 10, 2000, p. 982; Jan. 12, 
2022, p. _), 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; June 17, 2013, p. 9275). A Member may 
request to be deleted as a cosponsor of an unreported bill during its 
consideration under suspension of the rules and before a final vote 
thereon is taken (June 9, 1986, pp. 12976, 12979; July 14, 2015, pp. 
11458-60).

  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. 24009), 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 unanimous-consent 
request to add cosponsors (Mar. 5, 1991, p. 5026; 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 (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 10.2; 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 add a co-
offeror of an amendment (May 20, 2004, p. 10631; Sept. 14, 2004, p. 
18429; Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-3) or to change the offeror of a pending 
amendment (Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-3; July 11, 2016, p. 10882).

  In the 116th Congress, the House amended the standing rules to 
establish a Consensus Calendar for consideration of measures 
accumulating 290 cosponsors (sec. 102(r), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; 
see Sec. Sec. 830a, 901a, infra).

  In the 117th Congress the House directed the Clerk to establish a 
process for Members to indicate support for Senate measures received by 
the House, and provided that the process must at a minimum include a 
publicly available list of House supporters for each such Senate measure 
(sec. 3(x), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

  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 subsequently added as such a ``primary'' sponsor by 
unanimous consent (Jan. 18, 1995, p. 1447).




Sec. 825a. Fraudulent introduction of a 
bill.

  The fraudulent  introduction of a measure involves a question of privilege, and 
a measure so introduced has been ordered stricken from the files (IV, 
3388). As the result of the unauthorized introduction of several bills 
without the knowledge of the Members listed as sponsors, the Speaker 
directed that all bills and resolutions must be signed by the sponsor 
thereof in order to be accepted for introduction (Speaker Albert, Feb. 
3, 1972, p. 2521), and in the 117th Congress the Speaker announced that 
such signatures may be in electronic form (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, 
p. _), which expanded upon an earlier electronic signature policy from 
the 116th Congress that applied during the pendency of a designated 
public health emergency (Speaker Pelosi, Apr. 7, 2020, p. _).





Sec. 826. Introduction of bills, resolutions, or memorials 
by request.

  (5)  When a bill or resolution is introduced ``by request,'' 
those words shall be entered on the Journal and printed in the 
Congressional Record.



  This provision was adopted in 1888 (IV, 3366). Before the House 
recodified 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 of the House to permit the names of the persons 
requesting the introduction of the bill to be printed in the Record.



Sec. 826a. Constitutional authority statement upon 
introduction.

  (c)(1)  A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless 
the sponsor submits for printing in the Congressional 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.


[[Page 661]]

  

  


  (2) Before consideration of a Senate bill or joint resolution, the 
chair of a committee of jurisdiction may submit the statement required 
under subparagraph (1) as though the chair were the sponsor of the 
Senate bill or joint resolution.

  Paragraph (c) was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(a)(1), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). A point of order under this paragraph is not 
timely when the relevant measure is not pending (May 16, 2013, pp. 7050, 
7051).



Sec. 826b. United States Code citations.

  The  House in the 
113th through 117th Congresses required, to the extent practicable, an 
applicable United States Code citation in the case of an amendatory 
instruction in a bill or joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend a 
law not codified (sec. 3(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(m), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 37; sec. 3(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 
39; sec. 103(f), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(l), H. Res. 8, 
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).-



Executive communications


Sec. 826c. Singlesubject statement upon 
introduction.

  The  House in the 118th Congress prohibited the introduction 
of a bill or joint resolution unless accompanied by a statment setting 
forth the single subject of the measure, and directed that the statement 
be included with the constitutional authority statement required under 
this paragraph (sec. 3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).





827. Reception and reference of executive 
communications, including estimates.

  8. Estimates  of appropriations and all other 
communications from the executive departments intended for the 
consideration of any committees of the House shall be addressed to the 
Speaker for referral as provided in clause 2 of rule XIV.





[[Page 662]]
 
  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.

                                Rule XIII


Calendars
                     calendars and committee reports



828. Calendar for reports of committees.

  1. (a)  All 
business reported by committees shall be referred to one of the 
following 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 already made, or releasing any liability to the United 
States for money or property.

      (2) A House Calendar, to which shall be referred 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 private 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 Committee of the Whole House'' to the ``Private 
Calendar.'' Subparagraph (1) was amended in the 115th Congress to 
exclude measures referring a claim to the Court of Claims (sec. 2(n), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). Bills not requiring consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole were considered when reported, but in 1880 the 
House Calendar was created to remedy delays caused by such consideration 
(IV, 3115). Reference of a bill 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 improperly 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 the 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 reference 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 entitlement 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).




Sec. 830. Motion to discharge.

  (b)  There is established a 
Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees as provided 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 provision 
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).




Sec. 830a. Consensus Calendar.

  (c)  There is established a 
Consensus Calendar as provided in clause 7 of rule XV.



Filing and printing of reports
  This paragraph was added in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(r), H. Res. 
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).



831. Reports filed with the Clerk.

  2. (a)(1)  Except as 
provided in subparagraphs (2) and (3), all reports of committees (other 
than those filed from the floor) shall be delivered to the Clerk for 
printing and reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the 
Speaker in accordance with clause 1. The title or subject of each report 
shall be entered on the Journal and printed in the Congressional Record.




Sec. 832. Adverse reports.

  (2)  A bill or resolution reported 
adversely (other than those filed as privileged) shall be laid on the 
table unless 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, a 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner makes such a request.





Sec. 832a. Electronic filing.

  (3)  All reports of committees 
may be delivered to the Clerk in electronic form.


  A technical amendment was effected by the 93d Congress (H. Res. 988, 
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected 
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 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. 9) (contrast the 
1999 codification with its predecessor in form; VI, 411). Subparagraph 
(3) was added in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(l)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 
2021, p. _).



Sec. 833. Requirement that reports of committees be in 
writing and be printed.

  When  the House codified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, it deleted the portion of clause 2 of rule XVIII that required 
the printing of reports. That provision was redundant because this 
provision carries the same requirement (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). 
Former clause 2 of rule XVIII 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 concurring (II, 1274) or even by any of those concurring, but 
minority, supplemental, additional, and dissenting views are signed by 
those submitting them (IV, 4671; VIII, 2229; see clause 2(l) 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 (Sec. 764, supra), clauses 4, 5 and 6 of rule 
XIII (Sec. 850, Sec. 851, Sec. 853, Sec. 857, infra, respectively), 
clause 11 of rule XXI (Sec. 1068j, infra), and clause 8 of rule XXII 
(Sec. 1082, infra). See also clause 3(a)(2) of rule XIII (Sec. 838, 
infra), which excepts from the availability requirements of clauses 4 
and 6 supplemental reports to correct a technical error in the depiction 
of record votes in a committee report. As a precursor to subparagraph 
(3), the House during the 116th Congress authorized the electronic 
submission of written reports during the pendency of a designated public 
health emergency (sec. 4(a), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _).

  Unless filed with a report pursuant to clause 2(c), minority, 
supplemental, additional, or dissenting 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 
Director of the Government Publishing Office 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).



Sec. 834. Chair's duty.

  (b)(1)  It shall be the duty of the 
chair of each 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.





Sec. 835. Filing by majority of committee.

  (2)  In any event, 
the report of a committee on a measure that has been approved 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 
inquiry addressed to the head of an executive department.


  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 Wednesday (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 reporting any of them to the 
House, and to submit a report comparing specified 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 obsolete 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). Gender-
based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House recodified its rules in 
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 (e.g., Mar. 30, 2012, p. 4686), 
committee reports must be submitted while the House is in session, 
except as permitted under paragraph (c) (Sec. 836, infra). A motion to 
permit a committee to file while the House is not in session is not 
available (Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31951).




Sec. 836. Filing with separate views.

  (c)  All supplemental, 
minority, additional, or dissenting views filed under clause 2(l) of 
rule 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 preclude the immediate filing or 
printing of a committee report in the absence of a timely request for 
the opportunity to file supplemental, minority, additional, or 
dissenting views as provided in clause 2(l) of rule XI.



Content of reports
  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). The paragraph was amended in the 
114th Congress to include dissenting views to mirror an amendment to 
clause 2(l) of rule XI (sec. 2(a)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). 
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).



837. Single volume.

  3. (a)(1)  Except as provided in 
subparagraph (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, additional, or 
dissenting 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, additional, or dissenting views (and any material submitted 
under paragraph (c)(3)) are included as part of the report.




Sec. 838. Technical error.

  (2)  A committee may file a 
supplemental report 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 
requirement 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 Congress, 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 members to supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting 
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). Subparagraphs (1)(A) and 
(1)(B) were amended in the 114th Congress to include dissenting views to 
mirror an amendment to clause 2(l) of rule XI (sec. 2(a)(5), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34).

  Except as provided in subparagraph (2), a supplemental report is 
subject to the availability requirements of clause 4 (Deschler, ch. 17, 
Sec. 64.1). A committee may file a supplemental report pursuant to 
subparagraph (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. 14834).




Sec. 839. Vote on reporting.

  (b)  With respect to each record 
vote on a motion to report a measure or matter 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 report. The preceding 
sentence does not apply to votes taken in executive session by the 
Committee 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). An 
exception for certain reports by the Committee on Rules was adopted in 
the 110th Congress (sec. 503, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted 
Jan. 5, 2007), repealed in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(c)(10), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), partially reinstated in the 116th Congress (sec. 
102(s), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and repealed again in the 118th 
Congress (sec. 2(o), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). 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. 80). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision 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 
supplemental report; however, a point of order would not lie if the 
error was introduced by the Government Publishing Office (Jan. 19, 1995, 
p. 1613). A question alleging that a committee report contained 
descriptions of recorded votes (as required by this clause) that 
deliberately mischaracterized certain amendments and directing the chair 
of the committee to file a supplemental report to change those 
descriptions was held to constitute a question of the privileges of the 
House (May 3, 2005, pp. 8417, 8418).



Sec. 840. Content of reports.

  (c)  The report of a committee 
on a measure that has been approved by the committee 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, except that an estimate of new budget authority 
shall include, when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant programs to the appropriate levels under 
current law.

      (3) An estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office 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 goals and objectives, for which the measure 
authorizes funding.

      (5) On a bill or joint resolution that establishes or reauthorizes 
a Federal program, a statement indicating whether any such program is 
known to be duplicative of another such program, including at a minimum 
an explanation of whether any such program was included in a report to 
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or whether the 
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (published pursuant 
to section 6104 of title 31, United States Code) identified other 
programs related to the program established or reauthorized by the 
measure.

      (6)(A) On a bill or joint resolution to be considered pursuant to 
a special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules--

          (i) a list of related committee and subcommittee hearings; and

          (ii) a designation of at least one committee or subcommittee 
hearing that was used to develop or consider such bill or joint 
resolution.

      (B) Subdivision (A) shall not apply to a bill or joint 
resolution--

          (i) continuing appropriations for a fiscal year; or


          (ii) containing an emergency designation under section 
251(b)(2) or section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985.

  This provision (formerly clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI) became effective 
January 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 requirements 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 
remaining parts and to effect a technical and conforming change (Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105-33)). Subparagraph (4) was 
amended to replace a requirement that committees include in their 
reports oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on 
Government Reform (now Oversight and Accountability) with a requirement 
that they include a statement of performance goals and objectives (sec. 
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Subparagraph (5) was added in the 
115th Congress (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37), codifying 
part of a separate order adopted by the House in the 113th and 114th 
Congresses (sec. 3(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(g), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36). Subparagraph (6) was added in the 117th 
Congress (sec. 2(r)(1), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _), codifying part 
of a separate order adopted by the House in the 116th Congress (sec. 
103(i), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).




Sec. 840a. Former directed rule making.

  The  House in the 
113th and 114th Congresses required each report accompanying a bill or 
joint resolution to include a statement estimating the number of 
directed rule makings required by the measure (sec. 3(k), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36), and the 
115th Congress required instead a list of such rule makings (sec. 3(i), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 39).




Sec. 841. Estimate of cost.

  (d)  Each report of a committee 
on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain 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 fiscal years following 
that fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of any program 
authorized by the bill or joint resolution if less than five years);

      (B) a comparison of the estimate of costs described in subdivision 
(A) made by the committee 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 ``Government agency'' includes 
any department, agency, establishment, wholly owned Government 
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 comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
has been included 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 
Legislative 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 amended 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 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 (sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 
1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 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 subparagraph (1) was repealed (sec. 
2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80) and subparagraph (2)(B) was 
amended to reflect a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 7 of this rule (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  A committee cost estimate identifying certain spending authority as 
recurring 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).



Sec. 842. Application of laws to legislative 
branch.

  Under  the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, each report 
accompanying a bill or joint resolution relating to terms and conditions 
of employment or access to public services or accommodations must 
describe the manner in which the provisions apply to the legislative 
branch or a statement 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).





Sec. 843. Unfunded mandates.

  The  Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48) added a new part B to title IV of 
the Congressional 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 Sec. 1127, infra.





Sec. 844. Former constitutional authority requirement 
and inflationary impact requirement.

  Former  clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI, which 
became a part of the rules under the Committee Reform Amendments of 
1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, 
p. 34470), required an analytical statement of inflationary impact. It 
was converted in the 105th Congress 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. 80). 
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).




Sec. 846. ``Ramseyer'' rule.

  (e)(1)  Whenever a committee 
reports a bill or joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend a 
statute or part thereof, it shall include in its report or in an 
accompanying document (showing by appropriate typographical devices the 
omissions and insertions proposed)--


      (A) the entire text of each section of a statute that is proposed 
to be repealed; and

      (B) a comparative print of each amendment to the entire text of a 
section of a statute that the bill or joint resolution proposes to make.


  (2) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution 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 subparagraph (2) (formerly a proviso in clause 3(2)) was added 
September 22, 1961 (p. 20823). Subparagraph (1)(B) was amended in the 
113th Congress to promote the inclusion of adjacent provisions (sec. 
2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Subparagraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) 
were amended in the 114th Congress to require the inclusion of the 
entire text of a section proposed to be repealed or amended in addition 
to the existing requirement for a comparative print (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35), but the 115th Congress provided that the 
material required by both subparagraphs was to be included in a single 
comparative print (sec. 2(o), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). 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). 
For a former separate requirement for a comparative print prior to 
consideration, see clause 12 of rule XXI (Sec. 1068l, infra).

  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 considered again and reported by 
the committee as if no previous report had been made (VIII, 2249).

  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). 
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). The rule applies to appropriation bills that include 
legislative provisions (VIII, 2241) and reports on appropriation bills 
are also subject to the requirements of paragraph (f), regarding direct 
or indirect changes in the application of existing law.

  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 consideration (VIII, 2243-2245).


  Where the comparative print contained certain errors in punctuation 
and capitalization and utilized abbreviations not appearing in existing 
provisions of law, the Speaker held that the committee report was in 
substantial compliance with the rule and overruled a point of order 
against the report (Deschler, ch. 17, Sec. Sec. 60.13, 60.14).



Sec. 847. Content of reports on appropriation 
bills.

  (f)(1)  A report of the Committee on Appropriations on a general 
appropriation bill shall include--


      (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 authorized by law for the period concerned 
(excepting classified intelligence or national security programs, 
projects, or activities), along with a statement of the last year for 
which such expenditures were authorized, the level of expenditures 
authorized for that year, the actual level of expenditures for that 
year, and the level of appropriations in the bill for such expenditures.


  This provision (formerly clause 3 of rule XXI) became a part of the 
rules under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 
3, 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 Congress 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 recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3 of rule XXI (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  (2) Whenever the Committee on Appropriations 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 separate section listing 
such rescissions and transfers.


  This provision (formerly clause 1(b) of rule X) was added by the 
Committee 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).



Sec. 848. Comparative print of changes to standing 
rules.

  (g)  Whenever the Committee on Rules reports a resolution proposing 
to repeal or amend a standing rule of the House, it shall include in its 
report or in an accompanying document--


      (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 amended, 
showing by appropriate typographical devices the omissions and 
insertions proposed.


  This provision (formerly clause 4(d) of rule XI) was added to the 
rules under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 
3, 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 recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in 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 that does not itself repeal or 
amend any rule but rather provides for consideration of a bill with 
textual modifications that would effect certain changes in House rules 
on enactment of the bill into law (May 27, 1993, p. 11597).



Sec. 849. Tax complexity analysis.

  (h)   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 Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 unless--


      (1) the report includes a tax complexity analysis prepared by the 
Joint Committee on Taxation in accordance with section 4022(b) of the 
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998; or


      (2) the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means causes such a tax 
complexity analysis to be printed in the Congressional Record before 
consideration of the bill or joint resolution.


  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 as a former subparagraph (1) 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 Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 114th Congress, designations were changed 
when a former subparagraph (2) was repealed (see Sec. 849a, infra) and 
an archaic reference to the name of the joint committee was updated 
(sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35).


Availability of reports


Sec. 849a. Former macroeconomic impact analysis 
and dynamic estimate required.

  A requirement  that macroeconomic analysis be included 
in the committee report for certain tax measures was repealed in the 
114th Congress (sec. 2(c)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35). For its 
text and history, and the history of a former provision on dynamic 
scoring, see Sec. 849 of the House Rules and Manual for the 113th 
Congress (H. Doc. 112-161). For a current provision on macroeconomic 
analysis, see Sec. 868a, infra.




850. Layover.

  4. (a)(1)  Except as specified in subparagraph 
(2), it shall not be in order to consider in the House a measure or 
matter reported by a committee until the proposed text of each report 
(except views referred to in clause 2(l) of rule XI) of a committee on 
that measure or matter has been available to Members, Delegates, and the 
Resident Commissioner for 72 hours.


  (2) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to--

      (A) a resolution providing a rule, joint rule, or order of 
business reported by the Committee 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 committee;

      (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 
``Government agency'' includes any department, agency, establishment, 
wholly owned Government 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 consideration 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 reported 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 concurrent resolution on the budget (Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10109, P.L. 105-33)). In the 106th 
Congress two technical and conforming corrections were effected. The 
106th Congress also recodified the rules, transferring 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. 80). In the 116th Congress, paragraph (a)(1) 
was amended to require availability for 72 hours and to allow proposed 
report text to count for availability purposes (sec. 102(t)(1), H. Res. 
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).

  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; 
but see clause 11 of rule XXI for availability requirements for 
unreported measures). The Committee on Rules has the authority under 
clause 5(a) (formerly 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 available as required by this rule, which 
only applies to the consideration of reported measures themselves (Oct. 
9, 1986, p. 29973). The exceptions from the layover requirement were 
expanded in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) to 
include resolutions called up pursuant 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 measure disapproving an 
executive branch decision pursuant to statute within three days of the 
expiration of the congressional review period, notwithstanding the 
availability requirement (concurrent resolution disapproving 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 privileges 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, Sec. 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 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).-




Sec. 851. Oneday layover.

  A committee  expense resolution 
reported by the Committee on House Administration pursuant to clause 5 
need only be available for one day. However, other resolutions reported 
from that committee that are privileged (such as a resolution 
authorizing the printing of material as a House document), but that do 
not constitute questions of the privileges of the House, are subject to 
this clause (Speaker Albert, Mar. 6, 1975, p. 5537).



Privileged reports, generally


Sec. 852. Former rule on printed hearings on 
appropriation bills.

  A former  paragraph (c), prohibiting consideration of 
general appropriation bills until the third calendar day on which 
printed hearings had been available, was repealed in the 114th Congress 
(sec. 2(a)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). For its text and 
history, see Sec. 852 of the House Rules and Manual for the 113th 
Congress (H. Doc. 112-161).




853. Privileged reports.

  5. (a)  The following committees 
shall have leave to report at any time on the following matters, 
respectively:


      (1) The Committee on Appropriations, on general appropriation 
bills and on joint resolutions continuing appropriations for a fiscal 
year after September 15 in the preceding fiscal year.

      (2) The Committee on the Budget, on the matters required to be 
reported by such committee under titles III and IV of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

      (3) The Committee on House Administration, 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 respect to a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House as a result of an investigation by the 
committee relating to the official conduct of such Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee.


  (b) A report filed from the floor, pursuant to clause 2(a)(3), or 
pursuant to clause 2(c), as privileged under paragraph (a) may be called 
up as a privileged question by direction of the reporting committee, 
subject to any requirement concerning its availability to Members, 
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner under clause 4 or concerning 
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., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). On the latter date the privileges given 
to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources) 
on bills for the forfeiture of land grants to railroad and other 
corporations, preventing 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 Committee 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 reported 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 Committee 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. 80). In the 105th Congress it 
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 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. 80). Paragraph (b) was amended in the 117th Congress to account 
for privileged reports submitted in electronic form pursuant to clause 
2(a)(3) of this rule or filed with the Clerk pursuant to clause 2(c) of 
this rule (sec. 2(l)(3), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

  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 business 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), and in the 117th Congress the rule was amended to exempt 
privileged reports filed in electronic form or pursuant to clause 2(c) 
of this rule from the requirement that privileged reports must be made 
from the floor (sec. 2(l)(3), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). A 
privileged report 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 this 
rule) (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) of 
rule XI (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 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. Today: (1) reports from the Committee on Rules 
on rules, joint rules, and the order of business under clause 6 of this 
rule; (2) reports from the Committee on House Administration on 
committee expense resolutions under clause 5(a) of this rule; (3) 
reports constituting questions of privilege (see generally Deschler, ch. 
14, Sec. 7.4, fn. 10, discussing ruling of Speaker Albert, July 13, 
1971, on a reported contempt); and (4) reports on the official conduct 
of a Member (e.g., H. Res. 31, Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393), are exempt from 
the requirements of clause 4 of this rule (former clause 2(l)(6) of rule 
XI) (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 met the availability requirements 
of clause 4 of this rule. 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 reported adversely have the same 
status so far as their privilege is concerned as those reported 
favorably (VI, 413; VIII, 2310).



Sec. 854. Privileged reports defined.

  The  matters reported 
under the provisions of this clause are denominated ``privileged 
reports'' or ``privileged questions,'' and because the privilege relates 
merely to the order of business 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 
established 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 interrupted 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).



Sec. 855. The privilege of individual committees for 
reports.

  The  privilege given by this clause to the Committee on Rules is 
confined to ``action touching rules, joint rules, and order of 
business'' and this committee may not report as privileged a concurrent 
resolution providing for a Senate investigating committee (VIII, 2255), 
or provide for the appointment 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 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 invalidated 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 the 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, Sec. 16.11; Feb. 4, 1993, p. 2500); to provide that 
an amendment containing an appropriation in violation 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 business 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 (Sec. 513, supra) because 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 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, 
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 appropriations (VIII, 2282-2284).

  Reports from the Committee on House Administration authorizing 
appropriations from the Treasury directly for compensation of employees 
(IV, 4645) or fixing the salaries of employees are not privileged (VIII, 
2302).



Sec. 856. Privileged motion for consideration of 
appropriation bills; formerly also revenue bills.

    As early as 1835 the 
necessity of giving appropriation bills precedence became apparent, and 
in 1837 former clause 9 of rule XVI was adopted to establish that 
principle. Although bills raising revenue were given equal precedence by 
that rule (IV, 3075, 3076), the authority for the Committee on Ways and 
Means to report such bills as privileged under former clause 4(a) of 
rule XI was eliminated by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, 
effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 
34470), and the obsolete corresponding reference to revenue bills was 
deleted from former clause 9 of rule XVI in the 104th Congress (H. Res. 
254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077) (see Sec. 853, supra). Although the 
authority for the Committee on Appropriations to report as privileged 
general appropriation bills remains in clause 5 of rule XIII, the 
corresponding privileged motion in former clause 9 of rule XVI was 
deleted in recodification as redundant to this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).



Privileged reports by the Committee on Rules
  The motion may designate the particular appropriation bill to be 
considered (IV, 3074). The motion is privileged at any time after the 
approval of the Journal (subject to relevant report and hearing 
availability requirements), but only if offered at the direction of the 
committee (July 23, 1993, p. 16820). The motion was in order on former 
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 former ``suspension day'' (IV, 3080); and on consent days the call 
of the former Consent Calendar (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).



857. Reports from Committee on Rules.

  6. (a)  A report by 
the Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of 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;

      (3) when the proposed text of such a report has been made 
available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner prior to 
the convening of that legislative day; or

      (4) 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 report 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, if offered by the Minority 
Leader or a designee, except with respect to a Senate bill or joint 
resolution for which the text of a House-passed measure has been 
substituted.

  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 further 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 prohibit 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. 7), and in the 117th Congress paragraph (c) was amended to 
eliminate the requirement that the Committee on Rules provide for a 
motion to recommit with instructions, to conform to the elimination of 
the motion to recommit with instructions in rule XIX (sec. 2(s)(1), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). During the 117th Congress paragraph (a) was 
amended to allow for consideration of a resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules on the same day it is filed provided the proposed 
text of the report was made available prior to the convening of that 
legislative day (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 1230, 117th Cong., p. _). 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 Congress (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. 80). For rulings under the earlier form of the rule, 
see Sec. 859, infra.

  A privileged report from the Committee on Rules, other than one filed 
during the last three days of a session (Dec. 31, 1970, p. 44292; Jan. 
1, 2013, pp. 18581, 18582) or one filed in compliance with paragraph 
(a)(2) or (a)(3), 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 convening of the House on the next legislative day may 
be called up for immediate consideration without the two-thirds vote 
requirement (Speaker Albert, 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 calendar 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, 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 Committee on Rules waiving the 
availability requirement under clause 4 of this rule, and waiving the 
requirement that copies of conference reports or amendments reported 
from conference in disagreement be available 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 the prohibition against divisibility in 
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 authority 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 recognize a Member to offer for immediate consideration 
a special order providing for the consideration of a resolution adopting 
the rules (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.10; H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 
2007, p. 7; H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).

  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 consideration 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 consideration of a budget resolution, where a statute (P.L. 96-389) 
reaffirmed congressional commitment to balanced Federal budgets but did 
not dictate 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 
entertaining unanimous-consent requests in the House to alter a special 
order of business previously adopted by the House, see Sec. 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 of business 
adopted by the House, see Sec. 993a, infra.



Sec. 858. Dilatory motions not permitted.

  In  the later 
practice it has been held that the question of consideration may not be 
raised against a report from the Committee 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) the motion to postpone to a day certain (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 
29972); and (3) 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) or a motion to postpone to a day certain (July 12, 
2016, p. 10977). 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 Committee 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 Chair will not respond to a 
parliamentary inquiry to prejudge who would be recognized as the leader 
of opposition to the previous question in the event it were rejected 
(Oct. 26, 2015, p. 16531). 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. 3740) and may be offered 
immediately after the reading of the resolution (Mar. 20, 2002, pp. 
3671, 3672; June 24, 2009, pp. 16078, 16079) 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 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 discretionary (see Sec. 963, infra).


  A motion to recommit a special rule from the Committee on Rules is not 
in order (VIII, 2270, 2753).



Sec. 859. Restrictions on authority of Committee on 
Rules.

  From  1934 until the amendment to this provision in the 104th 
Congress (sec. 210, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), it was 
consistently held that the Committee on Rules could recommend 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 instructions relating to specified amendments 
(Speaker Rainey, Jan. 11, 1934, pp. 479-83 (sustained on appeal)); or by 
omitting to preserve the availability of amendatory instructions in the 
case that the bill is entirely rewritten 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). In the 117th 
Congress, the requirement that the Committee on Rules provide for a 
motion to recommit with instructions was eliminated, along with the 
motion to recommit with instructions itself. For the changes to the 
motion to recommit impacting the precedents in this section, see See 
Sec. 1001, infra. A special order providing for consideration of a bill 
under suspension 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, Sec. 26.11; see generally Deschler, ch. 
23, Sec. 25.


  The caveat against including in a special order matter privileged to 
be reported by another committee (Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 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 another 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 exchange of correspondence between the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Rules regarding this practice, see 
January 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) of 
rule II (Apr. 13, 2011, p. 5873).



Sec. 860. Unfunded mandates; congressional earmarks; 
germaneness.

  The  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 
Stat. 48) added a new part B to title IV of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658-658g) that imposes several requirements on 
committees with respect to ``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 Sec. 1127, infra.


  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)). See Sec. 1068d, infra.


  In the 118th Congress, the House established a point of order against 
a rule or order waiving points of order against an amendment otherwise 
in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI (the germaneness rule), and 
permitting a vote on the question of consideration of any rule or order 
asserted to be in violation (sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).



Sec. 861. Filing reports.

  (d)  The Committee on Rules shall 
present to the House reports concerning rules, joint rules, and the 
order of business, 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 seeks recognition 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 or public joint resolution may be called up as a privileged 
question by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner on the second 
and fourth Mondays of a month.


  Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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. 7). 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) (reestablishing 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 mobility-based reference was 
eliminated in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 
37), and a conforming change to paragraph (e) was made in the 116th 
Congress (sec. 102(v)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 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, 
including a minority member (Nov. 13, 1979, p. 32185; Sept. 25, 1980, p. 
27418; May 6, 1982, p. 8905).




Sec. 862. Privileged motion.

  (f)  If the House has adopted a 
resolution making in order a motion to consider a 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 
resolution.



  This provision was contained in section 109 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). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in 
former clause 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.




Sec. 863. Specifying waivers.

  (g)  Whenever the Committee on 
Rules reports a resolution providing for the consideration of a measure, 
it shall to the maximum extent possible specify in the accompanying 
report any waiver of a point of order against the measure or against its 
consideration.



Resolutions of inquiry
  This provision was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 211, H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). It was amended in the 113th Congress to shift the 
specification of any waiver from the resolution to the accompanying 
report (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in 
former clause 4(e) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).




864. Resolution of inquiry.

  7. A  report on a resolution of 
inquiry addressed to the head of an executive department may be filed 
from the floor as privileged. If such a resolution is not reported to 
the House within 14 legislative days after its introduction, a motion to 
discharge a committee from its consideration shall be privileged.


  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 the 
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 recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 5 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). In the 118th Congress, the House authorized the tolling of 
the 14-legislative-day count under this clause as part of a larger set 
of procedures effective during a district work period as designated by 
the Speaker (sec. 3(z), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).



Sec. 865. Forms of resolutions of inquiry and 
delivery thereof.

  Resolutions of  inquiry are usually simple rather than concurrent in 
form (III, 1875), and are never joint resolutions (III, 1860). A 
resolution authorizing a committee to request information 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 addressing 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 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). 
Resolutions 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).




Sec. 866. Privileged status of resolutions of 
inquiry.

  The practice of  the House gives to resolutions of inquiry a privileged 
status. Thus, they are privileged for report and consideration at any 
time after their reference to a committee (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 were privileged for consideration on former 
``suspension days'' (except on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 896-898)) and 
took precedence of the former Consent Calendar (VI, 409) before its 
abolishment in the 104th Congress (H. Res. 168, June 20, 1995, p. 
16574). Only resolutions addressed to the President 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 (Speaker 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).



Sec. 867. Discharge of a committee from a 
resolution of inquiry.

  Committees are  required to report resolutions of inquiry back 
to the House within a prescribed timeframe (formerly one week, now 14 
legislative days) (VIII, 3368; Speaker 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, 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 reports 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).



Estimates of major legislation


Sec. 868. Resolutions of inquiry as related to 
the Executive.

  The President  having failed to respond to a resolution of inquiry, 
the House respectfully reminded him of the fact (III, 1890). In 1796 the 
House declared that its constitutional requests of the Executive for 
information need not be accompanied 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).




868a. Macroeconomic analysis.

  8. (a)  An estimate provided 
by the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any major legislation shall, to the 
extent practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in 
economic output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic 
variables resulting from such legislation.


  (b) An estimate provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation to the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 201(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any major legislation shall, to the 
extent practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in 
economic output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic 
variables resulting from such legislation.

  (c) An estimate referred to in this clause shall, to the extent 
practicable, include--

      (1) a qualitative assessment of the budgetary effects (including 
macroeconomic variables described in paragraphs (a) and (b)) of such 
legislation in the 20-fiscal year period beginning after the last fiscal 
year of the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget 
that set forth appropriate levels required by section 301 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and

      (2) an identification of the critical assumptions and the source 
of data underlying that estimate.

  (d) As used in this clause--

      (1) the term ``major legislation'' means any bill or joint 
resolution--


[[Page 699]]

gressional Budget Act of 1974 and that causes a 
gross budgetary effect (before incorporating macroeconomic effects) in 
any fiscal year over the years of the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the 
current projected gross domestic product of the United States for that 
fiscal year; or
      (A) for which an estimate is required to be prepared pursuant to 
section 402 of the Con

      (B) designated as such by the chair of the Committee on the Budget 
for all direct spending legislation other than revenue legislation or 
the Member who is chair or vice chair, as applicable, of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation for revenue legislation; and


      (2) the term ``budgetary effects'' means changes in revenues, 
outlays, and deficits.



 
  This clause was added in the 114th Congress (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2015, p. _), repealed in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(u), H. 
Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and reinstated in the 118th Congress (sec. 
2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). For former provisions on 
macroeconomic analysis, see Sec. 849a, supra.

                                Rule XIV


                     order and priority of business



Sec. 869. The rule for the order of business in the House.

  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:
   
First. Prayer by the Chaplain. l  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.

  Seventh. The morning hour for the consideration of bills called up by 
committees as provided in clause 4.

  Eighth. Motions that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state 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 
frequently 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 the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this provision was 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 Sec. 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 Allegiance; (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).



Sec. 870. Privileged interruptions of the order of 
business in the House.

  This rule  does not bind the House to a daily routine 
because the system of making certain important subjects privileged (see 
clause 5 of rule XIII and rule XXII) permits the interruption of the 
order of business by matters that, in fact, often supplant it entirely 
for days at a time. In the 106th Congress the recodification 
acknowledged 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 interruption (IV, 3070, 3071) unless the House adjourns, in 
which case it 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 the 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 exception to the principle that a majority may prevent 
interruption is contained in clause 5 of rule XV, providing for a call 
of the Private Calendar. 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 calendars.




Sec. 871. The privileged matters that may interrupt the order 
of business.

    The privileged matters that may interrupt the order of 
business include: l  (1) General appropriation bills (clause 5 of rule 
XIII; IV, 3072). l  (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 the stage of 
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 
Calendars (clause 6 of rule XV).

  (8) Private business (clause 5 of rule XV).

  (9) Motions to discharge committees on public bills and resolutions 
(clause 2 of rule XV).

  (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 Members 
after approval of the Journal to lead the House in the Pledge of 
Allegiance 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).




Sec. 872. The interruption of the order of business 
by the request for unanimous consent.

  When the  House has no rule establishing 
an order of business, as at the beginning of a session before the 
adoption of rules, it is in order for any Member who is recognized by 
the Chair to offer a proposition relating to the order of business 
without asking consent of the House (IV, 3060). But after the adoption 
of the rule for the order of business, 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 Member, 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. 32129; Dec. 
15, 1995, p. 37142; Nov. 7, 2009, p. 27190) or in the face of an 
objection to the request (May 28, 2019, p. _). A Member objecting to a 
unanimous-consent request or demanding the regular order when another 
has reserved the right to object must identify himself or herself 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 Sec. 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 
unanimous-consent requests and reservations of objections, see Sec. 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).




Sec. 873. Disposal of 
business on the Speaker's table.

  2. Business on the Speaker's table  shall be disposed of as follows:


      (a) Messages from the President shall be referred to the 
appropriate committees without debate.

      (b) Communications addressed to the House, including reports and 
communications from heads of departments and bills, resolutions, and 
messages from the Senate, may be referred to the appropriate committees 
in the same manner and with the same right of correction as public bills 
and public resolutions presented by Members, Delegates, or the Resident 
Commissioner.

      (c) Motions to dispose of Senate amendments on the Speaker's table 
may be entertained as provided in clauses 1, 2, and 4 of rule XXII.


      (d) Senate bills and resolutions substantially the same as House 
measures already favorably reported and not required to be considered 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 offered by 
direction of all reporting committees having initial jurisdiction of the 
House measure.

  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 modify the 
rule so 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).



Sec. 874. Matters on Speaker's table for action by the 
House or by the Speaker alone.

  Such  portions of messages from the Senate as 
require action by the House, messages from the President except those 
transmitting objections to bills (IV, 3534-3536), and communications and 
reports from the heads of departments go to the Speaker's table when 
received, to be disposed of under this rule. Simple resolutions of the 
Senate that do not require any action by the House are not referred 
(VII, 1048). Messages from the President are referred. Such portions of 
Senate messages (House bills with Senate amendments) that do not require 
consideration in the 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 the 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 temporarily 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 under clause 2 of rule XII 
(VI, 731), and on being reported 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 
may 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). 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 Sec. 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 Calendar (VI, 736). In determining whether the 
House bill is substantially the same as the Senate bill, amendments 
recommended by the House committee 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).




Sec. 875. Reference of President's messages from the 
Speaker's table.

  A  message of the President on the Speaker's table is 
regularly laid before the House only at the time prescribed by the order 
of business (V, 6635-6638). Although it is always read in full and 
entered on the Journal and the Congressional 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 Speaker (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). The referral may be to a select 
as well as to a standing committee (V, 6633, 6634).





Sec. 876. Unfinished business.

  3.  Consideration of 
unfinished business in which the House may have been engaged at an 
adjournment, except business in the morning hour and proceedings 
postponed under clause 8 of rule XX, shall be resumed 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 belongs 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 
unsatisfactory, 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).



Sec. 877. Construction of rule as to unfinished 
business.

  This  clause should be understood in light of clause 8 of rule XX, 
which permits the Chair to postpone record votes on certain questions to 
a designated time within two legislative days (see Sec. 1030, infra). 
The ``business in which the House may be engaged at an adjournment'' 
means, literally, 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, the first Tuesday 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 
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). 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 unfinished 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 12.7).




Sec. 878. Effect of previous question.

  When the  House 
adjourns before voting on a proposition on which the previous question 
has been ordered, either directly or 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 motions 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 ordered 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 was of equal privilege with business on 
the former Consent Calendar (VII, 990).




Sec. 879. Business unfinished in periods set apart 
for classes of business.

  The rule  excepts by its terms certain classes of 
business that are considered in periods set apart for classes of 
business, viz: l  (a) Bills considered in the morning hour and on 
Calendar Wednesday for the call of committees. l  (b) Bills in Committee 
of the Whole.


  (c) Private bills.

  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 former District of Columbia day business unfinished on the 
preceding District day was in order for consideration, but could not 
come before the House unless called up (IV, 3307; VII, 879). Under the 
former version of the rule setting out specific days for a motion to 
suspend the rules, such a motion that was undisposed of on one 
suspension day went over as unfinished business to the next suspension 
day unless postponed under clause 8 of rule XX (V, 6814-6816; VIII, 
3411, 3412; Mar. 15, 2017, p. 4259 (see Mar. 8, 2017, p. 3950)).




Sec. 880. The morning hour for the call of 
committees.

  4. After the  unfinished business has been disposed of, the Speaker 
shall call each standing committee in regular order and then select 
committees. Each committee when named may call up for consideration 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 committees 
before the House passes to other business, the next call shall resume at 
the point it left off, giving preference to the last bill or resolution 
under consideration. A committee that has occupied the call for two days 
may not call up another bill or resolution until the other committees 
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).




Sec. 881. Procedure in the morning 
hour.

  Originally the  morning hour was a fixed period of 60 minutes (IV, 3118); but 
under the present rule it does not terminate until 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 question (IV, 3127) but may base the decision on 
statements from the chair and other members of the committee (IV, 3128).





Sec. 882. Interruption of the call of committees by 
motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.

  5. After  consideration of bills or resolutions under clause 4 for one 
hour, it shall be in order, pending consideration thereof, to entertain 
a motion that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union or, when authorized by a committee, that the 
House resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union to consider a particular bill. Such a motion shall be subject to 
only one amendment designating 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 
calendars (IV, 3134). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5 of rule XXIV (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).


6. <>   All questions relating to the priority of business 
shall be decided by a majority without debate.



Sec. 883. Conditions of the motion to go into 
Committee of the Whole at the end of one hour.

  The phrase  ``one hour'' has been 
interpreted to include a shorter time in the case that the call of 
committees shall have exhausted itself before the expiration of one hour 
(IV, 3135); but not otherwise (IV, 3141). After the House has been in 
the Committee of the Whole under this order 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 generally may be made by the individual Member (IV, 
3138), but when it is proposed to designate a particular bill the Member 
must have the authority 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 the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union if 
otherwise privileged under clause 5 of rule XIII.


  This provision was adopted in 1803 to prevent obstructive debate (IV, 
3061). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
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).


[[Page 710]]

 It has been held that appeals from decisions of the 
Chair as to priority of business are not debatable under this rule (V, 
6952).



 
  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, p. 26249).

                                 Rule XV


Suspensions
                    business in order on special days




885. Motions to suspend the rules.

  1. (a)  A rule may not be 
suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum 
being present.


  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 
individuals had preference (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 1973, pp. 26, 27). In the 
95th Congress, 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 unanimous 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). During the 117th Congress, 
the House amended the rule to permit motions to suspend the rules on any 
day (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 1230, 117th Cong., p. _). 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).



Sec. 886. Nature of the motion to suspend the 
rules.

  Originally,  when the House was operating under the older rules for the 
order of business, the motion was used to establish a special order of 
business for the consideration of a particular measure (IV, 3152, 3162; 
V, 6852). In 1890, the House adopted rules for the order of business 
that enabled 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, including 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). The motion is not 
available in the Committee of the Whole (May 28, 2014, p. 9122).


  Although the normal use of the motion is to pass or adopt a 
noncontroversial 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 
discharge 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 engrossment 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 (under a prior form of the rule) (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 
Speaker 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. 14822). However, if a 
special rule requires that 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 consent is required to permit the 
Chair to entertain the motion before that time (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 
25765, 25774).



Sec. 886a. Consideration of the motion to suspend the 
rules.

  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 question, 
either as to the two branches of the 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, 
Sec. 14.6; Apr. 11, 2000, p. 5206; July 30, 2011, p. 12544), and the 
power to withdraw and modify the motion rests with its proponent (May 
10, 2006, p. 7807). The motion may not be postponed (V, 5322) or laid on 
the table (V, 5405). The motion to reconsider may be applied to an 
affirmative (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25796) but not a negative vote on the 
motion (V, 5645, 5646; VIII, 2781; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25797). The motion 
to refer may not be applied to the bill that it is proposed to pass 
under suspension of the rules (V, 6860).


  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 dispense 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. 14815). Amendments 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 Sec. 891, 
infra.



Sec. 887. Precedence of the motion to suspend the 
rules.

  In the  early practice, when the motion to suspend the rules was used 
to enable a matter to be taken up for consideration out of order, it was 
not admitted when a subject was already 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).


  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 en gros 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 motion to suspend, the ordinary motions 
relating to business of the House may be made on suspension days as on 
other days (IV, 3080).

  Under the former version of the rule that permitted motions to suspend 
the rules only on specified days, the motion to suspend the rules could 
be made on days other than suspension days by unanimous consent (V, 
6795) or by adoption of a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules. 
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. 26393), and no appeal may be taken from the Speaker's denial of 
recognition (II, 1425).




Sec. 888. Individual and committee motions to suspend the 
rules.

    Authorization by a committee is not required for the Speaker to 
recognize for a motion to suspend the rules (VIII, 3410), including a 
motion to suspend the rules and pass a measure ``as 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 specific 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).



Sec. 889. Former second of the motion to suspend the 
rules.

  For the   history of a former provision of this rule requiring certain 
motions to suspend the rules to be seconded, if demanded, by a majority 
of tellers, see Sec.  889 of the House Rules and Manual for the 115th 
Congress (H. Doc. 114-192).




Sec. 889a. Withdrawal of motion.

  A  motion to suspend the 
rules may be withdrawn at any time before the Chair puts the question 
and a voice vote is taken thereon (V, 6840, 6844; VIII, 3405, 3419; June 
5, 2012, p. 8302; Oct. 25, 2017, p. _; Sept. 23, 2020, p. _). 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 Sec. 13.23; Dec. 5, 2012, p. 16257).





Sec. 889b. En bloc motion.

  During  the 117th Congress, the 
House adopted special orders of business (e.g., sec. 6, H. Res. 380, May 
12, 2021, p. _) authorizing a single motion to suspend the rules and 
adopt or pass multiple measures which had been considered pursuant to 
individual motions to suspend the rules and on which the yeas and nays 
had been ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 
of rule XX. Such special orders of business provided for the immediate 
withdrawal of the individual motions to suspend the rules upon the 
offering of the en bloc motion. Pursuant to these special orders of 
business, the House considered en bloc motions to suspend the rules 
(e.g., May 12, 2021, p. _).





Sec. 890. Dilatory motions pending motions to suspend 
rules.

  (b)  Pending a motion that the House suspend the rules, the Speaker 
may entertain one motion that the House adjourn but may not entertain 
any other motion until the vote is taken on the suspension.



  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 adjourn has been acted on, a quorum has failed, another 
motion to adjourn has been admitted (V, 5744-5746).




Sec. 891. The 40 minutes of debate on motion to suspend 
the rules.

  (c)  A motion that the House suspend the rules is debatable for 
40 minutes, one-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, p. 39). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this 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 Member 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 recognition 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.2). The Chair will not 
examine the degree of opposition 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 recognized 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).


Discharge motions
  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).



892. Motion to discharge a committee.

  2. (a)(1)  A Member 
may present to the Clerk a motion in writing to discharge--


      (A) a committee from consideration of a public bill or public 
resolution that has been referred to it for 30 legislative days; or

      (B) the Committee on Rules from consideration of a resolution that 
has been referred to it for seven legislative days and that proposes a 
special order of business for the consideration of a public bill or 
public resolution that has been reported by a committee or has been 
referred to a committee for 30 legislative days.

  (2) Only one motion may be presented for a bill or resolution. A 
Member may not file a motion 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 
nongermane amendment to a public bill or public resolution.

  (b) A motion presented under paragraph (a) shall be placed in the 
custody of the Clerk, who shall arrange a convenient place for the 
signatures of Members. A signature may be withdrawn by a Member in 
writing at any time before a motion is entered on the Journal. The Clerk 
shall make the signatories a matter of 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 Congressional 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 signatories thereto in the Record, and referred to 
the Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees.

  (c)(1) A motion to discharge that has been on the calendar for at 
least seven legislative days (except during the last six days of a 
session of Congress) shall be privileged only at a time or place, 
designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule within two 
legislative days after the day on which a Member whose signature appears 
thereon announces to the House an intention to offer the motion. 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 discharge 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 minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in 
opposition thereto.

  (d)(1) If a motion prevails to discharge the Committee on Rules from 
consideration of a resolution, 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 immediately proceed to its execution.

  (2) If a motion prevails to discharge a 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 motion 
to discharge. The motion to proceed is not debatable. If the motion to 
proceed is adopted, the bill or resolution shall be considered 
immediately 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 disposed of. If the 
motion to proceed is rejected, the bill or resolution shall be referred 
to the appropriate calendar, where it shall have the same status as if 
the committee from which it was discharged had duly reported it to the 
House.

  (e)(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 
during the same session of Congress--

      (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 providing a special order of business for 
the 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.


  (2) A motion to discharge on the Calendar of Motions to Discharge 
Committees that is rendered 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), but 
under the current form of the rule, the proponent of the motion to 
discharge is recognized to debate the resolution under the hour rule 
(Oct. 26, 2015, p. 16530).

  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 Members who had signed pending discharge petitions, the clause 
was so amended (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 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 
disclosure of actual signatures (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 
80). The 113th Congress removed several references to a ``standing'' 
committee (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26).

  In the 116th Congress, the rule was amended to provide that a motion 
to discharge is privileged a time or place designated by the Speaker 
within two legislative days after a signatory Member provides notice of 
an intention to offer the motion (sec. 102(v), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, 
p. _). Under the previous form of the rule, the motion was only 
privileged on the second and fourth Mondays of a month and the offering 
Member was not required to provide notice. For its text, and for a 
thorough treatment of the privilege of the motion on the second and 
fourth Mondays of a month, see Sec. 892 of the House Rules and Manual 
for the 115th Congress (H. Doc. 114-192).

  The phrase ``a majority of the total membership of the House'' was 
construed 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 (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.7). The rule does 
not authorize signature of discharge motions by proxy (VII, 1014). When 
a Member withdraws 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 death 
or resignation of a Member who has signed a motion does not invalidate 
the signature (May 31, 1934, p. 10159), but 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). Under Jefferson's Manual (Sec. 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 form 
between the Chair and Members engaging in debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. 
23293).

  The seven days that the motion must be on the calendar before it may 
be called up begin to run as of the day the motion is placed on the 
calendar (Dec. 14, 1937, p. 1517). 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 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 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). 
In the case of a special order of business successfully discharged from 
the Committee on Rules, the Chair advised that if the previous question 
were to be rejected, the provisions of paragraph (e)(1) prohibiting 
dilatory motions would no longer strictly apply such that the resolution 
would be subject to potential further debate or amendment (Oct. 26, 
2015, p. 16531).

  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).

  Where the Chair postponed proceedings pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX 
on a measure successfully discharged under this clause, the House may 
complete consideration of the measure on a non-discharge day (Oct. 27, 
2015, p. 16573).


Adverse report by the Committee on Rules, second and fourth Mondays
  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 petition also received the requisite 
number of signatures on the same day it was filed (Feb. 24, 1994, p. 
2999). In the 103d Congress a petition received the requisite number of 
signatures to enable a motion to discharge a resolution amending this 
clause to require publication of Members signing a discharge petition 
(Sept. 8, 1993, p. 20361). In the 114th Congress a petition received the 
requisite number of signatures on the same day it was filed (Oct. 9, 
2015, pp. 16031, 16032), and the motion was subsequently adopted (Oct. 
26, 2015, p. 16530).




893. Adverse report by Committee on Rules.

  3. An  adverse 
report by the Committee on Rules on a resolution proposing a special 
order of business for the consideration of a public bill or public joint 
resolution may be called up under clause 6(e) of rule XIII as a 
privileged question by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner on 
the second and fourth Mondays of a month.



  This provision was initially adopted January 18, 1924, amended 
December 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), and January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). A conforming change was made in 
the 116th Congress (sec. 102(v)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision 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).

  4. (Reserved.)


Private Calendar


Sec. 894. Former District of Columbia business.

    A former 
clause allocating fixed days for District of Columbia business was 
repealed in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(t), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. 
_). For its text and history, see Sec. 894 of the House Rules and Manual 
for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).




895. Consideration of the Private Calendar.

  5. (a)  On the 
first Tuesday of a month, the Speaker shall direct the Clerk to call the 
bills and resolutions on the 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 Commissioner object to the 
consideration of a bill or resolution 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 dispense with the call.


  (b)(1) On any day, after the disposal of such business on the 
Speaker's table as requires reference only, the Speaker may direct the 
Clerk to call any bill or resolution that has been on the Private 
Calendar for at least seven days, but only on the second legislative day 
after the legislative day on which the Speaker or a designee announces 
to the House an intention to do so. Preference shall be given to omnibus 
bills containing the texts of bills or resolutions that have previously 
been objected 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 omnibus 
bill), it shall be recommitted to the committee that reported it. Two-
thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present, may adopt a motion 
that the House dispense with the call on this day.

  (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 omnibus bill shall be 
resolved into the several bills and resolutions of which it is composed. 
The several 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 resolutions.


  (c) The Speaker may not entertain a reservation 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 limited to five minutes in support and 
five minutes in opposition.



Sec. 896. Eligible days for private business.

  This  provision 
(formerly clause 6 of rule XXIV) was adopted in the 62d Congress in lieu 
of special orders under which pension and private business formerly had 
been considered. The 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). In the 116th Congress, the discretionary call of the 
Private Calendar was expanded from the third Tuesday of a month to any 
day, with certain layover and notice requirements (sec. 102(w), H. Res. 
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). A Member serving as an ``official objector'' for 
the Private Calendar has periodically included in the Record an 
explanation of how bills on the Private Calendar are considered (see, 
e.g., Dec. 5, 1995, p. 35354; June 17, 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). Unanimous consent is required to place the call at another 
time during the day (July 16, 1996, p. 17224; Apr. 21, 1998, p. 6184), 
including after one-minute speeches (Dec. 18, 2012, p. 17289).




Sec. 897. Methods of considering omnibus 
bills.

  During the  consideration of omnibus bills the Chair declines to recognize 
Members for unanimous-consent requests to address the House (May 7, 
1935, p. 7100); motions to strike the last word are not in order, and 
requests for extension of time under the five-minute rule are not 
entertained (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 Omnibus 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). Amendments to the bill were strictly limited by the rule to 
those striking or reducing 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 any day except the first Tuesday of a 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), and a motion to dispense 
with the call of the Private Calendar noticed pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(1) is likewise in order (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770 (sustained by 
tabling of appeal)).




Sec. 898. Former Corrections Calendar.

  For the  former 
Corrections Calendar rule, see Sec. 898 of the House Rules and Manual 
for the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).



Calendar Call of Committees, Wednesdays


Sec. 899. Former Consent Calendar.

  For the  former Consent 
Calendar rule, see Sec. 899 of the House Rules and Manual for the 111th 
Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).




900. Calendar Wednesday business.

  6. (a)  On Wednesday of 
each week, business shall not be in order before completion of the call 
of those committees (except as provided by clause 4 of rule XIV) whose 
chair, or other member authorized by the committee, has announced to the 
House a request for such call at least 72 hours in advance.


  (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.


  (d) Precedents, rulings, or procedures in effect before the One 
Hundred Eleventh Congress regarding the priority of business and the 
availability of other business on Wednesday shall be applied only to the 
extent consistent with this clause.

  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. 7). For a history of the clause as it 
existed before that Congress, and related precedents, see Sec. Sec. 900, 
901 of the House Rules and Manual for the 110th Congress (H. Doc. 109-
157). Paragraph (d) was added in the 113th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Paragraph (a) was amended in the 118th Congress 
to require a request for a call pursuant to this clause to be made at 
least 72 hours in advance (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).



Sec. 901. Decisions on Calendar Wednesday.

  The rule  applies 
to unprivileged bills only, and when a bill otherwise unprivileged is 
given a privileged status by unanimous 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, unreported bills, or Senate bills being held at the 
Speaker's desk (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3854). 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 
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 the Committee of the Whole without motion (VII, 
940, 942).

  The question of consideration may be raised on a bill on the House 
Calendar on Calendar Wednesday, even after one Wednesday has been 
devoted to its consideration (VIII, 2447), and the question of 
consideration is properly 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 
committees 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. 3853).

  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 
Wednesday, 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 request 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. 
7993) before the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday. Under a 
former rule, District of Columbia business was eligible for 
consideration on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 937). A motion to adjourn (May 
7, 2008, pp. 7996, 8000) and the administration of the oath (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.22; 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).


Consensus Calendar
  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 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 reported 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 adoption 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).



901a. Consensus Calendar.

  7. (a)(1)  At least once during 
any week in which the House convenes, the House shall consider a measure 
on the Consensus Calendar as designated by the Speaker.


  (2) This paragraph does not apply before March 1 of an odd-numbered 
year or after September 30 of an even-numbered year.

  (b)(1) The sponsor of a measure that has accumulated 290 cosponsors 
and has not been reported by the committee of primary jurisdiction may 
present to the Clerk a motion in writing to place that measure on the 
Consensus Calendar.

  (2) A proper motion presented under subparagraph (1) shall be placed 
in the custody of the Clerk, and shall appear in a portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. The Clerk shall 
maintain a cumulative list of such motions, and shall make such list 
publicly available in electronic form.

  (3) A motion presented under subparagraph (1) shall be considered as 
withdrawn if the measure is reported by the committee of primary 
jurisdiction prior to its placement on the Consensus Calendar.


[[Page 729]]

  (c) After a measure has maintained at least 290 cosponsors for a 
cumulative period of 25 legislative days after the presentation of a 
motion under paragraph (b)(1), the measure shall be placed on the 
Consensus Calendar. Such measure shall remain on the Consensus Calendar 
until it is--

      (1) considered in the House; or


      (2) reported by the committee of primary jurisdiction.

  This paragraph was added in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(r), H. Res. 
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). The Chair announces the Speaker's designation of 
a measure pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) prior to its consideration in the 
House (July 17, 2019, p. _; Apr. 4, 2022, p. _; Sept. 14, 2022, p. _). 
The House has adopted a special order of business rendering paragraph 
(a)(1) inapplicable with respect to a specified measure (sec. 5, H. Res. 
476, July 10, 2019, p. _) or generally (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 1300, July 
29, 2022, p. _).




 
  In the 118th Congress, the House: (1) required the Majority Leader to 
submit for printing in the Congressional Record any determination that a 
measure placed on the Consensus Calendar pursuant to this clause is not 
in compliance with informal legislative protocols (sec. 3(x), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 9, 2023, p. _); and (2) authorized the tolling of the legislative 
day count under this clause as part of a larger set of procedures 
effective during a district work period as designated by the Speaker 
(sec. 3(z), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

                                Rule XVI


Motions
                         motions and amendments




902. Motions reduced to writing and entered on the 
Journal.

  1.  Every motion entertained by the Speaker shall be reduced to 
writing on the 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 
adopted 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 Sec. 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 (Mar. 30, 1993, p. 6791; 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 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).


Withdrawal


Sec. 903. Dilatory motions.

  The  Speaker has declined to 
entertain debate or appeal on a question as to the dilatoriness of a 
motion, because doing so would nullify the rule (V, 5731); but has 
recognized that the authority conferred by the rule should not be 
exercised 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 the Committee of the Whole (V, 5734; VIII, 
2817), and 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 
motions, see VIII, 2804. For discussion of dilatory motions pending 
consideration of a report from the Committee on Rules, see 
Sec. Sec. 857-858, supra.





904. Stating and withdrawing of motions.

  2.  When a motion 
is entertained, the Speaker shall state it or cause it to be read aloud 
by the Clerk before it is debated. The motion then shall be in the 
possession of the House but may be withdrawn at any time before a 
decision or amendment 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 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 
47).

  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 Sec. 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 
reconsideration by laying a motion to reconsider on the table), a Member 
may offer a double motion (V, 5637).



Sec. 905. Conditions of withdrawal of motions.

  A motion  may 
be withdrawn at any time before a decision thereon, including a motion 
to instruct conferees (Oct. 31, 2000, p. 25737) and a contempt 
resolution (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 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 proponent 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 required 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) including pending the resumption of postponed proceedings de 
novo pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX (Sept. 29, 2010, pp. 17119, 17120).

  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 amendment 
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 (Sec. 427, supra). 
However, unanimous consent to withdraw an amendment is required in the 
Committee 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. 30353). 
An amendment disposed of in the Committee of the Whole by voice vote 
(June 17, 2004, pp. 12944, 12945) or ruled out of order (May 18, 2016, 
p. 6698; May 25, 2016, p. 7381) may not be withdrawn. During a 
designated public health emergency in the 116th and 117th Congresses, 
the House by special order of business conferred withdrawal authority 
for amendments in the House on which the previous question had been 
ordered at any time before the question was put thereon (e.g., H. Res. 
1053, July 20, 2020, p. _).

  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 Committee 
of the Whole for the consideration of a bill may be withdrawn pending a 
point of order against consideration of the bill. If the motion is 
withdrawn, 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 therefor (V, 5489), or (3) the refusal to lay on the table (V, 
5351, 5352; VIII, 2640). A motion on which the previous question has 
been ordered by a special order of business may be withdrawn by 
unanimous consent (V, 5355; Sept. 30, 1993, p. 23151; Apr. 4, 2017, p. 
5324). The House by special order of business has provided for the 
withdrawal of motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays 
had been ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 
of rule XX (e.g. sec. 10, H. Res. 667, Sept. 21, 2021, p. _), including 
as part of a provision establishing an en bloc motion to suspend the 
rules and dispose of multiple measures (e.g. sec. 6(c), H. Res. 330, 
Apr. 20, 2021, p. _).

  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 question) has been vacated (Sept. 25, 2008, pp. 21820, 21821), 
the resolution may be withdrawn. 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 previously 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).


Question of consideration
  A Member having the right to withdraw a motion before a decision 
thereon 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).




906. The question of consideration.

  3.  When a motion or 
proposition is entertained, the question, ``Will the House now consider 
it?'' may not be put unless demanded by a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner.


  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 the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It is the means by which the House protects itself 
from business 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 question 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 (Sec. 884, 
supra), which provides that questions relating to the priority of 
business are not debatable.



Sec. 907. Raising the question of consideration.

  A  Member 
may demand the question of consideration, although the Member in charge 
of the bill may claim the floor for debate (V, 4944, 4945; VI, 404); but 
after debate has 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 
true 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).



Sec. 908. Questions subject to the question of 
consideration.

  The  question of consideration may be demanded against a 
matter of the highest privilege, such as the right of a Member to a seat 
(V, 4941), a question involving the privilege of the House (VI, 560), 
against the motion to reconsider (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 a measure the consideration of which has been provided by a 
special order of business (IV, 3175; V, 4953-4957; June 22, 2006, p. 
12280; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 6.11; 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 Sec. 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 consideration is not available after the House has 
resolved into the Committee of the Whole (May 10, 2007, p. 12191).



Sec. 909. Relation of question of consideration to points of 
order.

  A  point of order against consideration of a bill should be made 
and decided before the question of consideration is put (V, 4950, 4951; 
VII, 2439), but if the point relates merely to the manner of 
considering, it should be passed on 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 consideration may be demanded before points of order are raised 
against the substance of the report (VIII, 2439; Speaker Albert, Sept. 
28, 1976, p. 33019).




Sec. 910. Unfunded mandates; congressional earmarks; 
germaneness.

  The  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 
Stat. 48) added a new part B to title IV of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658-658g) that imposes several requirements on 
committees with respect to ``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 Sec. 1127, infra.


  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 thresholds are established for points of 
order under the rule (paragraph (d)). See Sec. 1068d, infra.

  In the 118th Congress, the House established a point of order against 
a rule or order waiving points of order against an amendment otherwise 
in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI (the germaneness rule), and 
permitting a vote on the question of consideration of any rule or order 
asserted to be in violation (sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

  More than one of these points of order may be raised against the same 
special order of business (May 14, 2008, pp. 9050, 9052; Jan. 28, 2014, 
pp. 2107, 2109; May 21, 2014, pp. 8827, 8831).

  Former clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI required the Chair to put the 
question of consideration with regard to measures that include an 
emergency designation for pay-as-you-go principles. See Sec. 1068i, 
infra.


Sec. 4. Paygo Estimates and Paygo Scorecards.

  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:


                                  * * *

  (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 

        requirement that the Congress so designates in statute pursuant 

        to this section, the amounts of new budget authority, outlays, 

        and revenue 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 emergency 

        for the purposes of this title, the Chair shall put the question 


        of consideration with respect thereto.


Precedence of motions
  The question of consideration applies to an emergency designation 
contained in an amendment between the Houses (in addition to a bill or 
joint resolution) (e.g., May 28, 2010, p. 9882; July 22, 2010, p. 13735) 
but not to a measure considered under suspension of the rules (e.g., 
Feb. 25, 2010, p. 1924; July 30, 2014, p. 13654). 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. 12558). When a bill is considered pursuant to a unanimous-
consent request, the Chair does not put the question of consideration 
thereon (Sept. 11, 2017, p. _). Where a measure contained an emergency 
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. 9882).



911. Precedence of privileged motions.

  4.  (a) When a 
question is under debate, only the following motions may be entertained 
(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 without debate. A motion to postpone to a day 
certain, 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 entertain a motion--

      (A) that the Speaker be authorized to declare 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 privileged, nondebatable motion for recess authority (H. Res. 5, Jan. 
3, 1991, p. 39). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th 
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). 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 Sec. Sec. 994-1000, infra.



Sec. 912. The motion to adjourn.

  The  motion to adjourn not 
only has the highest precedence when a question is under debate, but, 
with certain restrictions, it 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 constitutional 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 motion 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 (Speaker 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 unanimous-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 (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, p. 
26243). When no question is under debate 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 question 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. 17493). Where a Member 
prefaced a motion to adjourn with remarks in the nature of debate, the 
Chair advised that the Member had not been recognized for debate and 
queried for a motion (Dec. 8, 2015, p. 19606).

  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 
particular day (V, 5360) or hour (V, 5364) (but see Sec. 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; 
Jan. 3, 2023, p. _), and such motion may set the time for convening on 
the same day as the adjournment, such that the House meets for two 
legislative days on the same calendar day (Jan. 4, 2023, p. _). 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 the 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).



Sec. 913. Motion to fix the day to which the House shall 
adjourn and motion to authorize the Speaker to declare a 
recess.

  The  motion to fix the day and time to which the House shall 
adjourn, in its present form, was included in this clause and given 
privileged status in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 1973, p. 26). 
At several times during the 19th century, the motion to fix the day to 
which the House 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 
legislative days on the same calendar day (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27771; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 9.1). When the Speaker exercises 
discretion 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).



Sec. 914. Motion to lay on the table.

  The  motion to lay on 
the table is used in the House for a final, adverse disposition of a 
matter without debate (V, 5389), and is in order before the Member 
entitled to prior recognition 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. 26754). 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), a Senate amendment in disagreement (Mar. 3, 2015, 
pp. 3114, 3115), 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); 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 (Speaker 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 
Committee on Rules were tabled, it would carry the resolution with it 
and 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 true 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 consideration 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 the 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. 26754).

  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 inquiry (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).




Sec. 914a. The motion for the previous question.

    The 
precedents relating to the motion for the previous question are 
annotated in Sec. Sec. 994-1000.




Sec. 915. The motions to postpone.

  As  indicated in the rule, 
the motions to postpone are two in number and distinct. The first one is 
to postpone to a day certain, 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 previous 
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 privileged 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 the 
Committee of the Whole (July 14, 1998, p. 15305), but a motion that a 
bill be reported with the recommendation 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 consideration 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).



Sec. 916. The motions to refer.

  The  parliamentary motion to 
refer is explicitly recognized and given status in three different 
situations under House rules: the ordinary motion provided for in this 
clause; the motion to recommit (or commit, as the case may be), without 
instructions, pending the motion for or after ordering of the previous 
question as provided in clause 2 of rule XIX (V, 5569); 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 contemplated 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 question to which the motion is 
applied is entitled to a priority of recognition, and whether the 
prohibition against a special order reported from the Committee on Rules 
denying a motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution pending final 
passage is applicable. For a discussion of the motion to recommit, see 
the annotations under clause 2 of rule XIX. The motion may not be used 
in direct form in the 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 engrossment 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. 6084). 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 
Member (who need not qualify as being in opposition to the pending 
question) 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).



Sec. 917. Instructions with the motion to refer.

  The  motion 
to refer may specify that the reference shall be to a select as well as 
a standing committee (IV, 4401) without regard for rules of jurisdiction 
(IV, 4375; V, 5527) and may provide for reference to another committee 
than that reporting the bill (VIII, 2696, 2736), or to the Committee of 
the Whole (V, 5552, 5553), and even that the committee be endowed 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 
instructions (V, 5521, 5570, 5582-5584; VIII, 2695, 2762; Aug. 13, 1982, 
pp. 20969, 20975-78).



Divisibility


Sec. 918. Repetition of motions.

  The  rule specifies that the 
motions to postpone and refer shall not be repeated on the same day at 
the same stage of the question (V, 5301, 5591; VIII, 2738, 2760). As a 
matter of practice, 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).




919. Division of the question.

  5.  (a) Except as provided in 
paragraph (b), a question shall be divided on the demand of a Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner before the question is put if it 
includes propositions so distinct in substance 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.

  (2) A resolution or order reported by the Committee on Rules providing 
a special order of business is not divisible.




Sec. 920. Motion to strike and insert not divisible.

  (c)  A 
motion to strike and insert is not divisible, but rejection of a motion 
to 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 
adjournment 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 paragraph (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).



Sec. 921. Principles governing the division of the 
question.

  The  principle that there must be at least two substantive 
propositions in order to justify division is insisted on rigidly (V, 
6108-6113), because failure to do so produces difficulties (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 substantive 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 involved (I, 394; V, 6119), but a question 
presenting two propositions grammatically is not divisible if either 
does not constitute a substantive proposition 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 
concurrent resolution on the budget is subject to a demand for a 
division of the 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 individuals (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200; 
contrast, Deschler-Brown, ch. 30, Sec. 49.1). A measure containing a 
series of simple resolutions (V, 6149), and a resolution 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, pp. 15754, 
15759-61; Mar. 11, 2010, p. 3153; Dec. 18, 2019, p. _).

  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 appropriate. 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 
amendment may be divided for a separate vote on each name (Feb. 5, 1943, 
p. 645). An amendment (to a joint resolution making continuing 
appropriations) containing separate paragraphs appropriating funds for 
different programs may be substantively and grammatically divisible 
although preceded 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 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 consideration (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 instructions 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 resolutions 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 Sec. 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 amending 
(VIII, 3176), and may not be demanded on separate parts of the proposed 
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 
amendment 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.

  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 involving two distinct questions may be 
divided (V, 6157).

  On a motion to commit with instructions it was 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 
was divided on the question of its adoption when composed of 
substantively and grammatically distinct propositions (June 29, 1993, p. 
14618; May 28, 2010, p. 9946). A motion to recommit a bill to conference 
with various instructions was not divisible (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 presented (Speaker Rayburn, May 9, 1946, p. 
4750). A conference report is considered as a whole (Oct. 8, 2009, p. 
24376).

  A division of the question may not be demanded on bills or joint 
resolutions 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 proposition 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 Sec. 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), and even if one portion of a Senate 
amendment is rejected, the Chair puts the question on any remaining 
portion (where the special rule provides that rejection of any portion 
marks no disposition of the question) (June 12, 2015, p. 9533). If a 
division of the question is demanded on a portion of an amendment, 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, 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, Sec. 22.14; June 8, 1995, p. 15302). If a division of the 
question 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 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).


Amendments
  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 
portion thereof (July 15, 1993, p. 15843), but once the Chair has put 
the question 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).




922. Amendments to text and to title.

  6.  When an amendable 
proposition is under consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to 
amend that amendment 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 amendment is perfected. An amendment may be 
withdrawn in the House at any time before a decision or amendment 
thereon. An amendment to the title of a bill or resolution shall not be 
in order until after its passage or adoption, shall be in order only if 
offered by the Majority Leader or a designee, and shall be decided 
without debate.


  This provision (formerly rule XIX) was adopted in 1880, with an 
amendment 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). In the 117th Congress, 
this provision was amended to restrict the ability to offer an amendment 
to the title of a measure to the Majority Leader or a designee (sec. 
2(u), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 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, Sec. Sec. 15-19.



Sec. 923. Conditions of the motion to amend.

  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 motions 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 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; Apr. 29, 2015, p. 5849). 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 add a co-offeror of an 
amendment (May 20, 2004, p. 10631; Sept. 14, 2004, p. 18429; Apr. 29, 
2015, pp. 5861-63) or to change the offeror of a pending amendment (Apr. 
29, 2015, pp. 5861-63).

  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 
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. 
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 unanimous 
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; however, 
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, Sec. 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29932).

  The substitute provided for in this rule has been construed as a 
substitute 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 instructions 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 substitute must be germane to the pending 
amendment (VIII, 2879, 2880; Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 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, Sec. 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 amendment (Deschler, ch. 27, 
Sec. 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 language of the original amendment). In such a case the 
vote on the amendment as amended by the substitute is not equivalent to 
a direct vote on the original amendment (June 25, 1987, p. 17416). An 
amendment considered with others en bloc and rejected may be offered 
separately at a subsequent time (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 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 
proposed before amendments to the pending portion of original text have 
been acted on, but may not be voted on until such amendments have been 
disposed 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 proposed 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 Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 5.34). An 
amendment in the nature of a substitute having been agreed to, the vote 
is then taken on the original proposition as amended (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 amendment 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 perfected 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).



Sec. 924. Relation of point of order to motion to 
amend.

  Except  as provided in clauses 4 and 5(a) of rule XXI, a point of order 
against an amendment is timely if made or reserved before formal 
recognition of the proponent to commence 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 actively seeking 
recognition 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 amendment 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 actively seeking 
recognition (July 16, 1991, p. 18391; see Deschler-Brown, ch. 31, 
Sec. Sec. 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. 17310), 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).




Sec. 925. Withdrawal of the motion to amend.

  Although  the 
rule provides that either an ordinary or substitute amendment may be 
withdrawn in the House (V, 5753) or ``in the House as in Committee of 
the Whole'' (IV, 4935; June 26, 1973, p. 21315), it may not be withdrawn 
or modified in the Committee of the Whole except by unanimous consent 
(clause 5 of rule XVIII; V, 5221; VIII, 2564, 2859) unless withdrawal 
authority has been conferred by the House (July 22, 1999, p. 17291; Apr. 
3, 2003, pp. 8490, 8491; Nov. 7, 2007, p. 30353). An amendment that has 
been ruled out of order may not thereafter be withdrawn (May 18, 2016, 
p. 6698; May 25, 2016, p. 7381).




Sec. 926. Precedence of the motion to amend.

  Pursuant  to 
clause 4 of rule XVI, the motion for the previous question takes 
precedence over a motion to amend (Nov. 8, 1971, p. 39944); and if the 
previous question is not ordered, the motion to refer also has 
precedence over 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 recognized preferentially to offer 
amendments to perfect it over other Members (II, 1450). Amendments may 
not be offered by proxy (VIII, 2830) or when another Member has the 
floor (May 18, 2016, p. 6695). The motion to strike the enacting clause 
has precedence over the motion to amend, and may be offered while an 
amendment is pending (V, 5328-5331; VIII, 2622-2624); but, except as 
provided in clause 2(d) of rule XXI, the motion to amend takes 
precedence over a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
the bill with the recommendation that it pass (July 27, 1937, p. 7699).




Sec. 927. Relation of the motion to amend to other 
motions.

  With  some exceptions an amendment may attach itself to secondary 
or privileged motions (V, 5754). Thus, the motions to postpone, refer, 
amend, for a recess, and to fix the day to 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).



Germaneness
  An amendment to the title of a bill is not in order in the Committee 
of the Whole (Jan. 29, 1986, p. 682).




928. Germane amendments.

  7.  No motion or proposition on a 
subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under 
color of amendment.


  This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767, 5825). 
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause 
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 amendment (V, 5825). The 
rule that amendments should be germane applies 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 Committee 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 
consideration 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. 5321).



Sec. 929. Proposition to which amendment must be 
germane.

  Under  the later practice an amendment should be germane to the 
particular paragraph or section to which it is offered (V, 5811-5820; 
VIII, 2922, 2936; Oct. 14, 1971, pp. 36194, 36211; Sept. 19, 1986, p. 
24729), without reference to subject matter of other titles not yet read 
(July 31, 1990, p. 20824), 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 
instructions was 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. 3296).

  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 particular agency funded in a general appropriation bill may 
be germane to 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 agency 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 perfecting 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 
incorporating 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 amended, 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 substitute which authorized appointment of a special 
prosecutor for any criminal offenses committed by certain Federal 
officials was held not germane to the House-passed bill, which related 
to offenses directly related to official 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 sufficient 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 amendment must be germane to the text to which offered, not 
to the motion to strike (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28454).



Sec. 930. Instructions to committees and amendments 
thereto.

  The  rule that amendments must be germane applies to amendments to 
the instructions in a motion to instruct conferees (VIII, 3230, 3235), 
and the test of germaneness of an amendment to a motion to instruct 
conferees, in addition 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, Sec. 28.2). The rule 
of germaneness similarly applied to the instructions in a motion to 
recommit a bill to a committee of the House under the former version of 
clause 2 of rule XIX, because it was 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 had to be 
germane to the bill as perfected in the House (Nov. 19, 1993, p. 30513), 
even if the instructions did not propose a direct amendment to the bill 
but merely directed the committee to pursue an unrelated approach 
(Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272; July 16, 1991, p. 18397) or 
directed the committee not to report the bill back to the House until an 
unrelated contingency occurred (VIII, 2704). Under the same rationale as 
amendments to a motion to instruct conferees, amendments to a motion to 
recommit to a standing committee with instructions had to 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 did 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).



Sec. 931. Senate amendments and matter contained in 
conference reports.

  In  the consideration of Senate amendments to a House 
bill an amendment must be germane to the particular Senate amendment to 
which it is offered (V, 6188-6191; VIII, 2936; May 14, 1963, p. 8506; 
Dec. 13, 1980, p. 34097), and 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 germaneness 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, Sec. 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 language 
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 finally committed to conference, taking into 
consideration all amendments adopted by the House, including House 
amendments to Senate amendments (July 28, 1983, p. 21401). Clause 10 of 
rule XXII permits points of order against motions to concur or concur 
with amendment in nongermane Senate amendments, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached, and, if such points of order are 
sustained, permits separate motions to reject such nongermane matter. 
Clause 10 of rule XXII is not applicable 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 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).




Sec. 932. Subject matter as test of 
germaneness.

  An  amendment must relate to the subject matter under 
consideration. Thus, the following are not germane: to a bill seeking to 
eliminate wage discrimination based on the sex of 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 military 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 domestic 
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 (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 6.20); 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 established 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 Committee on 
the Budget, 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 reconciliation 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 appropriations 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 conduct 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 that and other 
missions (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 (sustained on appeal)); to an immigration bill 
addressing (1) issues of admissibility, detention, removal, and 
deportation of various classes of aliens (Sept. 21, 2006, pp. 18860-62 
(sustained by tabling of appeal)) or (2) improvements in enforcement and 
judicial proceedings (Sept. 21, 2006, pp. 18876-78), 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, pp. 13754, 13755 
(sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing economic 
stabilization and assistance funds and housing matters, a motion to 
recommit with instructions addressing the solvency of various Social 
Security trust funds (Jan. 21, 2009, pp. 1212, 1213 (sustained by 
tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing small business investment 
programs, a motion to recommit with instructions expressing the sense of 
the House on the consideration of appropriation bills (July 8, 2009, p. 
17083 (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, pp. 25006, 25007 (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, pp. 3756, 3757), (2) establishing a new mortgage 
refinancing program (Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3762, 3763), (3) requiring a 
study of mortgages more broadly (Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3764, 3765), (4) 
addressing foreclosure generally (Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3765, 3766), and 
(5) addressing compensation within the financial services industry (Mar. 
10, 2011, pp. 3767, 3768); 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, pp. 5689-91 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a 
bill proposing a bicameral order in the form of a joint rule, a motion 
to recommit with instructions proposing a special order of business of 
the House (Oct. 8, 2013, pp. 15423, 15424 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal)); to a bill extending the authority to offer certain health 
insurance coverage, a motion to recommit with instructions addressing 
health insurance generally (Nov. 15, 2013, p. 17194 (sustained by 
tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing property issues related to the 
boundary between two states formed by a river, a motion to recommit with 
instructions addressing firearms regulation generally (Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 
19892-96 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing 
standards for workplace violence prevention and Medicare eligibility 
based on such standards, a motion to recommit with instructions 
addressing the prioritization of an eclectic group of legislative items 
(Nov. 21, 2019, p. _); and to a bill limiting the drawdown of petroleum 
products in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve pending the development of a 
plan to increase the percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas 
production, amendments (1) addressing the subsequent implementation of 
such plan (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), (2) addressing rules issued by 
financial regulators (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), (3) addressing drawdowns in 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve more generally (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), 
(4) addressing conditions on the drawdown of petroleum products related 
to compliance with international agreements (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), and 
(5) addressing sundry additional energy-related subject matters (Jan. 
27, 2023, p. _).


  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 providing for a different route (V, 5909); to a bill 
providing for the reorganization 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 resolution rescinding an order for 
final adjournment, an amendment fixing a new date therefor (V, 5920); to 
a proposition directing a feasibility investigation, an amendment 
requiring the submission of legislation to implement that investigation 
(Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41747); to a section of a bill prescribing the 
functions of a new Federal Energy Administration by conferring wide 
discretionary powers upon the Administrator, an amendment directing the 
Administrator to issue preliminary summer guidelines for citizen fuel 
use (as a further delineation of those functions) (Mar. 6, 1974, p. 
5436); and to a bill limiting the drawdown of petroleum products in the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve pending the development of a plan to 
increase the percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas 
production, amendments (1) limiting the availability of leases under the 
plan (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), (2) excluding certain entities from 
participation under the plan (Jan. 26, 2023, p. _), and (3) changing the 
calculation of the amount of land that needs to be leased in order to 
offset the drawdown (Jan. 27, 2023, p. _).

  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, a motion to recommit with instructions providing nutrition 
assistance, including food stamps and soup kitchen programs, was held 
not germane (Feb. 29, 1996, p. 3257).



Sec. 933. Fundamental purpose as test of 
germaneness.

  The  fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
the fundamental purpose of the bill (VIII, 2911). The Chair discerns the 
fundamental purpose of a bill by examining the text of the bill and its 
report language (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 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 comprehensively addresses a subject, an amendment that relates to 
that subject matter 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 proposing 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 contained 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 example, 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 liquor, an 
amendment singling out certain violations of liquor laws on the basis of 
their regard for any and all firearms issues is not germane (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 
methods of taxation, an amendment proposing a tax on undistributed 
profits (the Committee of the Whole overruling the Chair) (VII, 3042); 
to a proposition to accomplish a result through regulation by a 
governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish the same fundamental 
purpose through regulation 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 proposition 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 interstate and intrastate 
gas sales of large producers (Feb. 4, 1976, p. 2387); to a bill 
providing a temporary extension of existing authority, an amendment 
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 obligation of such funds on the basis of legislative findings 
concerning readiness, because each proposition addressed the 
relationship between 1996 funding 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 
activities in the bill (July 30, 2009, pp. 20201, 20202).

  However, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated 
method not contemplated by the bill is not germane. Thus, the following 
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 
fundamental purpose was registration and public disclosure by, but not 
regulation of the activities of, lobbyists, amendments prohibiting 
lobbying in certain 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 (creation 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 populated 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 accomplish the purpose of the 
bill (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 23.8); to an amendment to achieve a 
national production goal for synthetic fuels for national defense needs 
by loans and grants and development of demonstration synthetic 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 
assistance to domestic agriculture through price support payments, an 
amendment 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 individuals 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 consideration of 
balanced budgets, an amendment changing concurrent resolutions on the 
budget to joint resolutions, thereby bringing executive enforcement 
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 reserve 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).



Sec. 934. Committee jurisdiction as test of 
germaneness.

  An  amendment when considered as a whole should be within the 
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Jan. 29, 1976, p. 
1582; July 25, 1979, pp. 20601-03; June 27, 1985, 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 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 
bill reported by the Committee on Government Operations creating an 
executive agency to protect consumers, an amendment conferring on 
congressional committees with oversight over consumer protection the 
authority to intervene in judicial or administrative proceedings (a 
rulemaking provision within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules) 
(Nov. 6, 1975, p. 35373); to a proposition reported from the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation authorizing funds for local public 
works employment, an amendment to mandate expenditure of already 
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 jurisdictions 
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 prohibitions and 
conditions on troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea because 
including statements of policy within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs (May 24, 1978, pp. 15293-95); to a bill reported from 
the Committee on Government Operations creating a new department, 
transferring the administration of existing laws to it, and authorizing 
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 
appropriation 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 reported from the Committee on 
Science and Technology authorizing environmental research and 
development activities of an agency, an amendment expressing the sense 
of Congress with respect to that agency's regulatory 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 Committee 
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 
compensation, 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 committee'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 reports on Soviet Union compliance with arms control 
commitments, a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 4.26); to a 
bill reported from the Committee on Energy and Commerce relating to 
mentally ill individuals, an amendment 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 military operations (a 
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs) 
(July 8, 1987, p. 19013); to a bill reported by the Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs dealing with housing and community 
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 Services) (July 28, 1993, p. 17398); to a bill reauthorizing 
programs administered by two agencies within one committee's 
jurisdiction, an amendment 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 administrative 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 legislative 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 jurisdiction 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 
mission 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 proposing 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 petroleum reserve, a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce (Mar. 22, 2000, p. 3281); to several 
individual bills on various topics within the jurisdiction of various 
other committees, an amendment addressing the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978, a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence (July 12, 2007, pp. 18843, 18844; Feb. 26, 2008, p. 2482; 
Feb. 27, 2008, pp. 2627, 2637, 2638; Mar. 5, 2008, pp. 3295, 3296; Mar. 
6, 2008, pp. 3402, 3403 (in each case sustained by tabling of appeal); 
Apr. 16, 2008, pp. 6208, 6219 (sustained on 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. 3767); to a bill addressing administrative matters in 
the executive branch within the jurisdictions of the Committees on the 
Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform, an amendment addressing 
adjudication of veterans under title 38, United States Code, a matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs (July 6, 
2016, pp. 10523-24 (sustained by tabling appeal)); to a bill addressing 
a drawdown of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, an 
amendment requiring a report of the Federal Election Commission within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration (Jan. 26, 
2023, p. _).


  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 
language, related to the amendment, not within the jurisdiction of the 
committee 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 Revenue 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 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 
benefits substantially equivalent to those granted to veterans in a 
separate law in the jurisdiction of another committee, an amendment 
directly changing 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 
substitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, and is 
not necessarily determined by the content of an incidental portion of 
the amendment 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 was offered in conjunction with a motion to 
recommit a bill with instructions did 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). 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); 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, a motion to 
recommit with instructions to waive 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); 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 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 minimum wage, a matter within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Education 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 a bill studying 
two rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and issues related 
thereto, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources, 
a motion to recommit with instructions addressing comprehensive energy 
legislation touching several other committees' jurisdictions (Sept. 10, 
2008, pp. 18416, 18417 (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 jurisdiction of the Committees on Agriculture, Natural 
Resources, and Education and Labor (Sept. 26, 2008, pp. 22060, 22061 
(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. 
28243 (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 employees within 
the jurisdiction of another committee (the Committee on House 
Administration) (May 28, 2010, pp. 9952, 9953 (sustained by tabling of 
appeal)); to a bill addressing various benefits in the jurisdiction of 
committees other than the Committee on Appropriations, a motion to 
recommit with instructions to rescind appropriations carried in a prior 
appropriation Act (July 1, 2010, pp. 12556, 12557 (sustained by tabling 
of appeal)).

  A motion to recommit with instructions proposing a special order of 
business within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules is not 
germane to: various joint resolutions and a bill continuing 
appropriations for specified government entities and programs within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations (Oct. 2, 2013, pp. 
14997-98; Oct. 3, 2013, pp. 15078-79, pp. 15087-89; Oct. 4, 2013, pp. 
15196-97, pp. 15206-07; Oct. 7, 2013, p. 15345-46; Oct. 8, 2013, p. 
15423-24; Oct. 9, 2013, p. 15507-08; Oct. 10, 2013, p. 15628-29; Oct. 
11, 2013, p. 15704-05; Oct. 14, 2013, p. 15854-55 (each sustained by 
tabling of appeal)); or bills addressing financial institutions within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services (Apr. 14, 2016, 
p. 4342; Apr. 14, 2016, p. 4343 (each sustained by tabling of appeal)); 
or a bill addressing telecommunications within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce (Apr. 15, 2016, p. 4416).



Sec. 935. Various tests of germaneness are not 
exclusive.

  The  standards by which the germaneness of an amendment may be 
measured, as set forth in Sec. Sec. 932-934, supra, are not exclusive; 
an amendment and the matter to which offered 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 relating to commerce between the States, an 
amendment relating to commerce within the several States (V, 5841); to a 
proposition to relieve destitute 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 providing 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 authorizing 
such oath administration but adding several conditions of punishment 
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).




Sec. 936. One individual proposition not germane to 
another.

  One  individual proposition may not be amended by another 
individual proposition even though the two belong to the same class 
(VIII, 2951-2953, 2963-2966, 3047; Jan. 29, 1986, 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 containing 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 appropriations for the 
current fiscal year for a specified period, a motion to recommit with 
instructions making certain funds available beyond such time (Dec. 13, 
2007, p. 34138 (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 including the gypsy moth (V, 5832); to a provision for a 
clerk for one committee, 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 
services (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 systems applicable 
to agencies of the executive branch, an amendment to extend the scope of 
the determination to pay practices in the legislative branch (ruling 
sustained by Committee of the Whole, Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26422); to a 
special appropriation bill providing funds and authority for 
agricultural credit programs but containing no transfers of funds, 
reappropriations, 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 amendment prohibiting 
importation of goods produced by child labor, a second discrete class 
(VIII, 2963); similarly, to an amendment authorizing grants to States 
for purchase of one class of equipment (photographic and fingerprint 
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 amendment 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 provisions 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 another 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 Constitution 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).




Sec. 937. A general provision not germane to a specific 
subject.

  A  specific subject may not be amended by a provision general in 
nature, even when of the class of the specific subject (V, 5843-5846; 
VIII, 2997, 2998; July 31, 1985, pp. 21832-34; see also Deschler-Brown, 
ch. 28, Sec. 9). Thus the following are not germane: to a bill for the 
admission of one territory 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 amendment 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 dictatorships 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 
appropriated for that or any prior fiscal year for an unrelated purpose 
(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 (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 authorization 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 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 requirements imposed on educational 
agencies by the underlying bill, an amendment 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 Appalachian 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 
instructions extending to all trails addressed by the National Trails 
System Act (July 10, 2008, pp. 14583, 14584).


  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 germane: to a bill establishing an office without regulatory 
authority in the Department of the Interior to manage biological 
information, an amendment 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 independently 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 employees 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 temporarily suspending other requirements of all other 
environmental protection 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 applicability 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, pp. 34675, 34676); to a bill 
proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment making 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 
propositions of the same class (VIII, 3003). Although a specific 
proposition covering 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 proposition (Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1051).



Sec. 938. Specific subjects germane to general propositions 
of the class.

  A  general subject may be amended by specific propositions 
of the same class (VIII, 3002, 3009, 3012; see also Deschler-Brown, ch. 
28, Sec. 11). Thus, the following have been held to be germane: to a 
bill admitting several territories into the Union, an amendment adding 
another territory (V, 5838); to a bill providing for the construction of 
buildings 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 countries, 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 borrowers who 
meet a specified criterion, a proposed House amendment eliminating 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 amendment 
addressing another criminal prohibition within that range (Oct. 17, 
1991, pp. 26767, 26772); to a bill addressing violent crimes, an 
amendment addressing 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 
method to accomplish that result (artist employment through the National 
Endowment 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, 5848-5849). 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 amendment conferring upon that electorate the additional 
right of electing a nonvoting 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 amendment 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 
appropriation bill containing funds for several departments and 
agencies, an amendment 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).



Sec. 939. Amendments to bills amending existing law.

  To  a 
bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment relating to 
the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was ruled not to 
be germane (V, 5808; VIII, 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; July 25, 1975, p. 24841; 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 discriminating 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 
germane (June 26, 1984, p. 18865). Unless a bill so extensively amends 
existing 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 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 appropriations 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 therefore is not 
germane (June 29, 1987, p. 18083); and to a temporary authorization bill 
prescribing the use of an agency's funds for two years but not amending 
permanent law, an amendment permanently changing the organic law 
governing that agency's operations is not germane (Dec. 2, 1982, p. 
28537, concerning Sept. 28, 1982, p. 25465; Feb. 13, 2008, pp. 2115, 
2116 (sustained 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 germane, because limited to funds in the bill (Oct. 18, 
1979, p. 28763). Similarly, to a one-year authorization bill containing 
diverse limitations and directions to the agency in question during such 
year, an amendment further 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 permanent 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 accomplish 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 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). However, to a proposal continuing the availability of 
appropriated funds and imposing diverse legislative conditions upon the 
availability of appropriations, an amendment directly and permanently 
changing existing law as to the eligibility of recipients 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 amendment 
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 another 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 
Secretary 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, 
because 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 governing labor elections and organizations, an 
amendment changing the same section of law to require promulgation of 
rules defining certain conduct 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 persons 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 amendment creating an 
exception to the prohibition of another such section was held germane 
(Oct. 17, 1991, pp. 26767, 26772).




Sec. 940. Amendments imposing conditions, 
qualifications, and limitations.

  Restrictions,  qualifications, and limitations 
sought to be added by way of amendment must be germane to the provisions 
of the bill. Conditioning the availability of funds may be germane if 
the condition is related to the general purpose and within the scope of 
the pending proposition (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. Sec. 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 general purpose (June 18, 1973, p. 20100); to a 
bill authorizing funds for military 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 authorization for certain missiles and 
prohibiting procurement of certain other missiles, 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 process (June 11, 1987, p. 15540); to a proposition 
restricting the availability of funds to a certain category of 
recipients, an amendment further restricting 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 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 related 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 
authorization contingent on a report to Congress on costs of a portion 
of the evacuation program (but not requiring implementation of any new 
program) (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11529); to an amendment precluding the 
availability 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); 
to a bill limiting the drawdown of petroleum products in the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve pending the development of a plan to increase the 
percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas production, an 
amendment conditioning the effectiveness of the bill on a certification 
regarding the impact of the increased oil and gas drilling resulting 
from such plan on other energy projects on federal lands (Jan. 26, 2023, 
p. _).


  On the other hand, the following conditions on the availability of 
funds are not germane: an amendment conditioning the use of funds on the 
conduct 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 substitute conditioning the availability of some of those 
funds upon a prohibition of certain imports into the United States (Nov. 
7, 1985, p. 30984); to a bill authorizing funds for military assistance 
to certain foreign countries, 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 accessibility 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 restricting 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); an amendment conditioning the availability of defense 
funds to foreign contractors based upon their compliance with Federal 
law regarding discrimination not otherwise applicable to them (and 
within the jurisdiction of other committees) (June 16, 1983, p. 16060); 
and an amendment conditioning the availability of grants to states and 
localities based upon their compliance with Federal immigration law 
regarding employment eligibility verification not otherwise applicable 
to them (and within the jurisdiction of other committees) (Mar. 7, 2007, 
pp. 5618, 5619); to a bill limiting the drawdown of petroleum products 
in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve pending the development of a plan to 
increase the percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas 
production, an amendment conditioning the effectiveness of the bill on a 
certification regarding the status of the Russian invasion of Ukraine 
(Jan. 26, 2023, p. _).

  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 
unrelated 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 related 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 applicable 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 specific 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 
legislation pending an unrelated contingency (VIII, 3035, 3037). Thus 
the following are not germane: an amendment delaying the bill's 
effectiveness pending unrelated determinations involving agencies and 
committee jurisdictions 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 appropriations for another (National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration) (May 2, 2007, pp. 11093-95); 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 approval by an entity 
without jurisdiction over the administration of the airport (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 Indochina 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 petroleum products allocated 
for public school transportation be used only between 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 
furnished by yet another agency, as an additional limitation on the 
authority of the agency being extended that did not separately mandate 
the performance of an unrelated function by another entity (July 27, 
1978, p. 23107); to a proposition authorizing a program to be 
undertaken, a substitute providing 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 
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 
furnishing of certain intelligence information to the House without 
amending any House procedure, an amendment imposing relevant conditions 
of security on the handling of such information in committee (also 
without amending 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 indemnification of liability arising 
out of an activity does not ordinarily admit as germane amendments 
relating to regulation of that activity, an amendment 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 
amendment stating an additional related condition to that consent and 
not directly 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).


Readings
  Amendments providing exceptions or exemptions must also be within the 
scope of the proposition. Thus, to a bill requiring that a certain 
percentage of autos sold in the United States be manufactured 
domestically, and imposing an import restriction on autos for persons 
violating that requirement, 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. 30542). However, an 
amendment to the same bill prohibiting 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 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, 
pp. 30546, 30547). Similarly, the following are germane: 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).



941. Reading, engrossment, and passage of bills.

  8.  Bills 
and joint resolutions are subject to readings as follows:


      (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 
applicable] 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 and 
amended in 1794, 1880 (IV, 3391), and 1965 (H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 1965, p. 
21). The last change eliminated a provision that permitted 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).



Sec. 942. First and second readings.

  Formerly a  bill was 
read for the first time by title at the time of its introduction, but 
since 1890 all bills have been introduced 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.



[[Page 786]]

to read a bill in full while a separate measure is currently under 
consideration in the House (Feb. 24, 2021, p. _).
  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 consent 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). The Chair has declined to 
entertain a unanimous-consent request 

  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).



Sec. 943. The third reading after 
engrossment.

  The former  right to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy 
of a bill could be made immediately after it had been ordered to be 
engrossed and before 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).




 


Sec. 944. Voting on bills.

  A bill in  the House (as 
distinguished from the Committee of the Whole) 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).


                                Rule XVII


Decorum
                           decorum and debate



945. Obtaining the floor for debate; and relevancy and 
decorum therein.

  1. (a)  A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who 
desires to speak or deliver a matter to the House shall respectfully 
address the Speaker and, on being recognized, may address the House from 
any place on the floor. When invited by the Chair, a Member, Delegate, 
or Resident Commissioner may speak from the Clerk's desk.



  (b) Remarks in debate (which may include references 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)) (Sec. 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. 4, 2005, p. 43). A gender-based reference was 
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 
7) and a mobility-based reference was eliminated in the 115th Congress 
(sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). Before the House recodified 
its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former 
clause 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 discussed in Sec. Sec. 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 
advised Members of the following: (1) clause 1 requires Members seeking 
recognition to do so properly 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 viewing 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) and may not direct remarks to a former 
Member present on the floor (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.9); (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; May 21, 2014, pp. 8821, 8822; June 10, 
2016, p. 8522; Mar. 16, 2017, p. 4294); (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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.2), 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; June 22, 2018, p. _). 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; Speaker 
Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; 
Oct. 8, 2013, p. 15429; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker 
Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2554; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). 
Even when referring in debate to the Speaker, Members direct their 
remarks to the occupant of the Chair (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 6.3; May 22, 2018, p. _).

  Members should refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker or 
arraigning the personal conduct of the Speaker, and under the precedents 
the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements 
for timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.6; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1599). Engaging in 
personalities with respect to the Speaker's conduct is not in order even 
though possibly relevant to a pending resolution granting him certain 
authority (Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24485).

  This clause has been interpreted to proscribe the wearing of badges by 
Members to communicate a message, because Members must 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; May 22, 2013, p. 7845; Jan. 31, 
2017, p. 1427). A Member may not address the House in debate where not 
recognized by the Chair for such purpose (Jan. 6, 2011, p. 140; Jan. 31, 
2017, pp. 1474-75). A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of 
decorum even though the content of that Member's speech is not, itself, 
unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Under this standard the Chair 
may deny recognition to a Member who has engaged in unparliamentary 
debate and ignored repeated admonitions by the Chair to proceed in 
order, subject to the will of the House on the question of proceeding in 
order (Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535).

  For further discussion of personalities in debate with respect to 
references to the official conduct of a Member, see Sec. Sec. 361-363, 
supra; with respect to references to the President, see Sec. 370, supra; 
and with respect to references to the Senate, see Sec. Sec. 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 conference 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).



Sec. 946. Interruption of a Member in debate.

  A  Member 
having the floor may not be deprived of it by an ordinary motion, even 
the highly privileged motion to adjourn (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 Committee 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, pp. 13499, 13500). 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 Committee 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 (VIII, 2474, 
2475), a motion to adjourn (Mar. 8, 2017, p. 3950), or a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise (Sept. 9, 1997, pp. 18183, 18184) in time 
secured for debate only, or request unanimous consent 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 amendments (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 repeatedly interrupting to ask whether the Member will yield after 
having declined to do so (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040; Nov. 13, 1997, p. 
26533; Apr. 2, 2009, pp. 9692, 9693). 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.25; 
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).




Sec. 947. Speaker in debate.

  The  Speaker may of right speak 
from the Chair on questions of order and be first heard (II, 1367), but 
with this exception 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 participated 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 
frequently entered into debate from the floor on substantive legislative 
issues before the House for decision. The right to participate in debate 
in the Committee of the Whole is without question (see, e.g., Apr. 30, 
1987, p. 10811).




Sec. 948. Remarks must be confined to the subject.

  It  has 
always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the House 
remarks must be confined to the subject under debate (V, 5043-5048; VI, 
576; VIII, 2481, 2534). The Chair normally does not take initiative but 
waits for the question 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. 4448; 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 
remarks to the pending legislation; that is, remarks must not dwell on 
another measure not before the House (Nov. 4, 1999, p. 28524; July 31, 
2007, 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 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, p. 21969)), 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 underlying resolution (Jan. 31, 1995, p. 
3032). Similarly, debate on a motion to recommit with instructions under 
the former version of clause 2 of rule XIX had to be confined to the 
subject of the motion 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 resolution 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 personalities 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 relevancy 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; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.4). 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 confined to the election of that 
Member and should not extend to that committee's agenda (July 10, 1995, 
p. 18258).

  Although Speakers have entertained appeals from decisions as to 
irrelevancy, they have held such appeals not debatable (V, 5056-5063).


Recognition
  Under prior practice in the 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 the Committee of the Whole is confined to the subject 
(V, 5240-5256; July 31, 2007, p. 21969 (sustained on appeal)), 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 
funded by the bill (June 13, 1991, p. 14692).




949. Speaker's power of recognition.

    2. When two or more 
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner seek recognition, the 
Speaker shall name the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who is 
first to speak. * * *


  This provision was adopted in 1789 (V, 4978) and amended in the 115th 
Congress to remove a mobility-based reference (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  In the early history of the House, when business proceeded on 
presentation by individual Members, the Speaker recognized the Member 
who sought recognition 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 increased it became necessary to establish and 
adhere to a fixed order of business, and recognition, 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 discretion 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) (Sec. 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). A Member desiring to be recognized should take the time to do 
so properly (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, 
Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker 
Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, pp. 2553, 2554). A Member offering a 
nondebatable motion (to adjourn) should not preface it with debate (Dec. 
8, 2015, p. 19606).--



Sec. 950. Oneminute and specialorder 
speeches.

  Recognition  for one-minute speeches by unanimous consent and the order 
of recognition therefor are entirely within the discretion of the 
Speaker (Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32657; Mar. 7, 2001, p. 3027; Sept. 28, 2012, 
p. 14956), who may refuse to recognize for them until the completion of 
legislative business (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 73; July 24, 1980, p. 
19386) or decline a unanimous-consent request to increase the number 
(Mar. 7, 2001, p. 3027; Sept. 16, 2008, p. 19204; Mar. 21, 2010, p. 
4092; Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2896). 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 (Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 6.1). Although 
the Chair's calculation of time consumed under one-minute speeches is 
not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to recognize majority and 
then minority Members by allocating time in a nonpartisan manner (Aug. 
4, 1982, p. 19319). A tradition upheld by previous Speakers, and 
formalized by an announced policy in the 115th through 118th Congresses 
(Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 65; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; 
Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; Speaker McCarthy, Jan. 9, 2023, p. 
_), is that the Speaker will recognize a Member only once per day by 
unanimous consent for a one-minute speech, and will not entertain a 
second request (Speaker McCormack, June 11, 1963, p. 10634; May 1, 1985, 
p. 9995; July 21, 2009, pp. 18493, 18494; July 25, 2018, p. _). The 
Speaker will not entertain a request to extend recognition beyond one 
minute (Speaker McCormack, June 11, 1963, p. 10633; Jan. 7, 2014, p. 94; 
Oct. 2, 2020, p. _).


  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 leadership before others in the well (Apr. 19, 1990, p. 7406). 
From August 8, 1984, through February 23, 1994, the Speaker also 
followed an announced 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 11, 1994, the Speaker 
announced a new policy governing 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 bipartisan 
negotiations, was a departure from the modern practice as described in 
Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 7.1 (special-order speeches following legislative 
business 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. 105). Under the Speaker's policy: (1) 
recognition does not extend beyond 10 p.m.; (2) recognition is limited 
to four hours equally divided 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 respective Leader, and time not 
claimed at the appropriate point is considered to have expired; (6) 
recognition for the first hour alternates between the parties from day 
to day; (7) the respective Leaders may establish additional guidelines 
for entering requests; and (8) the Speaker may withdraw recognition 
should circumstances warrant (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 
11459; 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. 105; Jan. 3, 2013, p. 46; Jan. 6, 2015, p. 62; 
Jan. 3, 2017, p. 65). In the 116th Congress, the Speaker revised the 
existing policy to provide that Members may be recognized for only one 
special-order speech per week, and this policy continued in subsequent 
Congresses (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 
2021, p. _; Speaker McCarthy, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).

  The Chair will recognize for subdivisions of the first hour for each 
party only on designations (and reallocations) by the leadership 
concerned (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23151; Dec. 12, 2001, p. 25605; June 21, 
2012, p. 9624; Feb. 14, 2013, p. 1430). A Member who is recognized to 
control time during special orders may yield to colleagues 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 appropriate (Jan. 
31, 2001, p. 1078). Neither a one-hour (Mar. 6, 2012, p. 2989; Jan. 6, 
2016, p. 103; July 14, 2016, p. 11421) nor 30-minute (Mar. 6, 2012, p. 
2994) special order may be extended, even by unanimous consent. When 
recognition for 30-minute (Jan. 11, 2016, p. 342) or hour-long (Oct. 1, 
2013, p. 14891; Jan. 6, 2016, p. 99) special-order speeches does not 
commence earlier than one hour or two hours, respectively, before 10 
p.m., the Chair prorates the time remaining before 10 p.m. to maintain 
equity between the parties in the allocation of the time available. 
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, pp. 22877, 22878), 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, 
declare a recess under clause 12 of rule I, and following the recess 
confer recognition for the remainder of the speech (Nov. 4, 2009, p. 
26795).-



Sec. 951. Morninghour debate.

  Beginning  in the second 
session of the 103d Congress, the House has by unanimous consent agreed 
(without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate power of recognition under 
this rule) to convene early on certain days for morning-hour debate 
(e.g., Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 11458; 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 Mondays 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. 104; see, e.g., June 20, 2012, p. 9460; 
Aug. 1, 2012, p. 13055; Dec. 20, 2017, p. _). The order was altered to 
allow the Speaker to dispense with morning-hour debate upon either 
receipt of a notification of an impairment at the place of reconvening 
under clause 12(c) of rule I (Jan. 7, 2014, p. 92) or a change in 
reconvening pursuant to clause 12(e) of rule I (Jan. 6, 2015, pp. 61, 
62); see Sec. 639, supra).


  Under the customary order of the House establishing morning-hour 
debate, the Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to 
extend a five-minute period of recognition (Apr. 28, 1998, p. 6924; Nov. 
12, 2002, p. 21327) or to extend recognition beyond the specified 
termination (10 minutes before convening) (Jan. 2, 2013, p. 18669). The 
Chair may not recognize a request for legislative business (Feb. 27, 
2013, pp. 1777, 1778; Feb. 26, 2015, p. 2655; Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 19792, 
19793; June 15, 2016, p. 8768) or that a name be removed from a list of 
cosponsors of a bill (Apr. 26, 1994, p. 8544), or the noticing of intent 
to offer a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX 
(July 23, 2020, p. _). The Chair may withdraw recognition during 
morning-hour debate (Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362).-



Sec. 952. ``Oxfordstyle'' debates.

  In  the 103d Congress the 
House agreed by unanimous consent to conduct at a time designated by the 
Speaker structured debate on a mutually agreeable topic announced by the 
Speaker, 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. 11458; June 8, 1994, p. 12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12648). 
Pursuant to that authority the House conducted three ``Oxford-style'' 
debates (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).




Sec. 953. Speaker governed by usage in 
recognition.

  Although  there is no appeal from the Speaker's recognition, the 
Speaker is not a free agent in determining who is to have the floor. The 
practice of the House establishes rules from 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 recognition 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 proponent 
yields for that purpose (Jan. 5, 1996, p. 348). The Chair will entertain 
a unanimous-consent request regarding the disposition of the measure 
only if the majority manager yields for that purpose 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. 10, 2000, p. 1019; Feb. 13, 2007, p. 3877, p. 3878; Mar. 4, 2010, 
pp. 2608, 2609; July 1, 2010, pp. 12633, 12634 (Chair corrected 
himself); Feb. 10, 2011, p. 1497, p. 1509, p. 1521; July 11, 2013, p. 
11328); 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. 30354; May 25, 2011, p. 7881; Feb. 14, 2013, pp. 1406, 1407; Apr. 8, 
2014, p. 5785, p. 5787; May 21, 2014, p. 8834; July 30, 2014, p. 13637; 
Jan. 21, 2015, pp. 843, 844; Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15825-29; Sept. 6, 2017, 
p. _; July 17, 2018, p. _), even if the Chair has not yet conferred 
recognition for debate (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 30.5; May 17, 2012, 
p. 7084). Where time has been yielded under the hour rule solely for the 
purpose of debate, the Chair may take cognizance of the majority 
manager's refusal to yield for a unanimous-consent request for the 
consideration or disposition of another measure, and need not verify 
such refusal in each instance (Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 
13979; July 7, 2016, p. 10565; Sept. 14, 2016, p. 12674; Jan. 31, 2017, 
p. 1428; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _). Even if a request is not entertained 
under these strictures, a unanimous-consent request embellished with 
oratory constitutes debate and can become an imposition on the time of 
the manager who yielded (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14979; Jan. 15, 2014, p. 706; 
Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 13979; July 7, 2016, p. 10570; 
Sept. 14, 2016, p. 12675; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _).


  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 on whose motion the enacting clause of 
a bill is stricken in the 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), a co-signer of the objection (Jan. 6, 1969, pp. 145-7), or another 
Member in support of the objection (Jan. 6, 2021, p. _). But a Member 
may not, by offering a debatable motion of higher privilege 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 
consideration of a measure, only a manager identified by the terms of 
that order is recognized to call up the measure (Deschler, ch. 21, 
Sec. 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 thereon, 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 recognition (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 adjourn 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. 17493). 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 recognized may not yield to another for debate 
(Jan. 6, 2011, p. 140). 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 
ranking party leaders (Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader) 
additional time to make their remarks in debate (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 3, Sec. Sec. 6.18, 6.19), regardless of the party of the yielding 
Member (Dec. 2, 2021, p. _), and only the nominal time yielded for such 
debate is charged to the manager (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, 
Sec. Sec. 6.20, 6.21). With regard to recognition for such additional 
time, the Chair has refused to espouse a hypothetical outer limit (June 
26, 2009, p. 16734) and to announce the amount of time consumed 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.20; May 27, 2010, p. 9686).



Sec. 954. Loss of right to recognition by Member in 
charge.

  When  an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a bill is 
decided adversely, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member 
whom the Speaker perceives to be leading 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).

  A Member managing debate on a measure does not lose the right to 
recognition or yield back controlled time when taking a seat after 
properly reserving such time during debate (June 27, 2019, p. _).



Sec. 955. Prior right of Members to recognition for 
debate.

  In  debate the members of the committee--except the Committee of 
the Whole (II, 1453)--are entitled to priority of recognition for debate 
(II, 1438, 1448; VI, 306, 307), but a motion to lay a proposition on the 
table is in order before the 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). 
Where debate time is divided and controlled by a majority manager and a 
minority manager, the Chair has discretion to alternate recognition 
between the two (July 7, 2016, p. 10570). When a member 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).




Sec. 956. Exceptions to the usages constraining the Speaker 
as to recognition.

  As  to motions to suspend the rules, the Speaker 
exercises discretion in recognition (V, 6791-6794, 6845; VIII, 3402-
3404). The Speaker also may decline to recognize a Member who desires to 
ask unanimous consent to set 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. 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 conferring 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) requests relating to reported 
measures (July 23, 1993, p. 16820; Feb. 10, 2011, p. 1476) 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. 
4033; Mar. 5, 2013, p. 2331; Dec. 18, 2015, p. 21534); (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 former nonsuspension day (Aug. 12, 1986, p. 
21126) or a former suspension day (Feb. 1, 2012, p. 690; Mar. 30, 1998, 
p. 5153); (4) requests to permit consideration of (nongermane) 
amendments to bills (Nov. 14, 1991, p. 32083; Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37877; 
June 27, 2002, p. 11838); (5) requests to permit expedited consideration 
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; Oct. 1, 
2013, p. 14876; Oct. 4, 2013, p. 15196, p. 15204; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 
15788). 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 request, has been 
cleared under this policy (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 18.22; 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 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.22). 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; Oct. 11, 2013, pp. 15713, 15714; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788; Feb. 6, 
2019, p. _; July 1, 2021, p. _), but the Chair may indicate cognizance 
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. 4172). 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 authorized 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, Sec. 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 
Sec. Sec. 993a, 993b, infra.





Sec. 957. The hour rule in debate.

  2.  * * * A Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not occupy more than one hour in 
debate on a question 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). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).


Managing debate
  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-consent requests to enlarge the time 
for debate (Feb. 4, 2009, p. 2698; Feb. 13, 2009, p. 4140). 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 provided they comprise 
a simple, declarative statement (not multiple statements (July 11, 2013, 
p. 11317)) of the Member's attitude 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.27; 
May 9, 2003, p. 11039; Nov. 21, 2003, p. 30793; Nov. 7, 2009, p. 27192; 
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.30; Oct. 13, 2011, pp. 15520, 
15521; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.28; May 4, 2017, p. _). The 
Chair evaluates each request individually to determine whether it 
constitutes debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.28) and the 
decision of the Chair is subject to appeal (July 11, 2013, p. 11323-24, 
p. 11406, p. 11410-11). The Chair exercises discretion in determining 
whether to deduct time from the yielding manager (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 5, Sec. 21.13) and it is not a proper motion that the time deducted 
for such debate be restored to the yielding Member (July 11, 2013, p. 
11321, p. 11329). Similarly, a unanimous-consent request for the 
consideration or disposition of a measure that is embellished with 
oratory constitutes debate and may become an imposition on the time of 
the manager who yielded for that purpose (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14979; Jan. 
15, 2014, p. 706; Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 13979; July 
7, 2016, p. 10570; Sept. 14, 2016, p. 12675; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _).



958. The opening and closing of general debate.

  3. (a)  The 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who calls up a measure may 
open and close debate thereon. When general debate extends 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.




Sec. 959. Member to speak but once to the same question; 
right to close controlled debate.

  (b)  Except as provided in paragraph (a), 
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not speak more 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.

  Paragraph (a) was adopted in 1847 and perfected in 1880 (V, 4996). 
Paragraph (b) was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1840 (V, 4991). Before 
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph (a) was 
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). This clause 
applies to general debate in the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 26, 1985, 
p. 6283).

  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. 22417). In response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, the Chair advised that a manager of controlled debate may yield 
time to a Member from the other party, but that any Member to whom a 
block of time was yielded may not control that time (Oct. 9, 2015, pp. 
15999, 16000). For further discussion of management of time for general 
debate and for debate on amendments in the Committee of the Whole, see 
Sec. 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 
Members and permit them to yield more than once to other Members, and a 
Member controlling debate under the hour rule may yield more than once 
to the same Member (Apr. 5, 2000, p. 4497; Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27575). For 
a discussion of the right of a Member to speak more than once under the 
five-minute rule, see Sec. 981, infra. See also Sec. 357, supra.

  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. 4399). 
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. 4399).

  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, 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 reported the measure without recommendation (Feb. 
12, 1997, pp. 2108, 2109). If the pending text includes a provision 
recommended by a committee 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 a measure assigns a managerial role by vesting control 
of debate: (1) in named Members who do not serve on a committee of 
jurisdiction of an unreported measure (Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19325); or (2) 
of a reported measure, in a committee other than one of referral (Feb. 
15, 2012, p. 1642), those managers are entitled to close controlled 
debate in opposition to an amendment thereto. 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).


Call to order
  The proponent of an amendment may close controlled 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; May 13, 1998, p. 9092; July 14, 
1998, p. 15321; July 17, 2003, pp. 18585-87); a committee representative 
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 (July 24, 1997, pp. 
15684, 15685, 15689); no representative from the reporting committee 
opposes an amendment to a multijurisdictional bill (Mar. 9, 1995, p. 
7467); the measure is unreported and has no ``manager'' under the terms 
of a special rule (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206); a measure is being managed 
by a single reporting committee and the Member controlling time in 
opposition, though a member of the committee having jurisdiction over 
the amendment, does not represent the reporting committee (Nov. 9, 1995, 
p. 31964); a Member is recognized by unanimous consent to control time 
otherwise reserved for an opponent (e.g., Mar. 8, 2012, p. 3162; July 
23, 2014, p. 12747).



960. The call to order for words spoken in 
debate.

  4. (a)  If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, in speaking 
or otherwise, transgresses the Rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or 
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may, call to order the 
offending Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, who shall 
immediately 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 Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the call to order shall 
indicate the words excepted to, which shall be taken down in writing 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 decide the question without debate. If the 
decision is in favor of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 
called to order, the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be 
at liberty to proceed, but not otherwise. If the case requires it, an 
offending Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be liable to 
censure or such other punishment as the House may consider proper. A 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be held to answer a 
call to order, and may not be subject to the censure 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 
paragraph (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 objectionable 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).



Sec. 961. Words taken down and other calls to order 
for unparliamentary debate.

  Members  transgressing the rules of debate and 
decorum may be called to order by the Speaker (VIII, 2481, 2521, 3479), 
a Member (II, 1344; V, 5154, 5161-5163, 5175, 5192), or a Delegate (II, 
1295). A Member may initiate a call to order either by making a point of 
order that a Member 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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.13; see also 
Sec. 684, supra).


  As discussed in Sec. 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; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.16; 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 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 seeking 
recognition at the appropriate time may yet be recognized to demand that 
words be taken down even though brief debate may have intervened, as 
long as the request is contemporaneous with the objectionable words 
(July 16, 2019, p. _; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _), and a request 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; 
Apr. 27, 2016, p. 5191). For instances in which the Chair admonished 
Members for improper references to the Senate after brief intervening 
debate, see Sec. 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; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045; Dec. 14, 2021, p. _), 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 other's 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 
question of order, subject to the will of the House on the question of 
proceeding in order (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22900; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23427; 
Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also Sec. 366, supra).

  The Chair may entertain a unanimous-consent request to withdraw or 
modify words taken down either before (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, 
Sec. 51.1) or after (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 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 
simultaneously 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, 
permitted 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; Apr. 17, 1997, p. 5832; Mar. 7, 
2012, p. 3045; Dec. 14, 2021, p. _) and may not proceed on the same day 
without the permission of the House (Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.1; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352), 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; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045). The offending 
Member will not lose the floor if the House permits the Member to 
proceed in order (see, e.g., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.6), 
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. 19170; June 13, 
2002, p. 10232) or offered by any Member (July 25, 1996, p. 19172; 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).

  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 Member 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 permitted 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 22.1). 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 
Committee 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 the 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 investigated 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).


Comportment
  For a discussion of resolving the use of objectionable exhibits that 
are a breach of decorum, see Sec. 622, supra; and for a discussion of 
resolving the use of objectionable exhibits that are not necessarily a 
breach of decorum, see clause 6, Sec. 963, infra.




962. Decorum of Members in the Hall.

  5.  When the Speaker is 
putting a question or addressing the House, a Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner may not exit or cross the Hall. When a Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is speaking, a Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner 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 non-religious headdress or 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. 80). In the 115th Congress, the first sentence was amended to 
replace a mobility-based reference (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, 
p. 37). In the 116th Congress, the rule was amended to codify an 
exemption for religious headdress (sec. 102(x), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, 
p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 7 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47). The Chair may enlist the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce a 
breach of this clause (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19027; Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 6, Sec. 15.7; June 22, 2018, p. _).

  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 non-religious headdress or hats in the Chamber 
while the House is in session includes doffing a hat in tribute to a 
group (Speaker Foley, June 22, 1993, p. 13569; June 10, 1996, p. 13560) 
and the donning of a hood (Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362), but in the 
116th Congress, the Speaker announced that discretion would be applied 
in enforcing the prohibition with respect to hats or head coverings worn 
out of medical necessity (Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 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 appropriate attire for female Members (where thermostat 
controls had been raised in the summer to conserve energy); the House 
then adopted a resolution, offered as a question of the privileges of 
the House, requiring Members to wear proper attire as determined by the 
Speaker, and denying noncomplying Members the privilege of the floor 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.2). In the 106th, 109th, and 112th 
through 116th 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; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 
2013, p. 1680; July 31, 2013, p. 12804; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, 
p. 4783; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2553; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 
2017, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Mar. 10, 2020, p. _), and the Chair has so 
admonished a Member speaking in debate without a jacket (Apr. 3, 2001, 
p. 5361) and has withdrawn recognition of a Member not wearing proper 
attire (Mar. 28, 2012, p. 4361). The donning of a distinctive uniform of 
another occupation is not proper (Oct. 20, 2009, p. 25164). 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 has 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 (Speaker 
Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 106), although no device may be used for still 
photography or for audio or video recording (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 
2011, p. 106; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2553; June 23, 2016, p. 
9862; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). The display of an image on an 
electronic device while not under recognition impairs decorum (Mar. 13, 
2014, p. 4393). The Chair has also announced that Members should disable 
wireless telephones on entering the Chamber (e.g., June 12, 2000, p. 
10369). The Chair has cited this clause in prohibiting the use of a 
mobile telephone to play audio on the House floor (June 22, 2018, p. _).

  Smoking is not permitted in the Hall during sessions of the House 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.20), 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 
legislative 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, addressing remarks to spectators, and passing in front of 
the Member addressing 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; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 179), 
including Members who may have been invited to the well by the Member 
speaking (June 12, 2003, p. 14627; July 7, 2016, p. 10558); (2) that 
Members should not engage in disruption while another Member is speaking 
(Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878), including shouting interjections during 
debate (Feb. 28, 1995, p. 6259; Feb. 13, 2009, p. 4136; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.3; Oct. 11, 2011, p. 15117). Mass presence of 
Members in the well while not under recognition constitutes a breach of 
decorum (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1). 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 form 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).


Exhibits
  A former Member must observe proper decorum under this clause, and the 
Chair may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist the Chair in maintaining 
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 
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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.6).




963. Objections to use of exhibits.

  6.  When the use of an 
exhibit in debate is objected to by a Member, Delegate, or 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. 3, 2001, p. 25). A gender-based reference was eliminated in 
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before 
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in former rule 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 
question 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). In response 
to a point of order raised against an exhibit, the Chair has 
acknowledged that submitting the question of its use to the House before 
deciding instead to rule on the point of order under clause 2 of rule I 
is a matter of discretion (Jan. 20, 2018, p. _ (sustained by tabling of 
appeal)).

  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 as an exhibit to accompany a Member's debate 
(Oct. 12, 1998, p. 25770). A Member under recognition to notice a 
question of the privileges of the House is not recognized for debate and 
thus may not display an exhibit (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4393). For a 
discussion of the Speaker's responsibility to preserve decorum that may 
require 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, see Sec. 622, supra.



Sec. 964. History of former rule on reading of 
papers.

  The earlier  form of the rule (formerly rule XXX), originally adopted in 
1794 and amended in 1802 and 1880 (V, 5257), addressed reading from 
papers. It recognized the right 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 
accompanying 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 proposition, 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. Although 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 Sec. 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 (July 27, 2017, p. _).


Galleries


Sec. 965. Earlier practice.

  The reading  of papers other than 
those on which the vote was about to be taken was usually permitted 
without question (V, 5258). However, this privilege was subject to the 
authority 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 Congressional Record (VIII, 2597). After the previous question 
was ordered, a Member 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 Sec. Sec. 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 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).





966. Gallery occupants not to be introduced.

  7.  During a 
session of the House, it shall not be in order for a Member, Delegate, 
or Resident Commissioner to introduce 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.



Congressional Record
  This clause was adopted April 10, 1933 (VI, 197). Before the House 
recodified 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, 
Sec. Sec. 45.4, 45.7).



967. Revisions of remarks in debate.

  8. (a)  The 
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of 
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to 
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the remarks.


  (b) Unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order 
of the House.




Sec. 968. Standard of conduct.

  (c)  This clause establishes a 
standard of conduct within the meaning of clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI.



Legislative Proceedings
  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. 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 distinctive 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 uttered while not under recognition (such as 
when a Member fails to heed the gavel at the expiration of debate time 
or when a Member attempts to interject remarks in debate where the 
Member under recognition has refused to yield) do not appear in the 
Record (e.g., May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19, 
2004, pp. 10107, 10108; Feb. 15, 2012, p. 1643). 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 
Sec. Sec. 685-692, supra.



968a. Disruption of legislative proceedings.

  9. (a)  A 
Member, Delegate, the Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House may not engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in the Chamber, 
including--


      (1) intentionally obstructing or impeding the passage of others in 
the Chamber;

      (2) the use of an exhibit to impede, disrupt, or disturb the 
proceedings of the House; and

      (3) the denial of legislative instruments to others seeking to 
engage in legislative proceedings.




Sec. 968b. Standard of conduct.

  (b)  This clause establishes 
a standard of conduct within the meaning of clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI.



Secret sessions
  This clause was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 3, 2017, p. 36). In the 114th Congress, the Chair stated that the 
mass presence of Members in the well while not under recognition 
constituted a breach of decorum (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1).




969. Secret session of the House.

  10.  When confidential 
communications are received from the President, or when 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, Resident Commissioner, and officers of 
the House for the reading of such communications, and debates 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. 
7). This clause was redesignated from clause 9 to clause 10 in the 115th 
Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 36). Before the 
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in former rule XXIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  The two Houses have legislated in secret session, transmitting their 
messages 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 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; Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 18.31). 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 communications 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, 
including 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 question 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 committees for their evaluation and report to the House as 
to ultimate disposition to be made (June 20, 1979, pp. 15711-13). The 
House may subsequently 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 announced on that occasion before the commencement of the secret 
session 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).


[[Page 819]]

  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. 4145). Before commencement of that secret 
session, the Speaker pro tempore (1) read to the House the contents of 
this clause; (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) reminded 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 approximately 15 minutes before the House 
reconvened for the secret session (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, 
Sec. 6.12).

  The House conducted a secret session in the 96th Congress to receive 
confidential communications consisting of classified information in the 
possession 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 
Speaker 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 Speaker 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 prohibit United States support for military or 
paramilitary operations in Nicaragua (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., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.14).

                               Rule XVIII


Resolving into the Committee of the Whole
       the committee of the whole house on the state of the union




970. Selection of Chair of Committee of the Whole; and the 
power to preserve order.

  1.  Whenever the House resolves into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Speaker 
shall leave the chair after appointing a Member, Delegate, or the 
Resident Commissioner 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 Committee 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, 
Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.17), repealed in the 112th Congress 
(sec. 2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and reinstated in the 
115th Congress (sec. 2(t), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38). A Delegate 
first presided under the former authority on October 6, 1994 (p. 28533). 
Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House recodified its 
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 
1(a) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).



Sec. 971. Functions of the chair of the Committee of the 
Whole.

  The  Sergeant-at-Arms attends the sittings of the Committee of the 
Whole and, under direction of the Chair, maintains order (I, 257). After 
repeated disturbances in the gallery, the Chair warned its occupants of 
possible prosecution (under 40 U.S.C. 5104) and, in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, affirmed his authority to have the gallery 
cleared (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.6). The Chair recognizes 
for debate (V, 5003). Like the Speaker, the Chair is forbidden to 
recognize for requests to suspend the rule of admission to the floor (V, 
7285).


  The Chair decides questions of order arising in the Committee 
independently 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 parliamentary inquiry relating to possible 
proceedings in the House on a motion to recommit (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 
2079). The Chair does not take cognizance of a ``point of order'' 
against the legislative schedule, its announcement 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; 
Sept. 6, 2017, p. _), but debate must be confined to the question of 
sustaining the Chair's ruling and may not address the merits of an 
underlying matter (Sept. 6, 2017, p. _). 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). 
However, if the Committee is sitting at the hour fixed for the meeting 
of the House on a new legislative day, the Committee and not the Chair 
determines 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 
determine 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.17).



Sec. 972. Speaker's declaration into Committee of the 
Whole pursuant to special order.

  2. (a)  Except as provided in paragraph (b) 
and in clause 6 of rule XV, the House resolves into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union by motion. When such a motion is 
entertained, the Speaker shall put the question without debate: ``Shall 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for consideration 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.


Measures requiring initial consideration in the Committee of the Whole
  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 
Committee 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).




973. Subjects requiring consideration in Committee of the 
Whole.

  3.  All public bills, resolutions, or Senate amendments (as 
provided in clause 3 of rule XXII) involving a tax or charge on the 
people, raising revenue, directly or indirectly making appropriations of 
money or property or requiring such appropriations to be made, 
authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or releasing 
any liability to the United States for money or property, shall be first 
considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union. A bill, resolution, or Senate amendment that fails to comply with 
this clause is subject 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 its 
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3 
of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A technical correction 
was effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, 
p. 7). It was amended in the 115th Congress to exclude measures 
referring a claim to the Court of Claims (sec. 2(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2017, p. 37).

  To require consideration in the 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 the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4827; VIII, 2399), as must 
bills ultimately authorizing officials in certain 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 provisions 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 the 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 the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to special orders (H. Res. 988, Committee Reform Amendments of 
1974, considered pursuant to H. Res. 1395, Sept. 30, 1974, p. 32953; 
H.R. 17654, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, considered pursuant 
to H. Res. 1093, July 13, 1970, p. 23901). Although conference reports 
were formerly considered in the Committee 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 consideration of a measure on the Union Calendar in the 
House (see, e.g., Apr. 26, 2001, p. 6299).

  When a bill once considered in the 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 the Committee of the Whole 
(IV, 4828, 4829; V, 5545, 5546, 5591).

  Resolutions reported by the Committee on House Administration 
appropriating 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 considered 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 nongovernmental entity (IV, 4835, 4836, 4853; 
VIII, 2413), is not governed by the rule.


Order of business
  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 the Committee 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).



977. Order of business in Committee of the 
Whole.

  4. (a)  Subject to subparagraph (b) business on the calendar of the 
Committee of 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 resolving into the Committee of the Whole.



  (b) Motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for 
consideration of bills and joint resolutions making general 
appropriations have precedence under this clause.

  The early practice left the order of taking up bills to be determined 
entirely 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 harbors 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.


Reading for amendment-
  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 provisions 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 the Committee of the Whole, it is 
usually first in order (IV, 4735; VIII, 2334). An amendment pending when 
the Committee rises remains pending when the Committee next considers 
that measure (July 27, 2011, p. 12252).



978. General debate and amendment under the fiveminute 
rule in Committee of the Whole.

  5. (a)  Before general debate commences on a 
measure in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 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 
amendment. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who offers an 
amendment shall be allowed five minutes to explain it, after which the 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 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 to an amendment. An amendment, or an amendment 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 Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
the Clerk shall promptly transmit five copies of the amendment to the 
majority committee table and five copies to the minority committee 
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 the 
Committee of the Whole and in the House by clauses. Although that rule 
has disappeared, the practice continues in the Committee of the Whole 
but not in the House. Originally there was unlimited debate in the 
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 the Committee of the Whole by permitting the 
House by majority vote to order the discharge of the Committee of the 
Whole from the consideration 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 providing 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 the House recodified its rules in the 
106th Congress, this provision was 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 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 the 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 governing 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 Sec. 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).



Sec. 979. Motion to close general debate in 
Committee of the Whole.

  The motion  to close general debate in the Committee of 
the Whole, successor in practice to the motion to discharge provided by 
the rule of 1841, is made in the House pending the motion that the House 
resolve itself into Committee, and not 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) are not 
allowed (VIII, 2555, 2690). General debate must have already begun in 
the 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 
the 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).-




Sec. 980. Reading and amendment under the fiveminute 
rule.

  The  second reading was originally instituted by the rule of 1789 and 
has continued, although the rule was eliminated, undoubtedly by 
inadvertence, in the codification of 1880 (V, 5221). The recodification 
of the 106th Congress conformed 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 
amendment at any point. If a special order of business provides that an 
amendment 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 the 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, 
encompassing multiple paragraphs, is not in order (Aug. 5, 1998, p. 
18928; Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-63), but amendments striking each 
paragraph of the title could be considered en bloc by unanimous consent 
(May 18, 2016, p. 6690). 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, Sec. 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, Sec. 2.26) or when, the reading of the bill 
being concluded and a motion to rise being decided in the negative, the 
Committee on motion 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 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) 
and a motion to amend the amendment may not be offered while the 
proponent is under recognition (May 18, 2016, p. 6695).

  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 or otherwise retaining the floor (June 10, 1998, p. 
11976); must confine remarks to the subject (V, 5240-5256; VIII, 2591); 
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). 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 debate time on amendments under the five-minute rule cannot be 
reserved (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21425). A Member may extend beyond five 
minutes by unanimous consent (Feb. 1, 2012, p. 734). The offeror of an 
amendment is not recognized to commence debate under the five-minute 
rule during the pendency of a point of order against it (July 6, 2011, 
p. 10476). For a further discussion of management of time for debate on 
amendments in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 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 
between majority and minority Members (giving priority to committee 
members) (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.3). Recognition of 
Members to offer amendments 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, Sec. 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, Sec. 21.3).

  The Committee of the Whole may not, even by unanimous consent, 
prohibit 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; June 1, 2011, p. 
8521). An amendment that has been disposed of in the Committee of the 
Whole (June 17, 2004, pp. 12944, 12945) or ruled out of order (May 18, 
2016, p. 6698; May 25, 2016, p. 7381) may not be withdrawn. Debate may 
continue, and the Chair puts the question, on an amendment 
notwithstanding the manager's ``acceptance'' of it (July 31, 2007, p. 
21953; June 14, 2011, p. 9179).-


Quorum and voting


Sec. 981. Pro forma amendments under the fiveminute 
rule.

  The pro  forma amendment to ``strike the last word'' has long been used 
for purposes of debate or explanation where an actual amendment is not 
contemplated (V, 5778; VIII, 2591). 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 special rule that precludes amendments to an amendment also 
precludes pro forma amendments thereto (Aug. 1, 2001, p. 15559; July 21, 
2011, p. 11751). 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; 
Oct. 11, 2011, p. 15133); a Member 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 be recognized 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 unanimous 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 amendment has been amended in its entirety and 
no further amendments, including 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.4). 
A pro forma amendment may not be offered while a point of order is 
pending (Feb. 16, 2011, p. 2174).




982. Failure of a quorum in Committee of the 
Whole.

  6. (a)  A quorum of a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union is 100 Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner. 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 Committee 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 during 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 the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is operating 
under the five-minute rule and the Chair has put the pending proposition 
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 not less than two minutes.

  (c) When ordering a quorum call in the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union, the Chair may announce an intention to declare 
that a quorum is constituted at any time during the quorum call when the 
Chair determines 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), which time was reduced to not less 
than two minutes in the 113th Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2013, p. 25). 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 eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 116th Congress, paragraph 
(a) was amended to include Delegates and the Resident Commissioner as 
part of a quorum (sec. 102(y)(1), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Before 
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision 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 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 
established 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 reduced-time vote under a previous version of 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 discretion to vacate proceedings at any 
time during the entire period permitted 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 
Committee 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 
the 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 motion 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 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 division 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 the 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 the Committee 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).



Sec. 983. Rising and reports of Committee of the 
Whole.

  Under  clause 6(d), the presence of a quorum is not necessary for 
adoption of a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise (IV, 2975, 
2976, 4914; Mar. 5, 1980, p. 4801; Oct. 3, 1985, 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), may be 
withdrawn by unanimous consent (June 12, 2019, p. _) and may be ruled 
out when dilatory (VIII, 2800). A demand for a record vote on the motion 
is untimely after the Committee rises (May 19, 2016, p. 6772). For a 
further discussion of the motion to rise, see Sec. 334, supra.

  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 
Committee 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 the 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).


  Under the modern practice, the Committee of the Whole may rise 
informally without motion to enable the House to transact certain 
administrative business (see Sec. 330, supra).




Sec. 983a. Recorded votes in Committee of the Whole.

  (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, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.



-  (f) <> In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
the Chair may reduce to not less than two minutes the minimum time for 
electronic voting on any or all pending amendments after a record vote 
has been taken on the first pending amendment, if in the discretion of 
the Chair Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner would be 
afforded an adequate opportunity to vote.
  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 
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 116th 
Congress, this provision was amended to include Delegates and the 
Resident Commissioner (sec. 102(y)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. ). 
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former 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 recognized for the next amendment (Dec. 15, 
2005, p. 28739; May 28, 2014, p. 9125) or put the question on the next 
amendment pending on the tree (Procedure, ch. 30, Sec. 12.5), or where 
considerable time has elapsed after the Chair's announcement of the 
voice vote (June 13, 2006, p. 11037), but not when a Member is seeking 
recognition for that purpose when the Chair announces the result of the 
voice vote (June 27, 2012, pp. 10175, 10176; Sept. 20, 2012, p. 14571). 
The Committee may vacate a pending vote by electronic device by 
unanimous consent (see Sec. 993b, infra) but not by motion (May 8, 2008, 
p. 8148).

  (g) The Chair may postpone a request for a recorded 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--

      (1) on any postponed question that follows another electronic 
vote, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first 
in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes; or


      (2) on any postponed question taken after the Committee of the 
Whole resumes its sitting if in the discretion of the Chair Members, 
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner would be afforded an adequate 
opportunity to vote.

  Paragraph (f) was added in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, 
p. 39). Paragraph (g)(1) 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. 7). 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 five 
minutes) (sec. 2(e)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Such two-minute 
voting had previously been granted ad hoc by unanimous consent in the 
House (e.g., Mar. 16, 2006, p. 3767). Paragraph (g)(2) was added in the 
113th Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 25), and was 
amended in the 116th Congress to include Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner (sec. 102(y)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Paragraphs 
(f) and (g) were amended in the 116th Congress to expand the 
availability of two-minute voting (sec. 102(z), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, 
p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
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 a previous version 
of 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. 7740; July 30, 
2013, p. 12566).

  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). 
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 unanimous 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).

  An amendment pending as unfinished business where proceedings on a 
request for a recorded 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).

  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 because the question is no longer pending after the Chair's 
announcement (see Sec. 1026, infra). Under a previous form of this 
paragraph, the offering of a pro forma amendment to discuss the 
legislative program or an extended one-minute speech by a Member to 
express gratitute to the Members on a personal matter constituted 
intervening business that precluded a reduced-time vote 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 withdrawn 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-
75) unless the request proposes that the Chair put the question de novo 
(e.g., Sept. 22, 2004, pp. 18957, 18958, 18962; July 18, 2013, p. 
11838).




Sec. 985. De novo vote where Delegates 
decisive.

  (h)  Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided by 
a margin within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner have been decisive, the Committee of the Whole shall rise 
and the Speaker shall put such question de novo without intervening 
motion. Upon the announcement of the vote on that question, the 
Committee of the Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening 
motion.


   This paragraph (former clause 2(d) of rule XXIII) was added in the 
103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), repealed in the 104th 
Congress (sec. 212(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), reinstated in 
the 110th Congress (H. Res. 78, Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.17), 
repealed in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, 
p. 80), and reinstated in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(b)(2), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).


Dispensing with the reading of an amendment
  Whether the votes cast by the delegates are decisive is determined by 
a ``but for'' test, the question being whether the result would be 
different if their votes are not counted (May 19, 1993, p. 10409; Feb. 
8, 2007, p. 3550). The Chair's count in such matter is not subject to 
appeal (Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3550). The Chair does not differentiate 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 does 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). This paragraph is 
applicable only to votes taken in the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 11, 
2008, p. 3740). In response to a parliamentary inquiry in the House 
after automatic rising under this paragraph, the Chair has clarified 
that the vote is on the same amendment just voted on in the Committee of 
the Whole (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.13).




986. Motion to dispense with reading.

  7.  It shall be in 
order in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 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 amendment that a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner has caused to be printed in the Congressional Record. Such 
a motion shall be decided without debate.



Closing 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 its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in 
former clause 5(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).



987. Closing the fiveminute debate in Committee of the 
Whole.

  8. (a)  Subject to paragraph (b) at any time after the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union has begun five-minute debate on 
amendments to any portion of a bill or resolution, it shall be in order 
to move that the Committee of the Whole close all debate on that portion 
of the bill or resolution or on the pending amendments only. Such a 
motion shall be decided 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 portion of a bill or resolution before there has 
been debate on an amendment that a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner has caused to be printed in the Congressional Record at 
least one day before its consideration, the Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner who caused the amendment to be printed in the 
Record shall be allowed five minutes to explain it, after which the 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who shall first obtain the 
floor shall be allowed five minutes to speak in opposition to it. There 
shall be no further debate thereon.


  (c) Material submitted for printing in the Congressional Record under 
this clause shall indicate 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 portion 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 enactment of an identical provision in section 119 of the 
Legislative Reorganization 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, relating to the procedure for submitting and 
printing of amendments, was added in the 93d Congress (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 24.15). The last sentence, 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 House recodified its 
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found 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 adjournment, 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 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 substitute 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 entitled 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 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; Aug. 2, 1984, 
22180). 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). A motion to limit debate on a pending amendment 
may neither allocate the time proposed to remain nor vary the order of 
recognition to close debate, though the Committee of the Whole may do 
either separately by unanimous consent (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 (June 14, 1977, p. 
18833; May 25, 1982, p. 11672; May 10, 2000, p. 7515). The Chair also 
may, in the Chair's discretion, give priority in recognition under a 
limitation to those Members seeking to offer amendments, over other 
Members seeking recognition 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).


Striking the enacting clause
  As codified in clause 3(c) of rule XVII (and except as indicated in 
Sec. 959, supra) a manager of the bill controlling time in opposition to 
an amendment, and not the proponent of the pending amendment, has the 
right to close debate on the amendment (July 16, 1981, p. 16043), even 
where the manager is the proponent of a pending amendment to the 
amendment (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5792).




988. The motion to strike the enacting words of a 
bill.

  9.  A motion that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union rise and report a bill or resolution to the House with the 
recommendation that the enacting or resolving clause be stricken shall 
have precedence of a motion to amend, and, if carried in the House, 
shall constitute a rejection of the bill or resolution. Whenever a bill 
or resolution is reported from the Committee of the Whole with such 
adverse recommendation and the recommendation is rejected by the House, 
the bill or resolution shall stand recommitted to the Committee of the 
Whole without further action by the House. Before 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 the 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 the Committee of the Whole (V, 5326, 5332). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, at which time the rule was 
also expanded to include resolutions and resolving clauses, it was found 
in former clause 7 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 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).



Sec. 989. Practice as to use of the motion to 
strike the enacting clause.

  The motion  may not be made until the first section of 
the bill has been read (V, 5327; VIII, 2619), and may be offered while 
an amendment is pending (V, 5328-5331; VIII, 2622, 2624, 2627). The 
motion takes precedence over the motion to amend and therefore over the 
motion to rise and report at the end of the reading of a general 
appropriation 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 the Committee of the Whole, the motion is in order (VII, 
787); contra (IV, 3215), but after the stage of amendment has been 
passed the motion 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, the motion is not in order if no 
committee amendments are in fact offered (Apr. 16, 1970, p. 12092). 
Where a bill is being considered under a special order that permits only 
specified amendments to an amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
in order as original text, the motion is in order even after disposition 
of the specified amendments (Nov. 30, 2011, p. 18465).


  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 Member may not claim the unused portion thereof (Mar. 3, 1988, 
p. 3241). Members 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 recognized 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 concerning debate on the motion, see Deschler, ch. 19, 
Sec. 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 
legislative 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 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).


Concurrent resolution on the budget
  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 consideration of the pending bill was 
governed by a ``modified-closed'' rule permitting 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).



990. Reading concurrent resolution on budget for 
amendment.

  10. (a)  At the conclusion of general debate in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union on a concurrent resolution on the 
budget under section 305(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for amendment.


  (b) It shall not be in order in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union to consider an amendment to a 
concurrent resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, unless the 
concurrent resolution, as amended by such amendment or amendments--

      (1) would be mathematically consistent except 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 Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union to consider an amendment to a concurrent resolution on the 
budget, or an amendment thereto, that proposes to change the amount of 
the appropriate level of the public debt set forth in the concurrent 
resolution, as reported.


  (2) Amendments to achieve mathematical consistency under section 
305(a)(5) of the Congressional 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 resolution, as reported, to reflect changes made in other 
figures contained in the concurrent resolution.

  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) (second 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 paragraph (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 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, p. 8789). Before the House recodified its rules in 
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 8 of rule 
XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).


Applicability of Rules of the House


Sec. 991. Former amendment to strike an unfunded 
mandate.

  A  prior clause 11 (formerly clause 5(c) of rule XXIII) provided 
that an amendment in the Committee of the Whole proposing only to strike 
an unfunded mandate from a portion of 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. 80). For the 
text of the former rule and its history, see Sec. 991 of the House Rules 
and Manual for the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).





992. Application of Rules of House to the Committee of 
the Whole.

  11.  The Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union so far as applicable.


  This clause was adopted in 1789 (IV, 4737). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in 
former clause 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. 80).

  The Member offering an amendment in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant 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 Committee 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 Sec. 984, supra.



Sec. 993a. 
Material alteration of a special order.

  The Chair may not entertain a unanimous-consent  request in the Committee of 
the Whole if its effect is to materially modify 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 amendment 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 requiring the Chair to put the question on 
the pending amendments at the expiration 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; June 21, 1989, p. 12744); (5) to change the scheme for control 
(other than among committees controlling time) (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29984; 
Sept. 29, 2005, p. 21797; Jan. 26, 2011, p. 910; Oct. 9, 2015, pp. 
15999, 16000) 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. 5318-20) but the allotment of time 
to a chair or ranking minority member inures to all members of the 
committee (Nov. 5, 2009, p. 26948); (6) to preempt the Chair's 
discretion (granted by a special order) to postpone 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; Feb. 28, 2012, p. 2379; July 
23, 2014, p. 12745); (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 
specified 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); (17) to allow five 
minutes of controlled debate for an additional opponent where the time 
in opposition had already been claimed and then yielded back by another 
Member (July 16, 2019, p. _).



[[Page 849]]

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. 5318-20) 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. 9686); (6) to permit en bloc consideration of several 
amendments under a ``modified-closed'' special order providing for the 
sequential consideration of designated separate amendments (Aug. 10, 
1994, p. 20768; July 6, 2016, p. 10487; Nov. 17, 2016, p. 14455; July 
17, 2018, p. _) (and the House may delegate to the Committee the 
authority to consider by unanimous consent non-sequential amendments out 
of sequence (Aug. 11, 1986, p. 20633)); (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 (or opponent) of an amendment to 
yield control of time in support (or in opposition) to another (Mar. 9, 
2006, p. 3144; Mar. 28, 2012, p. 4444); (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; June 24, 2009. p. 16124; May 29, 
2014, p. 8913, p. 8913) or that had been read when offered, including a 
second-degree amendment (June 20, 1991, pp. 15610, 15611; May 31, 2012, 
p. 8086; May 25, 2016, p. 7370); (12) to permit a request for a recorded 
vote even though untimely (June 24, 2005, p. 14182; Mar. 28, 2007, p. 
8168; July 18, 2012, p. 11637); (13) to vacate a pending recorded vote 
in favor of taking the question de novo (although a motion to that 
effect is not available) (May 8, 2008, p. 8148) or to vacate a prior 
recorded vote to the end that the request for a recorded vote remain 
pending as unfinished business, such that it could be added to the end 
of a current vote ``stack'' (where it was alleged that Members were 
improperly prevented from being recorded) (June 6, 2012, p. 8473).



[[Page 850]]
 


Sec. 993b. 
Minor deviation in a special order.

  Unanimous-consent requests have been entertained  in the 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 corrected in a designated 
amendment made in order as printed where the printed amendment included 
an erroneous reference (Aug. 3, 1977, pp. 26450, 26451); (3) to permit a 
supporter of an amendment to claim debate time allocated by special 
order to an opponent, where no opponent seeks recognition (May 23, 1990, 
p. 11988); (4) to shorten the time set by special order for debate on a 
particular amendment (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21510; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9742); 
(5) 


                                Rule XIX


Previous question
                  motions following the amendment stage




994. The previous question.

  1. (a)  There shall be a motion 
for the previous question, which, being ordered, 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 previous question has been ordered on an otherwise debatable 
question on which there has been no debate, it shall be in order to 
debate that question for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a 
proponent of the question and an opponent. 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 previous 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 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 the 
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 motion does not require a second (Oct. 26, 
2015, p. 16531).



Sec. 996. Application of the previous 
question.

  The  provisions of the rule define the application of the 
previous question with considerable accuracy. It may not be moved on 
more than one bill, or on motions to agree to a conference 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 consideration ``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 resolutions, 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).




Sec. 997. The right to move the previous 
question.

  The  Member in charge of the bill and having the floor may demand 
the previous question, although another Member may propose a motion of 
higher privilege (VIII, 2684), which 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 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 motion, 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 surrendering 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 previous question on the bill or 
resolution before the Member offering the amendment is recognized to 
debate it (Deschler, ch. 23, Sec. 18.3; July 24, 1979, p. 20385). A 
Member recognized to control one hour of debate in the House may move 
the previous question even if that Member had previously yielded time to 
others (Mar. 9, 1977, p. 6811, 6816). But, 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).




Sec. 998. Relation of the previous question to 
motions.

  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 question 
after the previous question has been ordered (V, 5415-5422; VIII, 2655), 
or after the yeas and nays have been ordered on the demand for the 
previous question (V, 5408).


  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). Neither the motion to adjourn (IV, 
3211-3213; June 14, 2001, p. 10725; Apr. 18, 2002, p. 4969) nor the 
motion to amend (Mar. 17, 2016, pp. 3369, 3370) is available when the 
previous question has been ordered by special rule from the beginning of 
debate to final passage or adoption without intervening motion. Under 
clause 4 of rule XVI, the motion for the previous question is 
preferential to the motion to amend (Oct. 26, 2015, p. 16531).




Sec. 999. The 40 minutes of debate on undebated 
propositions.

  This  clause allows 40 minutes of debate when the previous 
question is ordered on an otherwise debatable proposition on which there 
has been no debate (V, 6821; VIII, 2689; Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23602; Mar. 
22, 1990, p. 4996) but not before it is ordered (Nov. 6, 2007, p. 
29820). However, 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 motion 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 the Committee of the Whole (V, 5505); (5) on conference 
reports accompanying measures that were debated before being sent to 
conference (V, 5506-5507); (6) on ancillary measures, such as a 
concurrent resolution to correct an enrolled bill (V, 5508). Debate 
allowed under this provision is equally divided and controlled between 
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).





Sec. 1000. Questions of order pending the motion for the 
previous question.

  (b)  Incidental questions of order arising during the 
pendency of a motion for the previous question shall be decided, whether 
on appeal or otherwise, 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 House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found 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 previous question may have been demanded (Mar. 27, 
1926, p. 6469; May 23, 2017, p. _; Jan. 20, 2018, p. _).


  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).




Sec. 1000a. Postponement.

  (c)  Notwithstanding paragraph (a), 
when the 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.



Recommit
  This provision was adopted in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). This authority has been exercised with regard to 
a motion to dispose of amendments between the Houses (e.g., Nov. 18, 
2010, p. 17856), and has been exercised immediately following the 
resumption of unifinished business postponed pursuant to clause 8 of 
rule XX (Sept. 30, 2021, p. _).



1001. Recommit.

  2. (a)  After the previous question has been 
ordered 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, 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 Resident 
Commissioner who is opposed to the measure.



  (b) The previous question shall be considered as ordered on any motion 
to recommit (or commit, as the case may be).

  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). Paragraph (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, p. 7). 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 instructions, the previous 
question having been ordered, may be extended to one hour, equally 
divided and controlled (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). In the 117th 
Congress, the rule was amended to eliminate the availability of 
instructions, and paragraph (b) was rewritten to order the previous 
question on any motion to recommit and to render the motion nondebatable 
(sec. 2(s)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 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 Sec. 916, supra.



Sec. 1002. Application of motion.

  The  motion to commit under 
this rule applies to resolutions of the House alone as well as to bills 
(V, 5572, 5573; VIII, 2742), and to a motion to amend the Journal (V, 
5574). It does not apply to a report from the Committee on Rules 
providing 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 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 amendments 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; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 5.4).

  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 Committee on Rules is prohibited from 
reporting a special order that precludes the motion to recommit as 
provided in clause 2 of rule XIX (VIII, 2260, 2262-2264; see also 
Sec. 1001, supra). That provision was amended in the 104th Congress to 
further prohibit the Committee on Rules from denying the Minority Leader 
or a designee the right to include proper amendatory instructions in a 
motion to recommit except with respect to a Senate measure for which the 
text of a House-passed measure has been substituted (sec. 210, H. Res. 
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 460), but such further prohibition was removed in 
the 117th Congress upon the elimination of the motion to recommit with 
instructions in this clause (sec. 2(s)(1), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. 
_). 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 intervening 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).



Sec. 1002a. Consideration of motion.

  Before   the amendment 
of this clause in the 92d Congress and until the amendment of this 
clause in the 117th eliminating debate on all motions to recommit, no 
debate was permitted on a motion to recommit with instructions after the 
previous question was ordered (V, 5561, 5582-5584; VIII, 2741). Under 
such former version of this clause, the 10 minutes of debate provided 
under this clause did not apply to a motion to recommit a simple or 
concurrent resolution or a conference report, because the clause limited 
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. 12462). The manager of a bill or joint resolution, if 
opposed, and not the proponent of a motion to recommit with 
instructions, had 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 was not permitted to reserve 
time (Speaker Wright, June 29, 1988, p. 16510; June 29, 1989, p. 13938). 
Although time for debate on a motion to recommit was not ``controlled,'' 
and therefore Members could not reserve or yield blocks of time (July 
26, 2006, p. 16072), a Member under recognition was permitted to yield 
to another while remaining standing or otherwise retaining the floor 
(Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2081).


  Although the ordering of the previous question on a bill and all 
amendments 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, under the former 
version of this clause, unless the previous question had been ordered on 
a motion to recommit with instructions, the motion was 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). Under the previous 
form of the rule, an amendment striking all of the proposed instructions 
and substituting others could not be ruled out as interfering with the 
right of the minority to move recommittal (VIII, 2698, 2759). Under the 
former version of this clause the Member offering a motion to recommit a 
bill with instructions could, 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 had 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).



Sec. 1002b. Former instructions with motion.

  For  precedents 
and history regarding the motion to recommit with instructions, see 
Sec. 1002b of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 
115-177).




Sec. 1002c. Recognition to offer motion.

  Before  former 
clause 4 of rule XVI was amended in 1909 to give priority in recognition 
for the motion to recommit to an opponent 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 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), 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 (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 16, 1950, p. 12608). Until a qualifying 
minority Member 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 recommit (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; Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.3). 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 Member 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, Sec. 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 measure 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).


Reconsideration
  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 Speaker'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 seeking recognition in opposition to a 
motion to recommit must likewise qualify as opposed to the motion (Apr. 
29, 1998, p. 7156; Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.3) or obtain 
unanimous consent if not (e.g., Mar. 14, 2007, p. 6386) and the Chair 
requires a Member to state opposition to the motion before recognizing 
that Member in opposition (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 2.3).




1003. The motion to reconsider.

  3.  When a motion has been 
carried or lost, it shall be in order on the same or 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 session of Congress, such a motion shall be disposed 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 the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716-4718; 
VIII, 2324, 2325; June 23, 2011, p. 9954), 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).



Sec. 1004. Maker of the motion to reconsider.

  The  mover of a 
proposition is entitled to prior recognition to move to reconsider (II, 
1454). A Member may make the motion at any time without thereby 
abandoning a prior motion made by such Member and pending (V, 5610). A 
Delegate 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; 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). Any Member may 
object to the Chair's statement that by unanimous 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 Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side, has 
moved reconsideration from the floor (June 12, 2015, p. 9534; May 18, 
2018, p. _). 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).




Sec. 1005. Precedence of the motion to 
reconsider.

  The  precedence given the motion by the rule permits it to be 
made even after the previous question has been demanded (V, 5656) or 
while it is operating (V, 5657-5662; VIII, 2784). The motion to 
reconsider the vote on the engrossment of a bill may be admitted after 
the previous question 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 managers 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 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 Wednesday (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 
proposed 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 question on the measure, before a motion can be offered 
to reconsider the amendment (cf. VIII, 2789).



Sec. 1006. Application of the motion to reconsider.

  A  motion 
to reconsider may be entertained, although the bill or resolution to 
which it applies may have gone to the other House or the President (V, 
5666-5668). However, unanimous 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 
commission 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 reconsider 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 agreeing 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 Practice, ch. 47, Sec. 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 reconsider 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 proposition 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 preclude 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). When a question that is subject 
to the motion to reconsider is divided, each portion of the divided 
question may be subjected separately to the motion to reconsider (e.g., 
Jan. 5, 2007, pp. 300, 301; June 12, 2015, p. 9534). For a discussion of 
the application of the motion to reconsider in committees, see Sec. 416, 
supra.



Sec. 1007. Effect of the motion to reconsider.

  A  bill is not 
considered passed or an amendment agreed to if a motion to reconsider is 
pending, the effect of the motion being 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 whereby 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 affirmative the question 
immediately recurs on the question reconsidered (V, 5703). When a vote 
whereby an amendment has been agreed to is reconsidered 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 reconsideration of the 
vote on one of the motions does not throw it open to debate (V, 5493). 
Under the earlier practice, when a vote taken under the operation of the 
previous question was reconsidered, the main question stood divested of 
the previous question, and was debatable and amendable without 
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 
debatable 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).




Sec. 1008. The vote on the motion to reconsider.

  The  motion 
to reconsider is agreed to by majority vote, even when the vote 
reconsidered requires two thirds for affirmative action (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).




Sec. 1009. Relation of the motion to reconsider to the 
motion to lay on the table.

  A  vote on the motion to lay on the table may 
be reconsidered whether the decision be in the affirmative (V, 5628, 
5695, 6288; VIII, 2785) or in the negative (V, 5629). It is in order to 
reconsider the vote laying an appeal 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).



[[Page 864]]

recognized to control the one 
hour of debate (Speaker McCormack, Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23608).



Sec. 1010. Debate on the motion to reconsider.

  A  motion to 
reconsider is debatable only if the proposition proposed to be 
reconsidered was debatable (V, 5694-5699; VIII, 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 providing 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 





Sec. 1011. Application of motion to reconsider to bills in 
committees.

  4.  A bill, petition, memorial, or resolution referred to a 
committee, or reported therefrom for printing and recommitment, 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 recodification 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



Sec. 1012. Voting viva voce, by division, by electronic 
device.

  1. (a)  The House shall divide after the Speaker has put a question to 
a vote by voice as provided in clause 6 of rule I if the Speaker is in 
doubt or division is demanded. Those in favor of the question shall 
first rise or otherwise indicate from their seats and be counted, and 
then those opposed.



  (b) If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner requests a 
recorded vote, and that request is supported by at least one-fifth of a 
quorum, the vote shall be taken by electronic device unless the Speaker 
invokes another procedure 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.

  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), 1993 (H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), 1997 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121), 
and 2017 (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). 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 the 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).

  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 demanded on a proposition in the House and the vote 
thereon is then postponed 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 the 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 count of those 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 recorded 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 Members supporting the request in order to count for a quorum 
pursuant 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 therein 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 
business (Deschler-Brown, ch. 30, Sec. 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 
prevent a demand for a recorded vote thereon where the Chair has not 
announced 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. 7148; July 23, 2014, p. 12755). A Member 
requesting a recorded vote (or declining to make such request) should 
not preface such action with debate (July 20, 2017, p. _).

  The ordering of a recorded vote may be vacated by unanimous consent 
(May 28, 2010, pp. 9947, 9948). In the 116th and 117th Congresses the 
House adopted a provision, effective during a designated public health 
emergency, considering the yeas and nays as ordered upon any request for 
a recorded vote pursuant to this clause (sec. 3(a), H. Res. 965, May 15, 
2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).




Sec. 1013. Former ordering of tellers and taking of the 
vote.

  For  precedents related to the former right to demand tellers, 
ordering of tellers, and taking of the vote, see Sec. Sec. 1012 and 1013 
of the House Rules and Manual for the 115th Congress (H. Doc. 114-192).



  (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).




Sec. 1014. Use of electronic equipment in recording 
roll calls.

  2. (a)  Unless the Speaker directs otherwise, the Clerk shall 
conduct a record 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 Members 
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 paragraph (a), a record vote is conducted by electronic 
device unless the Speaker directs otherwise (Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4175, p. 
4444; Oct. 11, 2013, p. 15715).

  The Speaker inserted in the Record a detailed statement describing 
procedures 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 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).

  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 announcing 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. 14781-83; 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). In 
order to permit Members to vote in smaller groups and maintain public 
health protocols during an ongoing public health emergency, the Chair 
refrained from announcing the 15-minute minimum voting time, and the 
time for each vote conducted by electronic device was significantly 
extended (e.g., Apr. 23, 2020, p. _). The Speaker subsequently announced 
the continued adherence to this voting practice during the pendency of 
the public health emergency (Speaker Pelosi, Nov. 18, 2020, p. _). A 
resolution alleging intentional misuse of House practices and customs in 
holding a vote open for approximately 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, resolutions directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) 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, directing 
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 electronic voting system are for display only, such 
that when the former clock-setting on the board read ``final'' the Chair 
continued to allow Members in the well to cast votes or enter changes 
(Sept. 18, 2007, p. 24524).

  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 minutes 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), and where it was alleged that 
changes were made electronically in the Committee of the Whole on an 
earlier two-minute vote, the Speaker pro tempore opined that the chair 
of the Committee of the Whole may not yet have asked for changes (a sign 
to the body that the vote was nearing closure) at the time the votes 
were changed (May 19, 2016, p. 6772).

  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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 14.3). 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. 21960).

  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 
recorded 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 announced 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. 24; 
Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 
46; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 62; Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 
65; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. 
_; Speaker McCarthy, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _); 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). In recent Congresses, the 
Speaker reiterated the need for Members to come to the floor in a timely 
manner to vote (Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; Speaker 
Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 
2554) but that the Chair would endeavor to preserve the entitlement to 
vote for a Member attempting to be recorded while in the well (Speaker 
Ryan, Jan. 7, 2016, p. 161; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _; Speaker 
Pelosi, Mar. 10, 2020, p. _).

  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 during the conduct of the call (July 17, 1974, p. 23673).

  A provision regarding holding a vote open for the sole purpose of 
reversing 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. 7). That provision did not establish a point of order 
(Apr. 15, 2008, p. 6045; May 8, 2008, pp. 8147, 8148) but a vote could 
have been subject to collateral challenge as a question of the 
privileges of the House (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3856; Apr. 15, 2008, p. 
6054).




Sec. 1014a. Procedure when electronic voting system 
inoperable.

  (b) When  the electronic voting system is inoperable or is not used, 
the Speaker or Chair may direct the Clerk to 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 eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).


--  3. <> The 
Speaker may direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call by 
call of the roll. In such a case the Clerk shall call the names of 
Members, 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.

  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 judgment on certification by the Clerk (Oct. 6, 1999, p. 
24198). For example, the Speaker continued to use the electronic system, 
even though the electronic display panels or certain voting stations 
were temporarily inoperative, while urging Members to verify their votes 
(Sept. 19, 1985, p. 24245; Feb. 9, 1994, p. 1633; 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 continued an electronic vote 
but advised Members to verify that they were recorded 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 inoperative 
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).

  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 announcement 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 Sec. 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 
surname with prefix in lieu of calling full names (V, 6047), but since 
the 62d Congress that 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), such as when a resigning 
Speaker chooses to vote for a successor (Speaker Wright, June 6, 1989, 
p. 10800; Speaker Boehner, Oct. 29, 2015, p. 16823). 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 Speaker 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 governed by the vote as 
recorded and subsequent announcement by the Speaker 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).

  Under this clause, as under clause 6, the roll is called twice, and 
those Members appearing after their names are called but before the 
announcement 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. 4175).



Sec. 1016. Bell system.

  The  legislative call system was 
designed to alert Members to certain 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 postponed 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 reduced-time vote under clause 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 immediately thereafter. Two bells repeated 
five minutes after first ring. Five bells on each subsequent electronic 
vote.

  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 the 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 the 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 the 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).



Sec. 1017. Changes and corrections of votes.

  Before  the 
result of a vote has been finally and conclusively pronounced by the 
Chair, but not thereafter, a Member may change 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).


  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, 
demand 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 properly 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; see 
June 6, 2012, p. 8473, for similar order in the Committee of the Whole).




Sec. 1018. Interruptions of the roll call.

  Once  begun the 
roll call may not be interrupted even by a motion to adjourn (V, 6053; 
VIII, 3133), a parliamentary inquiry (VIII, 3132) except in the 
discretion of the Chair and if related to the call (Deschler-Brown, ch. 
31, Sec. Sec.  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 (e.g., Jan. 4, 2005, p. 46; Jan. 6, 2005, p. 
242). 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 announcement 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).





Sec. 1019. Quorum call by clerks.

  4. (a)  The Speaker may 
direct a record vote or quorum call to be conducted by tellers. 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 shall be noted, but the doors may 
not be closed except when ordered by the Speaker. The minimum 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 
electronic voting system (H. Res. 1123, 92d Cong., Oct. 13, 1972, p. 
36012). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
this provision 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). The last vote by tellers occurred on June 23, 1992, p. 15735).


  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, Sec. 6.3). This clause does not give the 
Speaker the authority to lock the doors during a recorded vote 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.6). For a discussion of the count 
to determine a quorum, see House Practice, ch. 43, Sec. 5.




Sec. 1020. Count of those not voting to make a quorum of 
record on a roll call.

  (b)  On the demand of a Member, or at the suggestion 
of the Speaker, the names of Members sufficient to make a quorum in the 
Hall of the House who do not vote shall be noted by the Clerk, entered 
on the Journal, reported to the Speaker with the names of the Members 
voting, and be counted and announced in determining the presence 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 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, Sec. 5.



Sec. 1021. The call of the House.

  5. (a)  In the absence of a 
quorum, a majority comprising at least 15 Members, 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 determine 
on what condition they shall be discharged. Unless the House otherwise 
directs, the Members 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 
provisions of this rule, including this clause, were amended to reflect 
the implementation 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 proceedings 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 in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 
7). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 2(a) of rule XV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).



Sec. 1022. Ordering and conducting the call.

  Under  this rule 
a call may not be ordered by less than 15, and without that number 
present the motion for a call is not entertained (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 demanded (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 absentee is in order when brought to the bar (IV, 3012).



Sec. 1023. Arrest of Members.

  An  order of arrest for absent 
Members may be made after a single calling of the roll (IV, 3015, 3016), 
and a warrant issued on direction of those present, such motion having 
precedence 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 committee 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 
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 
Members, rejected a second motion to adjourn, and then adopted a motion 
authorizing 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).




Sec. 1024. Motions during a call.

  During  the call, which in 
later practice has been invoked only in the absence of a quorum, 
incidental motions may be agreed 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, 
consideration, 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 decision 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 strictly 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).




Sec. 1024a. ``Provisional quorum.''

  (c)(1) If  the House 
should be without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances, then--


      (A) until there appear in the House a sufficient number of 
Representatives to constitute a quorum among the whole number of the 
House, a quorum in the House shall be determined 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 
Representative 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 disposed of and without 
intervening adjournment, each of the following occurs in the stated 
sequence:

      (A) A call of the House (or a series of calls of the House) is 
closed after aggregating a period in excess of 72 hours (excluding time 
the House is in recess) without producing a quorum.

      (B) The Speaker--

          (i) with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader (or their 
respective designees), receives from the Sergeant-at-Arms (or a 
designee) a catastrophic quorum failure report, as described in 
subparagraph (4);

          (ii) consults with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader 
(or their respective designees) 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 aggregating a period in excess of 24 hours 
(excluding time the House is in recess) without producing a quorum.

  (4)(A) For purposes of subparagraph (3), a catastrophic quorum failure 
report is a report advising that the inability of the House to establish 
a quorum is attributable to catastrophic circumstances involving natural 
disaster, attack, contagion, or similar calamity rendering 
Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings 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 incapacitated but otherwise 
incapable of attending the proceedings of the House.

      (iv) The names of Representatives unaccounted 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 respective 
designees) and pertinent public health and law enforcement officials.

  (D) Such report shall be updated every legislative 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 proposal to create a vacancy 
in the representation from any State in respect of a Representative not 
incapacitated but otherwise incapable of attending 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 number 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.

  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. 7) and in the 113th Congress to add 
designees to subparagraph (3)(B) (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 
26). 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.




Sec. 1024b. Accounting for vacancies.

  (d)  Upon the death, 
resignation, expulsion, disqualification, removal, or swearing 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 subject to appeal. In the case of a death, the Speaker 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 
paragraph (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. 
7).




Sec. 1024c. Modifications during public health 
emergency.

    During the 116th Congress, the House adopted a series of 
temporary modifications to proceedings in the House and its committees 
in response to a global pandemic, to be effective for 45 calendar days 
(subject to extension) upon designation by the Speaker following 
notification from the Sergeant-at-Arms of a public health emergency, 
including: (1) authority for a Member to designate another Member as a 
proxy for purposes of voting and recording presence in the House and 
requirements for service as a proxy; (2) restriction on any Member 
serving as a proxy for more than 10 Members; (3) counting for purposes 
of establishing a quorum under House rules any Member voting or 
recording their presence by proxy; (4) automatic ordering of yeas and 
nays upon demand for yeas and nays, recorded vote, or objection pursuant 
to clause 6 of rule XX; (5) authorization for committees to conduct 
proceedings remotely in whole or in part, including remote voting and 
counting for purposes of a quorum those participating remotely; (6) 
ability for committees to file reports, including views, electronically; 
(7) authority for the issuance of subpoenas signed and sealed in 
electronic form and designated for return at a remote committee hearing 
or deposition; and (8) providing for the certification of operable and 
secure technology to conduct remote voting in the House and subsequent 
implementation of a remote voting system (H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. 
_). Such modifications were continued in the 117th Congress with 
revisions (sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). In addition, the 
Speaker announced policies permitting the electronic introduction of 
bills and submission of cosponsors, as well as permitting the electronic 
submission of extensions of remarks and other insertions into the 
Congressional Record (Speaker Pelosi, Apr. 7, 2020, p. _). Such 
announced policies were subsequently tied to the designated public 
health emergency (Speaker Pelosi, July 31, 2020, p. _), and were later 
established on a permanent basis by Speaker's announced policies at the 
outset of the 117th Congress (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).




Sec. 1025. The call of the House in the new 
form.

  6. (a)  When a quorum fails to vote on a question, a quorum is not 
present, and 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 question 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 under this clause shall be brought by the 
Sergeant-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 proceedings 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 
result 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 adjourns 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). Paragraph (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. 9), when gender-based references were also 
eliminated (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). 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).

  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 
incidental 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 
required 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 12.1; 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 pending the 
establishment of a quorum no further business, including unanimous-
consent requests for recess authority, could be entertained (Nov. 2, 
1987, p. 30389).

  In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a provision, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, considering the 
yeas and nays as ordered upon any objection for lack of a quorum under 
this clause (sec. 3(a), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. 
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).



Sec. 1026. Conduct of the call in the new form.

  Under  this 
clause the roll is called twice, and those appearing after their names 
are called may vote (IV, 3052). A motion to adjourn 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).

  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 question de novo (IV, 3045, 3052; VI, 679). If the House does 
adjourn, the question 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 the 
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 announcement of postponement) (see clause 7, infra).



Sec. 1027. Quorum; when not required.

  7. (a)  The Speaker may 
not entertain a point of order that a quorum is not present unless a 
question has been put to a vote.




Sec. 1028. Speaker's discretion to recognize for motion 
for call of House.

  (b)  Subject to paragraph (c) the Speaker may recognize 
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to move a 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 
attendance of Members under clause 5(b).





Sec. 1029. Relation of previous question to failure of a 
quorum.

  (c)  A call of the House shall not be in order after the previous 
question is ordered unless the Speaker determines 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 
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 
Congress, 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, another 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 precedents addressing timeliness in raising a point of 
order of no quorum, see Deschler, ch. 20, Sec. 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).


Postponement of proceedings
  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, pp. 28123, 28124; Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 5, Sec. 3.1; Feb. 27, 1986, p. 3060).



1030. Postponing record votes.

  8. (a)(1)  When a recorded 
vote is ordered, or the yeas and nays are ordered, or a vote is objected 
to under clause 6--


      (A) on any of the questions specified in subparagraph (2), the 
Speaker may postpone further proceedings to a designated place in the 
legislative schedule within two additional legislative days; and

      (B) on the question of agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the 
Journal, the Speaker may postpone further proceedings to a designated 
place in the legislative schedule on that legislative 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 adopting a motion to recommit.

      (F) The question of adopting a motion to concur in a Senate 
amendment, with or without amendment.

      (G) The question of agreeing to an amendment.

      (H) The question of ordering the previous question on a question 
described in subdivisions (A) through (G).

      (I) The question of agreeing to a motion to suspend the rules.

      (J) The question of agreeing to a motion to reconsider or the 
question of agreeing to a motion to lay on the table a motion to 
reconsider.

  (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) 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 questions 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 follows: (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 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 
postponement (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 (now addressed by clause 9) 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); (8) adopting a motion to 
recommit and adopting a motion to concur in a Senate amendment in the 
115th Congress (sec. 2(p), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37); (9) the 
question of agreeing to any amendment and the question of ordering the 
previous question thereon (and repealing existing authority to postpone 
only certain amendments) (sec. 102(aa), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 
Paragraph (c)(2) was added in the 113th Congress to grant the Chair 
discretion to conduct a five-minute vote in the House following a report 
of the Committee of the Whole in certain circumstances (sec. 2(b)(2), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 25), but paragraph (c) was repealed in its 
entirety in the 116th Congress (and the authority thereunder 
consolidated within clause 9 of this rule) (sec. 102(bb)(1), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 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 Speaker first exercised the authority to postpone a record vote on 
the approval of the Journal on November 10, 1983 (p. 32097). That 
authority 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) (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 12.12). On 
questions not enumerated in this paragraph, unanimous consent is 
required to permit the Speaker to postpone such record votes. The House 
by unanimous consent (e.g., Sept. 17, 2003, p. 22272) or special order 
of business (e.g., June 16, 2015, p. 9656) has authorized the Speaker to 
postpone further proceedings on a specified record vote, or specified 
class thereof, to a date certain beyond the two legislative days 
permitted under this clause. Before the question of agreeing to any 
amendment was incorporated within this clause, the Chair used the 
authority to postpone proceedings on ordering the previous question on 
an amendment and the underlying resolution (e.g., Sept. 17, 2015, p. 
14462).

  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX (formerly clause 6(e) of rule XV), 
prohibiting 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 question (May 16, 1977, p. 14785). An objection under clause 6 to a 
voice vote takes precedence over a demand for the yeas and nays if used 
as the basis for postponing proceedings under this clause (Sept. 29, 
1997, p. _; Dec. 19, 2018, p. _). 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 
question 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 (Precedents (Wickham), 
ch. 5, Sec. 12.7).


  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 
amendments. 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 Sec. 984, supra.



Sec. 1031. Former pairs.

  Former  clause 2 of rule VIII was 
adopted in 1880, although the practice of pairing had then existed in 
the House for many years (V, 5981). The language of the clause was 
slightly altered 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 (Sec. 1015, supra).



Two-minute votes-
  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 the 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 misunderstanding 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.



1032. 2minute voting.

  9.  (a) The Speaker may reduce to not 
less than two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
question that follows another electronic vote or a report from the 
Committee of the Whole, if in the discretion of the Speaker Members 
would be afforded an adequate opportunity to vote.



  (b) To the maximum extent practicable, notice of possible reduced 
voting times for a given series of votes shall be issued prior to the 
first electronic vote in the series.

  The Speaker's authority to reduce the time for record votes 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) 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), in each instance provided the first vote in any series was a 15-
minute vote and provided the minimum time for subsequent votes be not 
less than five minutes. In the 113th Congress, paragraphs (b) and (c) 
were added to allow five-minute voting in certain circumstances not 
immediately preceded by a 15-minute vote (sec. 2(b)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 
3, 2013, p. 25), and this authority was subjected to the same guidance 
found in clause 8(c)(2) that Members have an adequate opportunity to 
vote in such circumstances (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37), 
and in the 116th Congress, the rule was rewritten entirely to allow 
reduced-time voting on any vote following another electronic vote if 
Members have an adequate opportunty to vote, notwithstanding intervening 
business (sec. 102(bb), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 118th 
Congress, the rule was amended to permit two-minute voting (sec. 2(c), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). A prior version of this clause did 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). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
this provision was found in former clause 5(b) of rule XV (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

  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), but the Chair 
may decline to recognize for a unanimous-consent request to reduce to 
five minutes the first vote in a series, because the bell and light 
system would not give adequate notice of the initial five-minute vote 
(Oct. 8, 1985, p. 26666). Prior to the inclusion of two-minute voting in 
the current form of the rule, the House by unanimous consent authorized 
the Speaker to reduce to two minutes electronic votes conducted under 
this clause (e.g., July 23, 2007, p. 20108).


Automatic yeas and nays
  In the 95th Congress, 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 electronically 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), 
and where it was alleged that changes were made electronically in the 
Committee of the Whole on an earlier two-minute vote, the Speaker pro 
tempore opined that the chair of the Committee of the Whole may not yet 
have asked for changes (a sign to the body that the vote was nearing 
closure) at the time the votes were changed (May 19, 2016, p. 6772).




1033. Yeas and nays ordered on certain questions.

  10.  The 
yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered when the Speaker puts the 
question on passage of a bill or joint resolution, or on adoption of a 
conference 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 budget or conference 
report thereon.


  This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 214, H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). It was amended in the 116th Congress to conform 
with the repeal of a provision of clause 5 of rule XXI (sec. 102(dd), H. 
Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and again in the 118th Congress to conform 
with the reinstatement of such provision (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 
9, 2023, p. _). 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 measure not only further 
continuing appropriations for the current fiscal year but also: (1) 
enacting by reference six general appropriation bills (Oct. 21, 2003, 
pp. 25314, 25315); (2) including the texts of two general appropriation 
bills (Mar. 6, 2013, p. 2850).


[[Page 895]]

Ballot votes
  During the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a provision, 
effective during a designated public health emergency, considering the 
yeas and nays as ordered on a question upon any request for a recorded 
vote or the yeas and nays, or any objection for lack of a quorum 
pursuant to clause 6 (sec. 3(a), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 
3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).




1034. Elections by ballot.

  11.  In a case of ballot for 
election, a majority of the votes shall be necessary to an election. 
When there is not such a majority on the first ballot, the process shall 
be repeated until a majority is obtained. In all balloting blanks shall 
be rejected, may not be counted in the enumeration of votes, and may not 
be reported by the tellers.






 
  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


Reservation of certain points of order
                      restrictions on certain bills




1035. Reservation of points of order.

  1.  At the time a 
general appropriation bill is reported, all points of order against 
provisions therein shall be considered as reserved.



[[Page 895]]

General appropriation bills and amendments
  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 
referred 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 Sec. 1044, infra). 
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former clause 8 of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).



1036. Unauthorized appropriations reported in 
general appropriation bills or amendments thereto.

  2. (a)(1)  An appropriation 
may not be reported in a general appropriation bill, and may not be in 
order as an amendment thereto, for an expenditure not previously 
authorized by law, except to continue appropriations for public works 
and objects that are already in progress.




Sec. 1037. Reappropriations prohibited.

  (2)  A 
reappropriation of unexpended balances of appropriations may not be 
reported in a general appropriation bill, and may not be in order as an 
amendment thereto, except to continue appropriations for public works 
and objects that are already in progress. This subparagraph does not 
apply to transfers of unexpended balances within the department or 
agency for which they were originally appropriated that are reported by 
the Committee on Appropriations.




Sec. 1038. Legislation in reported general appropriation 
bills; exceptions.

  (b)  A provision changing existing law may not be 
reported in a general appropriation bill, including a provision making 
the availability of funds contingent 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 Committee on Appropriations by direction of a 
legislative committee having jurisdiction over the subject matter) and 
except rescissions of appropriations contained in appropriation Acts.




Sec. 1039. Legislation or limitations in amendments to 
general appropriation bills.

  (c)  An amendment to a general appropriation 
bill shall not be in order if changing existing law, including an 
amendment making the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or 
possession of information not required by existing law for the period of 
the appropriation. Except as provided in paragraph (d), an amendment 
proposing a limitation not specifically contained or authorized in 
existing law for the period of the limitation shall not be in order 
during consideration of a general appropriation bill.




Sec. 1040. Motion to rise and report as preferential to 
amendments.

  (d)  After a general appropriation bill has been read for 
amendment, a motion that the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments 
as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the Majority Leader or a 
designee, have precedence over motions to amend the bill. If such a 
motion to rise and report is rejected or not offered, amendments 
proposing limitations not specifically contained or authorized in 
existing law for the period of the limitation or proposing germane 
amendments that retrench expenditures by reductions of amounts of money 
covered by the bill may be considered.




Sec. 1041. Designated emergencies reported in 
appropriation bills.

  (e)  A provision other than an appropriation 
designated an emergency under section 251(b)(2) or section 252(e) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency 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 resolution 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.




Sec. 1042. Offsetting amendments en bloc to appropriation 
bills.

  (f)  During the reading of an appropriation bill for amendment 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 among objects in the bill 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 subject to a demand for division of 
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.





Sec. 1042a. Amendments increasing budget authority 
prohibited.

  (g)  An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be 
in order if proposing a net increase in the level of budget authority in 
the bill.




Sec. 1043. History of clause 2 of rule XXI.

  The  25th 
Congress in 1837 was the first to adopt a rule prohibiting 
appropriations in a general appropriation bill or 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 appropriations 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). For 
discussion of the House, by standing order, making applicable an 
iteration of the ``Holman Rule'' to certain retrenchments in the 115th 
and 118th Congresses, see Sec. 1062, infra.

  Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified 
its rules 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 
Legislative 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 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 originally appropriated.

  Paragraph (b) narrowed the ``Holman Rule'' exception from the 
prohibition against legislation to cover only retrenchments reducing 
amounts of money included in the bill as reported, and permitted 
legislative committees with proper jurisdiction to recommend such 
retrenchments to the Appropriations Committee for discretionary 
inclusion in the reported bill. The last exception in paragraph (b), 
permitting the inclusion of legislation rescinding appropriations in 
appropriation Acts, was added in the 99th Congress 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, Sec. 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 
circumstances 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 
retrenchment 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). Paragraph (e) was not effective with 
respect to discretionary spending from 2002 to 2011 (from the expiration 
of section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
by operation of section 275 of that Act until its revival by the Budget 
Control Act of 2011) (sec. 104, P.L. 112-25). A technical correction to 
paragraph (f) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44).


  Paragraph (g), prohibiting amendments to general appropriation bills 
proposing a net increase in budget authority, was added in the 115th 
Congress (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38), codifying a 
separate order adopted by the House from the 112th through 114th 
Congresses (sec. 3(j)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80; sec. 3(d)(3), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(d)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, 
p. 35). It was repealed in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(cc), H. Res. 6, 
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and reinstated in the 118th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). When it existed as a separate order, the 
Chair was persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the 
Committee on the Budget as to whether an amendment proposed a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill (e.g., Feb. 15, 2011, p. 1987; 
Apr. 7, 2011, pp. 5337, 5338 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). An 
amendment 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 the separate 
order (Feb. 18, 2011, pp. 2490-91).



Sec. 1044. Points of order on general 
appropriation bills generally.

  As the rule  applies only to general appropriation 
bills, which are not enumerated or defined in the rules (VII, 1116), 
bills appropriating only for one purpose have been held not to be 
``general'' within the meaning of this clause (VII, 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 continuing appropriations for 
diverse agencies to provide funds until regular appropriation bills are 
enacted (Sept. 21, 1967, p. 26370); (3) a joint resolution providing an 
appropriation for a single Government agency and permitting a transfer 
of a portion of those funds to another agency (Oct. 25, 1979, p. 29627); 
(4) a joint resolution transferring funds already appropriated 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).


  As all bills making or authorizing appropriations require 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole, it follows that the 
enforcement of the rule must ordinarily occur during consideration in 
the 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 Sec. 1035, 
supra), it was necessary that a Member reserve points of order when a 
general appropriation bill was referred to the Union Calendar, in order 
that provisions 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 permitted 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 appropriation bill when it was reported, 
points of order in the Committee against a proposition in violation of 
this clause were overruled on the ground that the chair of the Committee 
lacked authority to pass upon the question (Apr. 8, 1943, p. 3150, 
3153).

  The enforcement of the rule has also occured in the House (Sept. 1, 
1976, p. 28883; Aug. 1, 2008, pp. 17890, 17891). 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, pp. 15655, 15656); 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 paragraph 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 paragraph must be made before an amendment is offered thereto 
or before the Clerk reads the next paragraph heading and amount 
(Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 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 language immediately prior thereto (June 6, 1985, 
pp. 14605, 14609). Where the reading of a paragraph of a general 
appropriation bill has been dispensed 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 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 consent 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).

  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 unanimous 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).

  The fact that legislative jurisdiction over the subject matter of an 
amendment 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 
appropriations or legislation permitted to remain in a general 
appropriation bill by failure to raise or by waiver of a point of order, 
see Sec. 1058, infra. 



Sec. 1044a. Points of order on general appropriation bills, 
deliberation of.

  To  resolve an ambiguity when ruling on a point of order, 
the Chair may: (1) examine legislative history established during debate 
on an amendment against which a point of order has been reserved (June 
14, 1978, p. 17651); (2) inquire 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 authorizing 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; May 29, 2014, p. 9205) 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); (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 Sec. 1053, 
infra); (3) that the amendment 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. 
15199 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 language is susceptible 
to more than one interpretation, that it merits the construction that it 
does not violate the rule (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 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 
constitutes 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 authorizations 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 presumably legislation, absent 
rebuttal by the committee (May 31, 1984, p. 14591).


  A point of order under this clause against an amendment must be raised 
(or reserved) before commencement of debate on the measure (e.g., May 
29, 2014, p. 9205).




Sec. 1044b. Motion to rise and report.

  Where  the reading of 
a general appropriation bill for amendment has been completed (or 
dispensed with), including the last 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 to rise 
and report 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 recognizing Members to offer limitation or 
retrenchment amendments (June 2, 1983, p. 14317; Sept. 22, 1983, p. 
25406; Oct. 27, 1983, p. 29630), including pro forma amendments (Aug. 2, 
1989, p. 18126). Pursuant to clause 2(d), a motion that the Committee of 
the Whole 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 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 motion 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 appropriation 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 proposing 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 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). For the 
history and text of a former 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, 
see Sec. 1044b of the House Rules and Manual for the 115th Congress (H. 
Doc. 114-192).




Sec. 1045. Authorization of law for 
appropriations.

  A treaty  may provide the authorization by existing law required 
in the rule to justify appropriations if it has been ratified by the 
contracting parties (IV, 3587); however, where existing 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 Executive 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 governmental taking 
of private property for public use does not itself constitute sufficient 
authorization by law for appropriations in a general appropriation 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 
unauthorized 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). A lapsed authorization is not ``previously authorized'' within 
the meaning of that phrase in paragraph (a)(1) (June 27, 2012, p. 
10130).

  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 
authorize appropriations for those positions not otherwise authorized by 
law (IV, 3669, 3675, 4739); but this law does not apply to offices not 
within departments or not at the seat of Government (IV, 3670-3674). A 
permanent law authorizing the President to appoint certain staff, 
together with legislative provisions authorizing additional employment 
contained in an appropriation 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 information 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 appropriation bill; thus delaying the availability of an 
appropriation pending enactment 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 legislation 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 statutes or general grants of authority 
in law constitute sufficient authorization to support appropriations 
depends on whether the general laws applicable to the function or 
department in question require specific or annual 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 tendency to relieve 
other conditions of the authorization law (June 28, 1993, p. 14422). 
Where existing law authorizes certain appropriations from a particular 
trust fund without fiscal year limitation, language that such an 
appropriation remain available until expended does not constitute 
legislation (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.




Sec. 1045a. Reduction in level of 
unauthorized appropriation.

  In the 118th Congress  the House established a separate point of 
order against reporting an unauthorized appropriation made in excess of 
the most recent level at which such appropriation was enacted into law, 
which if sustained, would cause the automatic adoption of an amendment 
reducing the amount of the appropriation in the bill to that most recent 
level (sec. 3(aa), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).




Sec. 1046. Authorization for claims and 
salaries.

  Judgments of  courts certified to Congress in accordance with law or 
authorized by treaty (IV, 3634, 3635, 3644) and audited under authority 
of law have been held to be authorizations 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 authorization (IV, 3643).


  An appropriation for an object not otherwise authorized does not 
constitute authorization to justify a continuance of the appropriation 
another year (IV, 3588, 3589; VII, 1128, 1145, 1149, 1191), and the mere 
appropriation 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 exception 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).




Sec. 1047. Authorizations for public works.

  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 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 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 functions 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, 
Sec. 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 
appropriation 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, Sec. 2.18).





Sec. 1048. Continuation of a public work by 
appropriations.

  The provision  excepting public works and objects that are already in 
progress from the requirement that appropriations be authorized by 
existing law (IV, 3578) has historically 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, Sec. 8.9). The ``works in progress'' exception may not 
be invoked to fund a project governed by a lapsed authorization (June 
27, 2012, p. 10130) 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 appropriation 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 specified 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 conditioned 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 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 Sec. 1031, supra.





Sec. 1049. Examples illustrating the continuation of 
a public work.

  Thus the  continuation of the following works has been admitted: 
a topographical survey (IV, 3796, 3797; VII, 1382), a geological map 
(IV, 3795), marking of a boundary line (IV, 3717), marking graves of 
soldiers (IV, 3788), a list of claims (IV, 3717), and recoinage of coins 
in the Treasury (IV, 3807); but the following works have not been 
admitted: investigation of materials, like coal (IV, 3721), scientific 
investigations (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), although 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 
Government (IV, 3779). The purchase of adjoining land for a work already 
established 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 
construction at the Kennedy Library, a project owned by the United 
States and funded by a prior year's appropriation, has been admitted 
notwithstanding 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 
Washington was held insufficient authority to admit an appropriation for 
reconstructing the fish wharf (VII, 1187).





Sec. 1050. New buildings at existing 
institutions as in continuance of a public work.

  Appropriations for  new buildings at 
Government institutions have sometimes been admitted (IV, 3741-3750) 
when intended for the purposes of the institution (IV, 3747); but later 
decisions, in view of the indefinite extent of the practice 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). Appropriations 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.





Sec. 1051. New vessel for naval and other services 
as 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 been held to be a continuance of a public work (IV, 3723, 3724); but 
this line of decisions has been overruled (VII, 1351; Jan. 22, 1926, p. 
2621). Although appropriations 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).




Sec. 1052. Legislation generally.

  A  provision changing 
existing law is construed to mean the enactment of law where none exists 
(IV, 3812, 3813). For example, 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, pp. 2509, 2510).


  Although clause 2(b) permits the Committee on Appropriations to report 
rescissions of appropriations, an amendment proposing a rescission 
constitutes legislation under clause 2(c) (May 26, 1993, p. 11326; Mar. 
24, 2010, pp. 4779, 4780), as does a provision proposing a rescission of 
budget authority provided in law other than appropriation Acts, such as 
contract authority (e.g., Sept. 22, 1993, p. 22138; May 15, 1997, p. 
8510; July 23, 1997, p. 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 disapproval of a deferral of budget 
authority proposed by the President pursuant 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 disapproval 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 
appropriation bill constitutes legislation in contravention of clause 
2(c) (July 17, 1996, p. 17550; July 24, 1996, p. 18898). A proposal to 
designate an appropriation as ``emergency spending'' within the meaning 
of the budget-enforcement 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. 4700-02 (sustained on appeal); May 18, 2016, pp. 6657-08 
(sustained by tabling of 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 contemplates that expenditures may be mandated to 
occur before or following a fiscal period if the law making those 
expenditures specifies that the timing is the result of a 
``significant'' policy change (July 20, 1989, p. 15374).

  Language in an appropriation bill precluding funds for projects not 
authorized by law or beyond the amount authorized has been held in order 
as simply limiting expenditures to authorized projects (Deschler, ch. 
25, Sec. 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 
proposing to make certain funds available for a specified report not 
contemplated 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 
position constitutes legislation (July 24, 2001, pp. 14349, 14351; July 
9, 2009, pp. 17242, 17243 (sustained by tabling of appeal), pp. 17309, 
17310 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) 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). A proviso directing the Postal 
Service to maintain certain mail service standards in effect as of a 
date certain constitutes legislation (July 6, 2016, p. 10453 (sustained 
on appeal)). An amendment proposed in a motion to recommit incorporating 
by reference amendments that changed existing law constitutes 
legislation (July 24, 2009, p. 19225).



Sec. 1053. Limitations on appropriations 
generally.

  Although the  rule forbids a provision ``changing existing law,'' the 
House, by practice, has established the principle that certain 
``limitations'' may be admitted. Just as the House may 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 amendments during the reading 
of the bill by paragraph unless specifically authorized by existing law 
for the period of the limitation, even if the amendment 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 
qualifications, for although it is not in order to legislate as to the 
qualifications of the recipients of an appropriation (Deschler, ch. 26, 
Sec. Sec. 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 agreement 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 language 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 
officials, 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 Sec. 1054, infra). A duty imposed by 
a provision in the pending bill does not qualify as a duty required by 
law for purposes of a limitation amendment (June 9, 2014, p. 9693). 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 character 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 to responsible intervening Federal officials) was 
held to be a proper limitation (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 
appropriation 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 limitation,'' 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 
accompanied 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 Constitution 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 Secretary 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 designated 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, Sec. 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 contemplated 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 up to a 
specified amount for an unauthorized transportation project (effectively 
authorizing an unauthorized project) (Sept. 23, 1993, p. 22209); (2) an 
amendment to limit funds to prohibit projects that promote the 
participation of women in international peace efforts, such promotion 
not specifically 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 (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 51.23), or by precluding the obligation of 
certain funds until funds provided by another Act have been obligated 
(Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 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, Sec. Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 existing 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).



Sec. 1054. New duties or determinations; 
executive discretion.

  Propositions to  establish affirmative directions for executive 
officers (IV, 3854-3859; VII, 1443; July 31, 1969, p. 21675; June 18, 
1979, p. 15286; July 1, 1987, pp. 18654, 18655; June 27, 1994, p. 
14572), even in cases in which they may have discretion under the law so 
to do (IV, 3853; June 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 interfere 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) condition the availability of 
funds or the exercise of contract authority upon an interpretation of 
local law (July 17, 1981, p. 16327) or state law (July 7, 2015, p. 
10847) or a determination as to whether certain state or local laws 
exist (June 2, 2015, pp. 8361, 8362) where that interpretation or 
determination is not required by existing law; (4) incorporate by 
reference determinations already made in administrative processes not 
affecting programs funded by the bill (Oct. 6, 1981, p. 23361); (5) 
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); 
(6) apply standards of conduct to foreign entities where existing law 
requires such conduct only by domestic entities (July 17, 1986, p. 
16951); (7) require the enforcement of a standard where existing law 
only requires inspection of an area (July 30, 1986, p. 18189); (8) 
mandate contractual provisions (May 18, 1988, p. 11389); (9) 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); 
(10) 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); (11) mandate 
reductions in various appropriations by a variable percentage calculated 
in relation to ``overhead'' (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 5.6; June 24, 1992, 
p. 16110); (12) 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); (13) 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); (14) impose a new duty to 
calculate the ``total amount'' of payments under a Federal program paid 
to a husband and wife (to determine whether an exception to an otherwise 
valid limitation would apply) (July 11, 2001, pp. 13001-03); (15) 
require the Inspector General to opine on audited financial 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); (16) 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); (17) 
prescribe a policy for an agency in the distribution of grants (June 6, 
2006, pp. 10105, 10106).

  Furthermore, a limitation may constitute legislation if it has the 
effect of requiring executive officers to make investigations, compile 
evidence, or make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of 
them by law, such as requiring: (1) a judgment as to whether racial 
imbalance had been overcome (July 31, 1969, pp. 21653, 21675); (2) 
determinations of full Federal compliance with mandates imposed upon 
States (July 22, 1981, p. 16829); (3) the evaluation of the theoretical 
basis of a program (July 22, 1981, p. 16822); (4) determinations of 
propriety or effectiveness (Oct. 6, 1981, p. 23361; May 25, 1988, p. 
12275), or satisfactory quality (Aug. 1, 1986, p. 18647); (5) 
determinations of rates of interest payable (July 29, 1982, p. 18624; 
Dec. 9, 1982, p. 29691); (6) a determination of whether the Office of 
Management and Budget interfered with the rulemaking authority of a 
regulatory agency (Nov. 30, 1982, p. 28062); (7) the purchase of goods 
and services that are ``nondomestic'' (Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178), not 
``produced'' domestically (June 1, 2011, p. 8517), not ``100 percent 
domestic in origin'' (June 2, 2011, pp. 8558, 8559), not ``substantially 
manufactured'' domestically (July 7, 2011, pp. 10638, 10639), not 
manufactured by a ``domestically operated entity'' (June 2, 2011, pp. 
8557, 8558), not procured in a manner consistent with a law not 
otherwise applicable (the Buy America Act) (June 9, 2014, p. 9691), or 
that contain components produced in specified countries (June 20, 2014, 
p. 10575); (8) an investigation and determination of whether private 
airports are collecting certain fees for each enplaning passenger (Sept. 
23, 1993, p. 22213); (9) an investigation and determination of 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); (10) a 
determination of whether building services are ``usually'' provided 
through the Federal Building Fund to an agency not paying a level of 
assessment specified elsewhere (and not necessarily applicable) (July 
16, 1998, p. 15816); (11) a determination of ``successor agency'' status 
(Sept. 26, 1997, p. 20347); (12) a determination whether a delegate or 
envoy to the United Nations has ``advocated'' the adoption of a certain 
convention (June 26, 2000, p. 12355) or whether an activity would grant 
``de jure or de facto support'' of another country's territorial claims 
(June 20, 2014, p. 10576); (13) 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); (14) a determination of whether an organization 
``embraced'' any form of slavery (May 18, 2016, p. 6698); (15) an 
investigation of the conscription requirements of other nations (July 
13, 2000, p. 14121); (16) 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); (17) an investigation into 
whether an applicant for immigration has been involved in the harvesting 
of organs (July 18, 2001, pp. 13702-05); (18) a determination of what 
activities amount to ``continuation'' of specified litigation (Feb. 18, 
2011, pp. 2520, 2521) or what decision of a court constitutes 
``resolution'' of a case (July 10, 2014, p. 11689); (19) the examination 
of certain legislative reports to determine whether an entity is 
specifically identified by name (July 17, 2002, pp. 13365, 13366); (20) 
an agency to track the legislative action of whether a contempt of 
Congress had been certified (Apr. 30, 2014, p. 6607); (21) in the case 
of a limitation with respect to certain roads on public land, 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); (22) 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); (23) a determination that certain trade 
agreements achieved generic undefined policy goals that were not set 
forth in existing law (July 23, 2003, pp. 19156-58); (24) a 
determination that a drug has been prescribed ``for the purpose of 
relieving or managing pain'' (July 7, 2004, pp. 14679, 14682); (25) 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 the administrator of the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program to determine whether a Federal 
prohibition on certain mineral exploration (administered by a different 
Federal entity) remained in effect (Mar. 15, 2006, p. 3722); (26) a 
determination regarding a specific type of employment behavior before 
initiating an employment investigation (June 8, 2005, pp. 11948-50); 
(27) 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); (28) in the case of a 
limitation on the enforcement of a regulation against a specified class, 
a determination as to whether a person is a member of that class (June 
30, 2005, pp. 14891-93); (29) a determination of citizenship based on 
birth (June 6, 2006, pp. 10108, 10109); (30) a determination by the 
executive branch regarding the composition of the legislative branch 
(June 13, 2011, p. 9014; Apr. 29, 2015, p. 5875); (31) a determination 
of the end use of unmanned aircraft authorized by the Secretary (June 
27, 2012, p. 10171; June 9, 2014, p. 9692); (32) a determination of 
whether education programs qualify students for certain occupational 
exams or licenses (Apr. 30, 2014, p. 6597); (33) a determination by all 
contracting agencies of whether any aspect of a project is behind 
schedule or over budget (June 9, 2014, pp. 9691, 9692); (34) a 
determination of whether an agency action would ``subvert'' or 
``interfere'' with the integrity of a given standard (June 18, 2014, pp. 
10411, 10412) or ``degrade the capabilities'' of a military unit (June 
10, 2015, pp. 9259, 9260); (35) a determination of whether an entity had 
commenced a bankruptcy action (July 10, 2014, p. 11686); (36) a 
determination of the flag status of vessels on pending export 
applications (July 10, 2014, pp. 11692, 11693); (37) a determination of 
whether a rule would increase electricity prices or reduce electricity 
reliability (July 10, 2014, pp. 11696, 11697); (38) a determination of 
the reason a financial institution provides services to an entity (July 
15, 2014, p. 12063); (39) ascertainment by the District of Columbia of 
the state of Federal firearms law (July 15, 2014, pp. 12565, 12566 
(sustained on appeal)); (40) a determination of the meaning of 
``anytime, anywhere'' inspections of civil and military sites in another 
country (Apr. 30, 2015, pp. 6052, 6053); (41) a determination of whether 
an individual is attending a gun show (June 3, 2015, pp. 8534, 8535); 
(42) a determination of whether a regulation ``follows'' a specified 
environmental impact statement (July 7, 2015, pp. 10843, 10844); (43) a 
determination by all agencies funded by the bill regarding the status of 
investigations of one of those agencies (May 25, 2016, p. 7381).

  The fact that an executive official may have been directed by an 
Executive 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 adjustment 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, 
Sec. 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 for a sanction imposed pursuant to agreement 
with one or more other countries (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 responsibility 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. 17521-23) 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 (relating 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 intervening 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 judgments not required of them by law, regardless of 
whether private or State officials administering the funds in question 
commonly make such determinations (June 17, 1977, p. 19699; 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, pp. 
18124, 18125). However, 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 different or more onerous 
determinations (June 27, 1984, p. 19113). But where the exception 
applies only in the case of rape, adding ``or incest'' requires 
additional determinations and is therefore not ``merely perfecting'' 
(May 29, 2014, p. 9205-06). 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 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 
Management to enter contracts for health benefit plans that required 
determinations 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), the same result 
adhering in the case of a limitation on funds for ``semi-professional 
motorsports,'' ``mixed martial arts,'' and ``sporting events'' (July 18, 
2012, pp. 11636, 11637), ``marketing activities'' (Apr. 30, 2014, p. 
6604), regulations not based on ``hard science'' (June 15, 2011, p. 
9342); and ``local law enforcement agencies'' (where the program 
authorized assistance merely to states) (June 18, 2014, p. 10415-16). 
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 
precedent to the effect that language restricting the availability of 
funds in a general appropriation bill could be a valid limitation if, 
rather than imposing 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 (limitations 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 conditions 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).



Sec. 1055. Contingencies and congressional 
actions.

  An amendment  making an appropriation contingent upon a recommendation 
(June 27, 1979, p. 17054) or action not specifically required by law is 
legislation; such as a provision limiting the use of funds in a bill 
``unless'' or ``until'' an action contrary to existing law is taken 
(Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 47.1; July 24, 1996, p. 18888). Where existing 
law requires an agency to furnish certain information to congressional 
committees upon request, without a subpoena, it is not in order to make 
funding for that agency contingent upon its furnishing information to 
subcommittees 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 funds on legal determinations to be made by a 
Federal court and an executive department (June 28, 1988, p. 16261; see 
Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 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 availability 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 classifications 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 (Sept. 4, 2003, p. 21213; June 9, 2014, p. 9692) or 
consistency (June 9, 2014, p. 9690-91) with a law not otherwise 
applicable.



Sec. 1056. Construing or amending existing 
law.

  A provision  proposing to construe existing law is itself legislative and 
therefore not in order (IV, 3936-3938; May 2, 1951, p. 4747; July 26, 
1951, p. 8982). For example, a provision reaffirming the status of land 
taken into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe under a specified 
law was held to constitute legislation (July 12, 2016, p. 11048). 
However, an official's general responsibility to construe the language 
of a limitation on the use of funds, absent imposition of an affirmative 
direction not required by law, does not destroy the validity of a 
limitation (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, Sec. 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 definitions for terms contained in a 
limitation may be legislation (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. Sec. 25.7, 25.11). 
Language excepting certain appropriations from the sweep of a broader 
limitation may be in order (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 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 authorized by law 
by prohibiting a construction of the limitation in a way that would 
prevent compliance with that law (Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 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 otherwise be entitled was held in order (Deschler, ch. 26, 
Sec. 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 
constitutes legislation (Sept. 16, 1980, p. 25606; May 8, 1986, p. 
10156). A limitation denying the use of funds to apply certain 
provisions of the Internal 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). 
Similarly, a limitation on funds to implement any ``change'' to a 
requirement in a regulation no longer in effect was held to impose a 
determination not required by current law (June 6, 2012, p. 8444). 
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 containing 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 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. 3786-88 (sustained 
on appeal)). A provision explicitly superseding existing law has been 
ruled out (Sept. 6, 2017, p. _; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _; Sept. 6, 2017, p. 
_).

  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 operation 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 
implementation 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 amendment 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 determinations 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 
exception) because they did not require the Department to administer 
superseded 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).




Sec. 1057. Mandating expenditures.

  A provision  that mandates 
a distribution of funds in contravention of an allocation formula in 
existing law is legislation (July 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 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 qualifying 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'' provisions that mandate a certain level of expenditure 
for certain purposes or recipients, where existing law confers 
discretion or makes ratable reductions 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).




Sec. 1058. Waivers; amending legislation permitted 
to remain.

  The House  may, by agreeing to a report from the Committee on Rules or 
by adopting an order under suspension of the rules, allow legislation on 
general appropriation bills (IV, 3260-3263, 3839-3845). Where an 
unauthorized appropriation or legislation is permitted to remain in a 
general 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 additional legislation (IV, 3836, 3837, 3862; VII, 
1402-1436; Dec. 9, 1971, p. 4595; Aug. 1, 1973, p. 27291; June 10, 1977, 
p. 18402; 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, 
pp. 13127, 13128), 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 
unauthorized amount contained in a prior paragraph permitted to remain 
is 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; June 5, 2012, pp. 8334, 8335). 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 unauthorized 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 unauthorized 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 remain (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) adding an additional nation to a legislative provision 
addressing sanctions against one nation (July 13, 2000, p. 14092); (3) 
adding an additional item to a reporting requirement (July 6, 2011, pp. 
10423, 10424; July 9, 2014, p. 11549-50); (4) striking text that 
resulted in extending the legislative reach of the pending bill (July 
17, 1996, p. 17533); (5) extending a legislative provision that placed 
certain restrictions on recipients of a defined set of Federal payments 
and benefits to persons benefiting from a certain tax status determined 
on wholly unrelated criteria (Aug. 3, 1995, p. 21967); (6) extending the 
availability of certain housing assistance to certain recipients (June 
13, 2006, pp. 11041, 11042); (7) specifying a different regulation 
required to be reissued by an agency (Feb. 16, 2011, p. 2130); (8) 
adding a rule of construction regarding the implementation of a 
provision of law (as opposed to merely excepting that provision from the 
coverage of a legislative limitation on funds) (Feb. 16, 2011, pp. 2138, 
2140); (9) expanding a requirement for compliance with the Buy America 
Act to include specified domestic content for certain items (June 27, 
2012, p. 10152); (10) expanding a list of legislative restrictions on 
the expenditure of certain water financing by requiring new 
determinations of population loss and housing vacancy (June 25, 2015, p. 
10599).

  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 
excepted 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 endangered 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 amendment did not therefore require any 
different or more onerous determinations (June 27, 1984, p. 19113).


  To a paragraph permitted to remain despite containing a legislative 
proviso 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).




Sec. 1059. Senate amendments.

  The principle  seems to be 
generally well accepted that the House proposing legislation on a 
general appropriation bill should recede if the other House persists in 
its objection (IV, 3904-3908), and clause 5 of rule XXII (Sec. 1076, 
infra) prohibits House conferees from agreeing to a Senate amendment 
that proposes 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 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).



               ``holman rule'' on retrenching expenditures



Sec. 1062. Legislation reducing 
expenditures.

  As explained  in the annotation in Sec. 1043, supra, the amendment of 
clause 2(b) in the 98th Congress narrowed the ``Holman Rule,'' an 
exception to the general prohibition against legislation, to cover only 
retrenchments reducing amounts of money covered by the bill, and not 
also 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. Accordingly, the Chair has, for example, 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). In the 115th and 118th Congresses, 
however, the House provided that retrenchments may consist of reductions 
of amounts of money in the bill and the reductions contained in the 
prior form of the rule as it applied to number and salary of officers 
and compensation of persons (sec. 3(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38; 
sec. 5, H. Res. 787, Mar. 20, 2018, p. _; sec. 3(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 
2023, p. _). Decisions that involved interpretation of the ``Holman 
Rule'' in its form prior to the 98th Congress, but which do not reflect 
the form or interpretation of the current standing rule, are found in 
IV, 3846, 3885-3892; VII, 1484, 1486-1492, 1498, 1500, 1515, 1563, 1564, 
1569; June 1, 1892, p. 4920.


  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 Committee 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.

  Decisions under the so-called ``Holman Rule'' in clause 2 of rule XXI 
have been rare in the modern practice of the House. The trend in 
construing language in general appropriation 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 Sec. Sec. 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 that does not legislate 
but is merely a negative limitation citing but not changing existing law 
(June 18, 1980, p. 15355).

  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 amendment 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, 
Sec. 5.6; June 24, 1992, p. 16110). An amendment authorizing 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 amendment 
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 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 over 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 determines 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 within the ``Holman Rule'' exception 
(Oct. 18, 1966, p. 27425).

  An amendment reducing an amount in an appropriation bill for the 
Postal 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 
``Holman Rule'' even if the reduction takes place in the future in an 
amount actually determined when the reduction takes place (for example, 
by formula) (VII, 1491, 1505; July 30, 1980, pp. 20499-20503). To an 
amendment that is in order under the ``Holman Rule,'' containing 
legislation but retrenching 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 reducing 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 
reduction 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 
fractional 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 Government 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 
provision ``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, affirmed 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 
supervision of the importation of animals from the Treasury to the 
Department of Agriculture is out of order, being a provision changing 
law and not retrenching 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 
apparent, the Chair is unable to hold that the net result will retrench 
expenditures. However, where the additional legislation does not show on 
its face an additional expenditure, the Chair will not speculate as to a 
possible expenditure under the additional legislation (VII, 1500).



Sec. 1063. Reappropriations.

  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 rules in the 83d Congress (Jan. 3, 1953, 
p. 24). Previously, 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 
Appropriations 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 reappropriations rather than against consideration of the 
bill (see Deschler, ch. 25, Sec. 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 reappropriation of unexpended prior year balances 
prohibited by this clause is not in order under the guise of a ``Holman 
Rule'' exception to clause 2 of rule XXI (Oct. 18, 1966, p. 27424). An 
amendment to a general appropriation 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 appropriations may be 
authorized in law for a specified object does not permit an amendment to 
a general appropriation bill to include legislative language 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 transferring unobligated balances of previously appropriated 
funds contains legislative 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, Sec. 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).




Sec. 1063a. Offsetting en bloc amendments.

  To  invoke the 
protection of clause 2(f), an amendment must not (1) propose a change 
other than a transfer of appropriations among objects in the bill, such 
as increasing the amount of a deferral (June 15, 2000, p. 11064), 
rescission (Feb. 16, 2011, pp. 2136, 2137), or limitation on obligations 
from a trust fund (June 26, 2012, p. 10019), or striking sections of the 
bill (Apr. 29, 2015, p. 5844 (sustained on appeal)); (2) reach back in 
the reading (Feb. 15, 2011, pp. 1965, 1966); or (3) increase the levels 
of budget authority or outlays carried in the bill (July 12, 2000, p. 
14071; July 13, 2004, pp. 15193, 15194, pp. 15198, 15199; June 6, 2012, 
p. 8492), and the proponent of an amendment carries the burden of so 
proving (see Sec. 1044a, supra). An amendment otherwise 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 Act of 
1974 (Feb. 15, 2011, p. 1823), 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. 1971).



(f) Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.


Sec. 1063b. Spending reduction account.

  The  112th through 
115th and the 118th Congresses (sec. 3(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 
80; sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35; sec. 3(e). H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 39; 
sec.3(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _) established a procedure for 
reducing an amount or amounts in a general appropriation bill and 
displaying the reduction in a spending reduction account in the bill. 
The procedure in the 112th through 114th Congresses also contained a 
point of order against an amendment increasing the level of budget 
authority in a general appropriation bill, which was codified in the 
115th Congress as clause 2(g) of rule XXI (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2017, p. 38) and reestablished in the 118th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _) after being repealed in the 116th Congress 
(sec. 102(cc), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 115th Congress, 
the procedure was modified by changing the definition in paragraph (5) 
to account for the lack of an allocation under section 302(b) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (sec. 3(e). H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 
38). The current form of the provision is as follows:


          (1) During the reading of a general appropriation bill for 

        amendment 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 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 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) A point of order under clause 2(b) of rule XXI shall not 

        apply to a spending reduction account.

          (4) A general appropriation bill may not be considered in the 

        Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union unless it 

        includes 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 Appropriations to add such a section to the bill or modify 

        the figure contained therein.

          (5) 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) 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; or


                  (B) if no such allocation is in effect, ``$0''.


  An amendment to a general appropriation bill that proposed to do more 
than merely transfer appropriations from objects in the bill to a 
spending reduction account (July 6, 2011, pp. 10466, 10467) or proposed 
to increase the figure in the spending reduction account by greater than 
the amount of reductions in earlier accounts (June 1, 2012, p. 8145) was 
ineligible to avail itself of the protection of paragraph (1) to reach 
ahead to text not yet read for amendment. The Chair refused to respond 
to a hypothetical inquiry regarding the effect of a reduction in funds 
if an amendment did not address the spending reduction account (May 24, 
2016, p. _).



Sec. 1064. Highway funding.

  3.  It shall not be in order to 
consider a general appropriation bill or joint resolution, 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 categories.

  This clause was rewritten entirely in the 112th Congress (sec. 
2(d)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). For its predecessor, which 
enforced specified minimum levels of surface transportation obligation 
limitations, see Sec. 1064 of the House Rules and Manual for the 111th 
Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).


Sec. 48114. Funding for Aviation Programs.


Sec. 1064a. Funding for aviation programs.

  Section 48114  of 
title 49 (a provision added by the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 
and Reform Act for the 21st Century (sec. 106, P.L. 106-181), extended 
to 2007 by its reenactment in title 49 (sec. 104, P.L. 108-176), and 
extended to 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 (sec. 104, P.L. 112-95; sec. 106, 
P.L. 114-55; sec. 1106, P.L. 114-190; sec. 116, P.L. 115-254)) provides 
a point of order to enforce guarantees of total budget resources in a 
fiscal year for certain aviation investment programs as follows:


  (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 pursuant to sections 48101, 48102, 48103, 

                and 106(k) shall--

                    (i) in fiscal year 2013, be equal to 90 percent of 

                the estimated level of receipts plus interest credited 

                to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for that fiscal 

                year; and

                    (ii) in fiscal years 2014 through 2018, be equal to 

                the sum of--

                      (I) 90 percent of the estimated level of receipts 

                plus interest credited to the Airport and Airway Trust 

                Fund for that fiscal year; and

                      (II) the actual level of receipts plus interest 

                credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the 

                second preceding fiscal year minus the total amount made 

                available for obligation from the Airport and Airway 

                Trust Fund for the second preceding fiscal year.

                  (B) Guarantee.--No funds may be appropriated or 

                limited for aviation investment programs listed in 

                subsection (b)(1) 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 2018, 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 Administration 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 authority 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 pursuant 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) Estimated level of receipts plus interest.--The term 

        ``estimated 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 Internal 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 appropriation (or any amendment thereto) for any 

        fiscal year through fiscal year 2018 for Research and 

        Development or Operations if the sum of the obligation 

        limitation for Grants-in-Aid for Airports and the appropriation 

        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.


Appropriations on legislative bills
  The chairs of the Committee on Rules and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure inserted in the Record correspondence 
concerning points of order established in this section (Mar. 15, 2000, 
p. 2805).




1065. Restriction of power to report appropriations.

  4.  A 
bill or joint resolution carrying an appropriation may not be reported 
by a 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 
having 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 amendment.


  This portion of the rule was adopted June 1, 1920 (VII, 2133). When 
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
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 clause cannot be raised against a motion 
to suspend the rules (VIII, 3426), against a motion to discharge a 
nonappropriating 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 amendment proposed to a Senate amendment to a House 
bill not reported from the Committee on Appropriations (Oct. 1, 1980, 
pp. 28638-42) or against an item of appropriation in a reported Senate 
bill (VII, 2136, 2147; July 30, 1957, pp. 13056, 13181). If the House 
deletes a provision in a Senate bill under this clause, the bill is 
messaged to the Senate with the deletion in the form of an amendment. 
The clause 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 clause 
does not apply to an appropriation in a bill that has been taken away 
from a nonappropriating committee by a motion to discharge (VII, 1019a). 
The point of order under this clause 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 authorized 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 appropriation in a 
bill initially reported from a legislative committee and then 
sequentially referred to and reported adversely by the Committee on 
Appropriations 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 
expenditure 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 guarantees in a legislative bill from statutory limitations on 
expenditures (July 16, 1974, p. 23344); (3) authorizing the availability 
of certain loan receipts 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 
appropriation or a portion of an appropriation already made for one 
purpose to another (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 available for a new purpose (Aug. 3, 1971, p. 29109); (5) 
authorizing the collection 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).


Tax and tariff measures and amendments
  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 section) unless that measure also provides that such new 
spending authority is to be available only to the extent provided in 
appropriation Acts (see Sec. 1127, supra). See also Deschler, ch. 25, 
Sec. 4 for a discussion of appropriations on legislative bills 
generally.



1066. Restriction on bills and amendments carrying 
taxes or tariffs.

  5. (a)(1)  A bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff 
measure may not be reported by a committee not having 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 consideration 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 subparagraph (1), a tax or tariff 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). A technical change to subparagraph 
(2) was adopted in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(dd)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 
3, 2019, p. _). 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 
the 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 

        reporting of a tax or tariff matter by any committee not having 

        that jurisdiction. 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 provision 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 assist committees without jurisdiction over tax 

        or tariff measures in complying with clause 5(b) of rule XXI, 

        and to protect the constitutional prerogative of the House to 

        originate revenue bills, the Speaker 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 

        directly subject to, a governmental service, program, or 

        activity, but not on the general public, as measures to be 

        utilized solely to support, subject to annual appropriations, 

        the service, program, or activity (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 

        connection between the payors and the agency or function 

        receiving the fee. The fund that receives the amounts collected 

        is not itself determinative 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 

        determine, 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 originate 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 
amendment to a reported general appropriation bill than for a provision 
in the 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 revenue 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 standard the following 
amendments to a general appropriation bill have been held to impose a 
limitation on funds in violation of this clause: (1) to assess or 
collect any tax liability attributable to the inclusion of certain 
economic assistance in the taxpayer's gross income (Sept. 9, 2003, p. 
21531); (2) to process the importation of any product from Iran (June 
18, 2004, pp. 13041, 13042); (3) 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); (4) to carry out various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (June 1, 2011, pp. 8520, 8521).

  The precedents developed under this clause before its change in the 
108th Congress still apply to the Chair's determination whether a 
limitation 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 considered 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 otherwise 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, p. 17563); and (2) where a provision in a 
general appropriation bill prohibited 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 appropriation 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). 
A limitation on funds (above a specified amount) in any Act for the 
Internal Revenue Service to administer any tax collection contract was 
conceded to inevitably constrain the collection of revenues and was 
stricken from the bill (June 28, 2007, pp. 17932, 17933). 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 liabilities (June 
18, 1991, p. 15189).

  In the 99th Congress, the following provisions in a reconciliation 
bill reported from the Committee on the Budget 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 application 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 passenger 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 protection 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 remaining 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).


Passage of tax rate increases-
  To a bill reported from the Committee on Education and Labor 
authorizing financial assistance to unemployed individuals for 
employment opportunities, 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 committee 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 paragraph (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 Government activity for which it was assessed 
(May 9, 1995, p. 12180). To a bill reported by the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology, an amendment proposing sundry changes in the 
Federal income tax by direct amendments 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).




1067. Threefifths vote to increase income tax rates.

  (b)  A 
bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a 
Federal 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 
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 increases the amount of tax 
imposed by any such section.



Consideration of retroactive tax rate increases
  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. 7, 1997, p. 121). It was repealed in the 116th Congress (sec. 
102(dd)(1), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _) and reinstated in the 118th 
Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 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, pp. 3173, 3174). This paragraph does not apply to a concurrent 
resolution (Speaker Gingrich, May 18, 1995, p. 13499). A resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules rendering this paragraph 
inapplicable may be adopted by majority vote (Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477). 
The Speaker rules on the applicability 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 inapplicable (Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477).



1068. Prohibition against retroactive income tax rate 
increase.

  (c)  It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a retroactive 
Federal income tax rate increase. In this paragraph--


      (1) the 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 increases the 
amount of tax imposed by any such section; and


      (2) a Federal income tax rate increase is retroactive if it 
applies to a period beginning before the enactment of the provision.


Designation of public works
  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. 7, 1997, p. 121). It was redesignated as paragraph (b) in the 
116th Congress (sec. 102(dd)(1), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _) and then 
redesignated as paragraph (c) in the 118th Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in 
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(d) of 
rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).




1068a. Restriction on designation of public works.

  6.  It 
shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
or conference report that provides for the designation or redesignation 
of a public work in honor of an individual then serving as a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator.




  This clause was adopted in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).




Sec. 1068b. Restriction on reconciliation directives.

    7. It 
shall not be in order to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget, 
or an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon that contains 
reconciliation directives under section 310 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 that specify changes in law such that the reconciliation 
legislation reported pursuant to such directives would cause an increase 
in net direct spending (as such term is defined in clause 10) for the 
period 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. 7), 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. 80). It was repealed in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(v), H. Res. 
8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _) and reinstated in the 118th Congress (sec. 
2(a)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).



Sec. 1068c. Budget Act points of order.

    8. With respect to 
measures considered pursuant to a special order of business, points of 
order under title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall 
operate without regard to whether the measure concerned 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 passage.


  This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 403, H. Res. 6, Jan. 
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)).

  9. (a) It shall not be in order to consider--



Sec. 1068d. Congressional earmarks.

      (1) a  bill or joint 
resolution reported by a committee unless the report includes a list of 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff 
benefits in the bill or in the report (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;


      (2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by a committee unless 
the chair of each committee 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 resolution to be offered at 
the outset of its consideration for amendment by a member of a committee 
of initial referral as designated in a report 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 submitted a request 
to the proponent 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; 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 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 
request to the House or Senate committees of jurisdiction 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.

  (b) It shall not be in order to consider a conference 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 request to the House or Senate committees of jurisdiction 
for each respective item included in such list) that were neither 
committed to the conference committee by either House nor in a 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 paragraph (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 consideration 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, 
submission to the Congressional Record, or joint explanatory statement 
to include a list required by paragraph (a) or a statement that the 
proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited 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 request 
of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, 
authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget 
authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, 
loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure 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, credit, 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 transition relief from a change to the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986.


  (g) For the purpose of this clause, the term ``limited tariff 
benefit'' means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.

  This clause was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 404, H. Res. 6, Jan. 
4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)), a similar point of order having 
operated 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. 7), 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. 15281). A gender-based reference was eliminated 
in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).

  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 
in the Record a statement that the measure contains no congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 18.26), 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) within 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 committee report regarding disclosure 
under this clause (July 30, 2010, p. 14834).

  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, p. 
9053). 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, pp. 9050, 9052; Mar. 21, 2010, pp. 
4096, 4102; Jan. 28, 2014, pp. 2107-09; May 21, 2014, pp. 8827-31). A 
manager of a measure who controls time for debate against the point of 
order that is to be resolved by a question of consideration is entitled 
to close debate (Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4105).


Sec. 5. Publication of Limited Tariff Benefits in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate.


Sec. 1068e. Publication of limited tariff 
benefits.

  The American   Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-159) 
requires the disclosure of a list of limited tariff benefits contained 
in a miscellaneous tariff bill as follows:


  (a) House of Representatives--

          (1) In General--The chair of the Committee on Ways and Means 

        of the House of Representatives shall include a list of limited 

        tariff benefits contained in a miscellaneous tariff bill in the 

        report to accompany such a bill or, in a case where a 

        miscellaneous tariff bill is not reported by the committee, 

        shall cause such a list to be printed in the appropriate section 

        of the Congressional Record.

          (2) Limited Tariff Benefit Defined.--For purposes of this 

        subsection and consistent with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules 

        of the House of Representatives, as in effect during the One 

        Hundred Fourteenth Congress, the term ``limited tariff benefit'' 

        means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

        the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer 


        entities.


Sec. 7. Definitions.
                                  * * *


  In this Act:


                                  * * *

          (9) Miscellaneous Tariff Bill.--The term ``miscellaneous 

        tariff bill'' means a bill of either House of Congress that 

        contains only duty suspensions and reductions and related 

        technical corrections that--

                    (A) are included in the final report of the 

                Commission submitted to the appropriate congressional 

                committees under section 3(b)(3)(E), except for--

                      (i) petitions for duty suspensions or reductions 

                that the Commission has determined do not contain the 

                information required under section 3(b)(2);

                      (ii) petitions for duty suspensions and reductions 

                with respect to which the Commission has determined the 

                petitioner is not a likely beneficiary; and

                      (iii) petitions for duty suspensions and 

                reductions that the Commission does not recommend for 

                inclusion in the miscellaneous tariff bill;

                    (B) are not excluded under section 3(b)(3)(F); and

                    (C) otherwise meet the applicable requirements of 


---   <> 10. (a)(1) Except 
as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), it shall not be in order to 
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--
                this Act.

      (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.

  (2) For purposes of this clause, the terms ``budget year'' and 
``current year'' have the meanings specified in section 250 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 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 appropriations 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 amendment 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 resolution the 
entire text of a separate measure or measures as passed by the House, 
the new matter 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 
emergency 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 joint resolution, the evaluation under 
paragraph (a) shall give no cognizance to any designation of emergency.


[[Page 954]]

changes in revenue and direct spending. It 
was amended in the 112th Congress to address increases in mandatory 
spending (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), it was amended 
again in the 116th Congress to mirror its original form with minor 
modifications (sec. 102(ee), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _), and it was 
amended in the 118th Congress to mirror its form in the 112th Congress 
(sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). 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. 
920; Mar. 3, 2011, pp. 3171, 3172 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 
10, 2011, p. 3765; Mar. 11, 2011, p. 3829). A point of order against a 
bill under this clause is not timely pending the question of engrossment 
and third reading (Mar. 30, 2011, pp. 4715, 4716). The House in the 
115th and 118th Congresses provided that certain conveyances of Federal 
land not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing 
revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays (sec. 
3(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 39; sec. 3(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 
2023, p. _).

-  For the <> 112th, 
115th, and 118th Congresses, the House established a point of order 
against consideration of a measure increasing mandatory spending above a 
certain threshold over four 10-fiscal-year periods (sec. 3(g), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80; sec. 3(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 38; sec. 
3(e)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). A similar provision has been 
carried in concurrent resolutions on the budget (e.g., sec. 3101, S. 
Con. Res. 11, 114th Cong.).

---  Under a <> former version of clause 10 (see Sec. 1068f of the House Rules 
and Manual for the 117th Congress (H. Doc. 116-177)), the Chair was 
authoritatively guided by estimates from the Committee on the Budget as 
to the net effect of a provision on the relevant surplus or deficit 
(Dec. 12, 2007, p. 34065). Spending provided by appropriation Acts did 
not constitute ``direct spending'' (May 15, 2008, p. 9229).

  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. 7; sec. 5, H. Res. 1500, July 1, 
2010, p. 12572). In its original form it addressed increases in the 
deficit or surplus caused by 




Sec. 1068j. Availability of unreported measures.

    11. It 
shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution which has 
not been reported by a committee until the text of such measure has been 
available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner for 72 
hours.



[[Page 955]]


to satisfy the availability requirement (sec. 
2(w), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). It applies to bills and joint 
resolutions only (Jan. 7, 2011, p. 228) and includes electronic 
availability in consonance with clause 3 of rule XXIX (Mar. 17, 2011, 
pp. 4373, 4374). A point of order under this clause is not ripe until 
the measure in question is called up for consideration (Mar. 17, 2011, 
p. 4373).

  This clause was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). It was amended in the 116th Congress to require 
availability for 72 hours (sec. 102(t)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. 
_). It was further amended in the 117th Congress to allow the text of 
unintroduced measures 



Sec. 1068k. Consideration of unreported measures.

    12. (a) 
It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution pursuant 
to a special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules that 
has not been reported by a committee.


  (b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply to a bill or joint resolution--

      (1) continuing appropriations for a fiscal year;

      (2) containing an emergency designation under section 251(b)(2) or 
section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
of 1985;

      (3) designated pursuant to clause 7(a) of rule XV; or

      (4) not referred to committee.


  (c) Paragraph (a) does not apply before March 1 of an odd-numbered 
year.

  This clause was added in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(r)(2), H. Res. 8, 
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _) to codify a separate order established in the 116th 
Congress (sec. 103(i), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 117th 
Congress the House rendered this clause inapplicable until April 1 of 
the odd-numbered year in such Congress (sec. 3(u), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 
2021, p. _).




[[Page 956]]
 


Sec. 1068l. Former comparative print required.

    A former 
clause requiring a comparative print for certain measures was repealed 
in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(q), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). For 
its text and history, see Sec. 1068k of the House Rules and Manual for 
the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177). Prior to the 117th Congress, this 
clause consisted of a comparative print requirement for certain measures 
(sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37).


                                Rule XXII


Senate amendments
                       house and senate relations




1069. Motion for conference.

  1.  A motion to disagree to 
Senate amendments to a House proposition and to request or agree to a 
conference with the Senate, or a motion to insist on House amendments to 
a Senate proposition and to request 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 on nongermane Senate amendments that 
was, in the 93d Congress, modified 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).




Sec. 1070. Motion for conference.

  The motion to  send a bill 
to conference under this clause is in order notwithstanding the fact 
that the stage of disagreement has not been reached (Aug. 1, 1972, p. 
26153) and is debatable under the hour rule (Dec. 1, 2015, p. 19156). 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 referral 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 
authorized 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, Sec. 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 
Senate 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 (Sec. 791, supra).





Sec. 1071. Privilege of certain Senate amendments.

  2.  A 
motion to dispose of House bills with Senate amendments not requiring 
consideration 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 
governing 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 transferred 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 Sec. 873, supra.




Sec. 1072. Consideration of Senate amendments in Committee 
of the Whole.

  3.  Except as permitted by clause 1, before the stage of 
disagreement, a Senate amendment to a House bill or resolution shall be 
subject to the point of order that it must first be considered in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of 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 the 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).



Sec. 1073. Consideration of Senate amendments in 
Committee of the Whole.

  Although  a Senate amendment that is merely a 
modification of a House proposition, such as the increase or decrease of 
the amount of an appropriation, and does not involve new and distinct 
expenditure, may not be required to be considered in the 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 amendment is offered in the House to provide an appropriation 
for another purpose than that of the Senate amendment, the House 
resolves into Committee of the Whole to consider it (IV, 4795). When an 
amendment is referred, 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 
the 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). A special order of 
business may provide that House amendments to a Senate amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole be disposed of only en gros 
(Nov. 4, 2015, pp. 17341, 17342). 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 
amendments be considered in the 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 the Committee of the Whole (Oct. 20, 1966, p. 28240; Dec. 
4, 1975, p. 38714). The Committee on Rules may recommend a special order 
of business providing that a Senate amendment pending at the Speaker's 
table and otherwise requiring consideration in the 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, 
Sec. 16.11; Feb. 4, 1993, p. 2500).





Sec. 1074. Stage of disagreement between Houses.

  When  the 
stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill with amendments of the 
other House, motions to dispose of said amendments are privileged in the 
House (clause 4 of rule XXII). See Sec. Sec. 528-528d, supra.





Sec. 1075. Privilege when stage of disagreement 
reached.

  4.  When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or 
resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any 
amendment 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 
Sec. Sec. 528c, 528d, supra (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Where the 
House by special order of business limited the availability of this 
motion to the Majority Leader or a designee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 
3, Sec. 6.14; July 31, 2014, p. 11327), the Chair declined to recognize 
another Member for such a motion (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14981; Oct. 12, 2013, 
p. 15791). The ordinary motion to table under clause 4 of rule XVI may 
be applied to a Senate amendment and is preferential to a motion to 
recede and concur in the Senate amendment offered under this clause 
(Mar. 3, 2015, pp. 3114, 3115).



Sec. 1076. Conferees may not agree to certain Senate 
amendments.

  5. (a)  Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
Senate amendment described in paragraph (b) unless specific authority to 
agree to the amendment first is given by the House by a separate vote 
with respect thereto. If specific authority is not granted, the Senate 
amendment shall be reported in disagreement by the conference 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 
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in former clause 2 of rule XX. The recodification also extended 
the rule to Senate amendments containing reappropriations of unexpended 
balances 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 conference on a general appropriation bill with 
numbered Senate amendments for the managers to report certain Senate 
amendments in technical disagreement, 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 
general 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 
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 report 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 special 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 authorized to agree to an appropriation by 
a resolution reported from the Committee 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 
legislative 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 
authorization 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 pursuant 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 tariff measure in violation of 
clause 5(a) of rule XXI may not be agreed to.


Conference reports; amendments reported in disagreement
  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 
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).




1077. High privilege of conference reports; and form 
of accompanying statement.

  7. (a)  The presentation of a conference report 
shall be in order at any time except during a reading of the Journal or 
the conduct of a record vote, a vote by division, or a quorum call.


  The practice of giving conference reports privilege dates from 1850, 
having 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, 6454). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, this 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 committee following adoption of a motion to 
recommit while the previous question is operating (e.g., Apr. 24, 2007, 
pp. 9923-25); (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 Committee 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 former District of Columbia 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 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 
demanded against a conference report before points of order against the 
report 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, because it is a joint report to the two 
Houses (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.7).

  Although the rule provides that the managers of the House asking for 
conference shall leave the papers with the managers of the other 
(Sec. Sec. 555, 556, supra), if the managers on the part of the House 
agreeing to a conference 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 Sec. Sec. 527-559, supra.



Sec. 1078. Time for debate on motions to 
instruct.

  (b)(1)  Subject to subparagraph (2) the time allotted for debate on 
a motion to instruct managers on the part of the House shall be equally 
divided between 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 Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 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, 
1989, p. 72). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th 
Congress, 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).



Sec. 1079. Motions privileged after 45 calendar days 
and 25 legislative days of conference.

  (c)(1)  A motion to instruct managers 
on the part of the House, or a motion to discharge all managers on the 
part of the House and to appoint new conferees, shall be privileged 
after a conference committee has been appointed for 45 calendar days and 
25 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 announces 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 
subparagraph (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 requirement in subparagraph (1).


  (d) Instructions to conferees in a motion to instruct may not include 
argument.

  Paragraph (c) (formerly clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII) was adopted 
December 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 schedule for the consideration of a noticed 
motion to discharge or instruct conferees. Paragraph (c) was amended 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, 2003, p. 7), and such time periods were 
increased in the 114th Congress to 45 and 25 days, respectively (sec. 
2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35). 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. 9). Paragraph (d) was added in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(r), H. Res. 
5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25), and was amended in the 117th Congress to 
reflect the elimination of the motion to recommit with instructions from 
clause 2(b) of rule XIX (sec. 2(s)(3), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). A 
gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House recodified its rules in 
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 
notwithstanding 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 conference 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 instruct 
conferees under this clause is of equal privilege with the motion to 
suspend the rules (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 business 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 motion to instruct 
offered pursuant to paragraph (c) 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; June 28, 2012, p. 10703 ; July 28, 
2014, p. 13364). The House has by unanimous consent (Oct. 16, 2013, p. 
15946) and special order of business (sec. 9, H. Res. 1499, Nov. 30, 
2022, p. _) disabled motions under this paragraph for a specified 
conference and has by special order of business tolled the ripening of 
such motions (e.g., Aug. 1, 2012, p. 13066). In the 118th Congress, the 
House authorized the tolling of the ripening of such motions as part of 
a larger set of procedures effective during a district work period as 
designated by the Speaker (sec. 3(z), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _).




Sec. 1080. The statement accompanying a conference 
report.

  (e)  Each conference report to the House shall be printed as a 
report of the House. Each such report shall be accompanied by a joint 
explanatory statement 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 
inform 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 
required only that the statement be signed by a majority of the House 
managers (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, p. 144). Before the House recodified its rules in the 
106th Congress, this 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 
managers, the Chair announced that the insertion did not constitute a 
revised joint statement of managers (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, 
Sec. 21.7).




Sec. 1081. Unfunded mandates.

  The  Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48) added a new part B to title IV of 
the Congressional 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 conference agreement. See 
Sec. 1127, infra.




Sec. 1082. Layover requirements.

  8. (a)(1)  Except as 
specified in subparagraph (2), it shall not be in order to consider a 
conference report until--


      (A) the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory 
statement have been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident 
Commissioner for 72 hours in the Congressional Record or pursuant to 
clause 3 of rule XXIX; and

      (B) printed or electronic 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 the next year to clarify the manner of counting the three days 
for the layover period (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023) and 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 
Committee on Rules waiving that requirement (clause 8(e)). 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 
113th Congress it was amended to accommodate electronic availability 
(sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26), similar authority having 
been granted in the 112th Congress by separate order (Dec. 6, 2011, p. 
18998). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
this provision was found in 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 Committee on Rules 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). In the 116th Congress, this paragraph was amended to 
require availability for 72 hours (sec. 102(t)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 
2019, p. _).


  For an example of a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
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).



Sec. 1083. Consideration of amendments in 
disagreement.

  (b)(1)  Except as specified in subparagraph (2), it shall not be 
in order to consider a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported 
in disagreement by a conference committee until--


      (A) the report in disagreement and any accompanying statement have 
been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner for 
72 hours in the Congressional Record or pursuant to clause 3 of rule 
XXIX; 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, 1995, p. 35077). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 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 immediate consideration of 
a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules only waiving the layover 
requirement was transferred to clause 8(e) of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 
6, 1999, p. 47). In the 116th Congress, this provision was amended to 
require availability for 72 hours (sec. 102(t)(4), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 
2019, p. _) and in the 117th Congress the availability requirement was 
modified to include electronic availability (sec. 2(h)(2), H. Res. 8, 
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).


  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).




Sec. 1084. Certain motions to insist as 
preferential.

  (3)  During consideration of a Senate amendment reported in 
disagreement by a conference committee on a general appropriation bill, 
a motion to insist 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 debate on the original 
motion by the chair of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject 
matter of the amendment or a designee. Such a preferential 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 without 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 
disagreement; (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. A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress 
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House recodified 
its rules in 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 
Accountability) 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).




Sec. 1085. Certain conference reports considered as 
read.

  (c)  A conference report or a Senate amendment reported in 
disagreement by a conference committee that has been available as 
provided in paragraph (a) or (b) shall be considered as read when called 
up.



  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).



Sec. 1086. Debate.

  (d)(1)  Subject to subparagraph (2), the 
time allotted for debate on a conference report 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 Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner 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 
addressing 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. 32116), who accords 
priority in recognition to a member of the conference committee (Speaker 
Wright, Dec. 21, 1987, pp. 37093, 37516). Subparagraph (2) remains 
available where a special order of business orders the previous question 
to adoption of a conference report without intervening motion except one 
hour of debate (e.g., Dec. 14, 2011, p. 20047). 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; Jan. 29, 2014, p. 2175).

  The division of time for debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate 
amendment 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).

  The custom has developed 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 
disagreement 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; Nov. 14, 2002, pp. 22409, 
22460), 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). In the modern practice, 
this paragraph has been interpreted to apply also to a motion to dispose 
of an amendment between the Houses after the stage of disagreement has 
been reached (Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 8.6; Mar. 3, 2015, pp. 3119, 
3120).


  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 amendment (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).




Sec. 1087. Waiver.

  (e)  Under clause 6(a)(2) of rule XIII, a 
resolution proposing only to waive a requirement of this clause 
concerning the availability of reports to Members, Delegates, 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 
recodified 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 consolidated into this provision (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
1999, p. 47).




Sec. 1088. Conferees may report germane modification of 
amendment in nature of substitute within scope of 
differences.

  9.  Whenever a disagreement to an amendment has been 
committed to a conference committee, the managers on the part of the 
House may propose a substitute that is a germane modification of the 
matter in disagreement. The introduction of any language presenting 
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 conference report may not include matter not 
committed to the conference committee by either House and may not 
include a modification of specific matter committed to the conference 
committee by either or both Houses if that modification 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 its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was 
found in former clause 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 certain colleges and the 
Senate version conferred land-grant college status on those institutions 
and contained a higher endowment figure, House conferees remained within 
their authority under this clause by accepting the Senate provision on 
land-grant status and the lower House figure for endowment 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 motion 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 provisions of the existing law; but the inclusion 
in a conference report of requirements 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 
legislative 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 contained 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 proceedings 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 
subsequent 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 amendment (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 amendments (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 language 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 appropriation bill may not 
instruct the conferees to include either a funding limitation (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, under the former version of the rule where a motion 
to recommit with instructions was permissible, a motion to recommit a 
conference report could not instruct conferees to expand definitions to 
include classes not covered under the House bill or Senate amendment 
(Sept. 29, 1994, p. 26781) or 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 did not inure to instructions contained in 
a motion to recommit such measure to conference (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 
26781). Some latitude does remain with House 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 Sec. 547, supra.



Sec. 1089. Nongermane matter in conference 
agreements and amendments in disagreement.

  10. (a)(1)  A Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner may raise a point of order against nongermane 
matter, as specified in subparagraph (2), before 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 amendment; 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 matter 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 debatable 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 paragraph (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 conference 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 
provisions 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 amendment with an amendment consisting 
of so much of the conference report as was not rejected; 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.

  (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 amendment, the following motions 
shall be privileged and shall have precedence in the order stated:

      (A) A motion that the House recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment 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, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may raise a point of order against 
nongermane matter, as specified in paragraph (a)(2), before the 
commencement of debate on concurring in the Senate amendment, with or 
without amendment. A point of order under this paragraph shall be 
disposed 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 Legislative 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 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 transferred to former clause 5 of 
rule XXVIII the procedures concerning disposition 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).



Sec. 1090. Nongermane matter in conference 
agreements.

  The  procedure provided in this clause for addressing 
nongermane matter in conference reports was first utilized on September 
11, 1973 (pp. 29243-46), when the Chair sustained two points of order 
against portions of a conference report that were modifications of 
portions of a Senate amendment 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 disagreement, the pending question is whether to dispose 
of each Senate amendment 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 
comprising 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).




Sec. 1091. Nongermane matter in amendments in 
disagreement.

  The  provisions of this clause addressing nongermane matter 
in amendments in disagreement was first utilized on July 31, 1974 (p. 
26083), when the Chair sustained a point of 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 motion 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 motion 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 (appropriations on a legislative bill) against a motion to 
dispose of a Senate amendment 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).




Sec. 1092. Tax complexity analysis.

  11.  It shall not be in 
order to consider a conference report to accompany a bill or joint 
resolution that proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
unless--


      (a) the joint explanatory statement of the managers includes a tax 
complexity analysis prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation in 
accordance with section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service 
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 before 
consideration of the conference report.


  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. 7). An archaic reference to the 
name of the joint committee was updated in the 114th Congress (sec. 
2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35). 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).



Sec. 1093. Open conference meetings.

  12. (a)(1)  Subject to 
subparagraph (2), a meeting of each conference committee 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 decided by the yeas and nays.

  (3) In conducting conferences with the Senate, managers on the part of 
the House should endeavor to ensure--

      (A) that meetings for the resolution of differences 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 attend;

      (B) that all provisions on which the two Houses disagree are 
considered as open to discussion at any meeting of a conference 
committee; and

      (C) that papers reflecting a conference agreement are held 
inviolate to change without 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.

  (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 approval (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 managers.


  (b) A point of order that a conference committee failed to comply with 
paragraph (a) may be raised immediately after the conference report 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 amendments or on disagreement to the 
Senate amendments, as the case may be, and to have requested 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 
adopted an identical rule on November 5, 1975 (p. 35203). The clause was 
substantially 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 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). Paragraphs (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).


[[Page 983]]

  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.




Sec. 1094. Text of conference reports.

  13.   It shall not be 
in order to consider a conference report the text of which differs in 
any way, other than clerical, from the text that reflects the action of 
the conferees on all of the differences between the two Houses, as 
recorded by their placement of their signatures (or not) on the sheets 
prepared to accompany the conference report and joint explanatory 
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'':



Sec. 1095. Official conduct of Members, officers, or 
employees of the House.

      1.  A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner 
that shall reflect creditably on the House.


      2. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of 
the House and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.


[[Page 983]]

ceipt of which would occur by virtue of influence 
improperly exerted from the position of such individual in Congress.
      3. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
of the House may not receive compensation and may not permit 
compensation to accrue to the beneficial interest of such individual 
from any source, the re

      4. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
of the House may not accept gifts except as provided by clause 5 of rule 
XXV.

      5. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
of the House may not accept an honorarium for a speech, a writing for 
publication, or other similar activity, except as otherwise provided 
under rule XXV.

      6. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner--

          (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 representing 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.

      7. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall treat as 
campaign contributions all proceeds from testimonial dinners or other 
fund-raising events.

      8. (a) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or officer of 
the House may not retain an employee who does not perform duties for the 
offices of the employing authority commensurate with the compensation 
such employee receives.

      (b) In the case of a committee employee who works under the direct 
supervision of a member of the committee other than a chair, the chair 
may require that such member affirm in 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 Commissioner may not 
retain the relative of such individual in a paid position; and

          (B) an employee of the House may not accept compensation for 
work for a committee on which the relative of such employee serves as a 
member.

      (2) Subparagraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a relative 
whose pertinent employment predates the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress.

      (3) As used in this paragraph, the term ``relative'' means an 
individual who is related to the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner as parent, child, sibling, parent's sibling, first cousin, 
sibling's child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, 
stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild.

      9. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
of the House may 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 (including marital or parental status), 
sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, or national origin 
of such individual, including by committing an act of sexual harassment 
against such individual, but may take into consideration the domicile or 
political affiliation of such individual.

      10. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who has been 
convicted by a court of record for the commission of a crime for which a 
sentence of two or more years' imprisonment may be imposed should 
refrain from participation in the business of each committee 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.

      (b) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who has been 
indicted for or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct in any 
Federal, State, or local court punishable as a felony for which a 
sentence of two or more years' imprisonment may be imposed should resign 
from any standing, select, joint or ad hoc committee, and any 
subcommittee thereof, on which such Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner serves, and should step aside from any party caucus or 
conference leadership position such Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner holds, unless or until judicial or executive proceedings 
result in acquittal or the charges are dismissed or reduced to less than 
a felony as described in this paragraph.

      11. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 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 ``Official 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 
participate personally and substantially as an employee of the House in 
a contact with an agency of the executive or judicial branches of 
Government 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 employee first advises the 
employing authority of such employee of a significant financial interest 
described in paragraph (a) and obtains from such employing authority a 
written waiver stating that the participation of the employee 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 information, the 
following oath (or affirmation) shall be executed:

          ``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose any 
classified information received in the course of my service with the 
House of Representatives, except as authorized by the House of 
Representatives or in accordance with its Rules.''

    Copies of the executed oath (or affirmation) shall be retained as 
part of the records of the House, in the case of a Member, Delegate, or 
the Resident Commissioner, by the Clerk, and in the case of an officer 
or employee of the House, by the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Clerk shall make 
the signatories a matter of public record, causing 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 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.

      14. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not, with the 
intent to influence on the basis of partisan political affiliation 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

          (b) influence, or offer or threaten to influence, the official 
act of another.

      15. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), a Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 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 carrier 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 commercial 
operator certificated by an appropriate 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 aircraft 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 
Commissioner 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 
proportionate share of ownership allows);

          (3) the flight consists of the personal use of an aircraft by 
a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner that is supplied by--

              (A) an individual on the basis of personal friendship; or

              (B) another Member, Delegate, or the Resident 
Commissioner;

          (4) the aircraft is operated by an entity of the Federal 
government or an entity of the government of any State; or

          (5) the owner or operator of the aircraft is paid a pro rata 
share of the fair market value of the normal and usual charter fare or 
rental charge for a comparable plane of comparable size as determined by 
dividing such cost by the number of Members, Delegates, or the Resident 
Commissioner, officers, or employees of Congress on the flight.

      (c) An advance written request for a waiver of the restriction in 
paragraph (a) may be granted jointly by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ethics, subject to such conditions as they 
may prescribe.

      (d) 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 involved under such Act;

          (2) the term ``family member'' means an individual who is 
related to the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, as parent, 
child, sibling, spouse, or parent-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 determined as under 
clause 5(a)(3)(D)(ii) of rule XXV.

      16. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not condition 
the inclusion of language to provide funding for 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 (including an accompanying joint 
explanatory statement of managers) on any vote cast by another Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. For purposes of this clause and 
clause 17, the terms ``congressional earmark,'' ``limited tax benefit,'' 
and ``limited tariff benefit'' 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 
accompanying 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 recipient or, if there is no specifically 
intended recipient, the intended location of the activity;

          (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 earmark or limited tax 
or tariff benefit; and

          (5) a certification that the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner or spouse has no financial interest in such congressional 
earmark or limited tax or tariff benefit.

      (b) Each committee shall maintain the information transmitted 
under paragraph (a), and the written disclosures for any congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits included in 
any measure reported by the committee or conference report filed by the 
chair of the committee or any subcommittee thereof shall be open for 
public inspection.

      18. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not 
engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works 
under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, 
or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner serves. This paragraph does not apply with respect 
to any relationship between two people who are married to each other.

      (b) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House may not engage in unwelcome sexual advances or 
conduct towards another Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House.

      (c) In this clause, the term ``employee'' includes an applicant 
for employment, a paid or unpaid intern (including an applicant for an 
internship), a detailee, and an individual participating in a fellowship 
program.

      19. (a) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House may not serve as an officer or director of any 
public company.

      (b) In paragraph (a), the term ``public company'' means an issuer 
as defined in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
U.S.C. 78c)--

          (1) the securities of which are required to be registered 
under section 12 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 78l); or

          (2) that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of 
such Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)).

      (c) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House shall comply with regulations issued and revised, 
as necessary, by the Committee on Ethics regarding types of prohibited 
service or positions that could lead to conflicts of interest.

      20. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House may not, directly or indirectly, take any actions 
to prevent any individual from or retaliate against any individual for 
providing truthful information to the Committee on Ethics, the Office of 
Congressional Ethics, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, or 
any law enforcement official, provided that the disclosure of such 
information is not otherwise prohibited by law or House rules.

      21. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), a Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall 
not knowingly and willfully disclose publicly the identity of, or 
personally identifiable information about, any individual who has 
reported allegations of possible wrongdoing, including retaliation, 
under processes and protections provided by the Civil Service Reform Act 
of 1978, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, the Intelligence 
Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, or any other Federal law 
that establishes the right for individuals to make protected disclosures 
to Congress.

      (b) The limitation in paragraph (a) shall not apply to any 
disclosure of an individual's identity or personally identifiable 
information if--

          (1) the individual has provided express written consent prior 
to such disclosure;

          (2) the individual has already voluntarily and publicly 
disclosed their identity; or

          (3) the disclosure is by the chair of a committee after an 
affirmative vote by two-thirds of the members of the committee that such 
disclosure is in the public interest.

      (c) Nothing in this clause shall prevent--

          (1) an investigation of any allegation of wrongdoing disclosed 
by any individual; or

          (2) the public disclosure of substantive information shared by 
any individual that is not personally identifiable to that individual.

      (d) Disclosures made pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) shall be subject 
to appropriate safeguards, including that the individual be provided 
timely advance notice if possible before their identity or any 
personally identifiable information is disclosed prior to the vote 
described in paragraph (b)(3), unless such information would jeopardize 
the related investigations. When providing such notice to the individual 
the committee chair shall send the individual a written explanation of 
the reasons for the disclosure.

      22. (a) In this Code of Official Conduct, the term ``officer or 
employee of the House'' means an individual whose compensation is 
disbursed by the Chief Administrative Officer.


      (b) An individual whose services are compensated by the House 
pursuant to a consultant 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 pursuant 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 jurisdiction 
of the contracting committee. In the case of such an individual who is a 
member or employee of a firm, partnership, or other business 
organization, the other members and employees of the firm, partnership, 
or other business organization shall be subject to the same restrictions 
on lobbying that apply to the individual under this paragraph.


[[Page 999]]

Clauses 20 and 21 were added in the 117th Congress to emphasize 
whistleblower protection (sec. 2(y), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 
 An amendment was effected in the 112th Congress to reflect a change
  This rule was transferred from rule XLIII to rule XXIV when the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 
47). 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 95th Congress (H. 
Res. 287, Mar. 2, 1977, pp. 5933-53). Those definitions 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) and expanded in the 113th Congress 
to apply to a defined group of relatives instead of just spouses (sec. 
2(e)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Clause 9 was added in the 94th 
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). Clause 9 was amended: (1) in 
the 100th Congress to prohibit discrimination in employment based upon 
age (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6); (2) in the 101st Congress to 
conform existing staff antidiscrimination rules to the Fair Employment 
Practices resolution adopted in the 100th Congress (now contained in the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-1; 2 U.S.C. 1301; see 
Sec. 1101, infra)); (3) in the 115th Congress to include sexual 
harassment as a form of employment discrimination (sec. 5, H. Res. 724, 
Feb. 6, 2018, p. _); and (4) in the 116th Congress to prohibit 
discrimination in employment based upon sexual orientation or gender 
identity (sec. 102(ff), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Clause 10 was 
added in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 46, Apr. 16, 1975, p. 10340), and 
was amended in the 116th Congress to encourage resignation from 
committees upon indictment for certain criminal offenses (sec. 102(hh), 
H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 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. 80) and in the 113th Congress to 
shift from the Clerk to the Sergeant-at-Arms some responsibility for the 
oath (sec. 2(e)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Clause 22 (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. 80). 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) and amended in 
the 113th Congress to expand paragraph (b) and add paragraph (c) (sec. 
2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Clause 18 was added in the 
115th Congress (sec. 6, H. Res. 724, p. _), and was amended in the 116th 
Congress to expand the prohibition to certain relationships involving 
employees of committees (sec. 102(gg), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). 
Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7) and in the 117th Congress (sec. 
2(d), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Clause 19 was added in the 116th 
Congress to restrict service by Members, Delegates, and the Resident 
Commissioner as an officer or director of a public company (sec. 
102(ii), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _) and was amended in the 117th 
Congress to provide ongoing regulatory authority for the Committee on 
Ethics (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 

  in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).

  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.).

  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 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 3.3). 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 (now Ethics) 
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).




[[Page 1000]]
 
  The House in the 116th through 118th Congresses adopted the following 
separate orders: (1) requiring that non-disclosure agreements imposed by 
employing or contracting authorities in the House of Representatives 
include guidance that employees and contractors can communicate matters 
to the Committee on Ethics or Office of Congressional Workplace Rights 
(sec. 103(q), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(f), H. Res. 8, Jan. 
4, 2021, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _); (2) 
prohibiting the Committee on House Admininstration from approving 
certain settlements of complaints against Members under the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 except with terms requiring the 
Member to reimburse the Treasury for the settlement amount (sec. 103(r), 
H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(g), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; 
sec. 3(v), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _); (3) requiring employing 
offices of the House to adopt an anti-harassment and anti-discrimination 
policy for the workplace (sec. 103(s), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; 
sec. 3(h), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; sec. 3(t), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 
2023, p. _); and (4) requiring the display in House employing offices of 
a statement of rights and protections under the Congressional 
Accountability Act of 1995 (sec. 103(t), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; 
sec. 3(i), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; sec. 3(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 
2023, p. _). In the 117th Congress the House required the Committee on 
Ethics to report any recommended changes to the Code of Official Conduct 
to address potential discipline for the intentionally misleading 
dissemination of distorted or manipulated electronic images, videos, or 
audio files (sec. 3(y), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

                                Rule XXIV


Limitations on use of official and unofficial accounts
                  limitations on use of official funds



1096. Limitation on accounts.

  1.  (a) Except as provided in 
paragraph (b), a Member, Delegate, or Resident 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), a Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner 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 technology services (excluding handheld 
communications devices).

  2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, if an amount from 
the Official Expenses Allowance of a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner is paid into the House Recording Studio revolving fund for 
telecommunications satellite services, the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner may accept reimbursement from nonpolitical entities in that 
amount for transmission to the Chief Administrative Officer for credit 
to the Official Expenses Allowance.


  3. In this rule the term ``unofficial office account'' 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 
organizations 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, pp. 7, 9). In the 113th Congress 
clause 2 was amended to replace the Clerk with the Chief Administrative 
Officer (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26).


Limitations on use of the frank
  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.).



1097. Limitations on use of frank.

  4.  A Member, Delegate, 
or Resident Commissioner shall mail franked mail 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 submit a sample or description of the mail matter 
involved to the House Communications Standards Commission for an 
advisory opinion as to whether the proposed mailing is in compliance 
with applicable provisions of law, rule, or regulation.

  6. A mass mailing that is otherwise frankable by a Member, Delegate, 
or Resident Commissioner under the provisions of section 3210(e) of 
title 39, United States Code, is not frankable unless the cost of 
preparing and printing it is defrayed exclusively from funds made 
available in an appropriation Act.

  7. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not send a mass 
mailing outside the congressional district from which elected.

  8. In the case of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, a mass 
mailing is not frankable 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 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 substantially 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, or any other 
unsolicited communication of substantially identical content which is 
transmitted to 500 or more persons in that session or, in the case of a 
digital communication of substantially identical content, which is 
disseminated at a cost exceeding a designated amount, as provided under 
regulations of the House Communications Standards Commission, except 
that such term does not include a mailing--

      (a) of matter in direct response to a communication 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.


[[Page 1004]]

States Code (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 
2005, p. 43). In the 116th Congress clause 9 was amended to expand the 
definition of ``mass mailing'' to conform with a corresponding change to 
section 3210 of title 39, United States Code (P.L. 116-260, Dec. 27, 
2020). In the 117th Congress, clause 5 was amended to conform the name 
of the House Communications Standards Commission with a recent name 
change in current law (sec. 2(z), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). 
Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
  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 
mailings included in the legislative branch appropriation 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 the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, 
this provision was 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 


Prohibition on use of funds by Members not elected to succeeding 
  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.).

        Congress




1098. Travel by Members not reelected.

  10.  Funds from the 
applicable accounts described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X, including 
funds from committee expense 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 candidate in a general election, 
after the earlier of the date of such general election or the 
adjournment sine die of the last regular session of the Congress.





[[Page 1005]]
 
  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. 
80). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).

                                Rule XXV


Outside earned income; honoraria
      limitations on outside earned income and acceptance of gifts



1099. Income limitations.

  1. (a)  Except as provided by 
paragraph (b), a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 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 minimum 
rate of basic pay for GS-15 of the General Schedule may receive an 
honorarium unless the subject matter is directly related to the official 
duties of the individual, the payment is made because of the status of 
the individual with the House, or the person offering the honorarium has 
interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or 
nonperformance of the official duties of the individual.

  (b) In the case of an individual who becomes a Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House, such 
individual may not have outside earned income attributable to the 
portion of a calendar year that occurs after such individual becomes a 
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 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 Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 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 Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House may not be received by that Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee. Such a payment 
may not exceed $2,000 or be made to a charitable organization from which 
the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee or a 
parent, sibling, spouse, child, or dependent relative of the Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee, derives a 
financial benefit.

  2. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of 
the House may not--

      (a) receive compensation for affiliating with or being employed by 
a firm, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity that 
provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship except 
for the practice of medicine;

      (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 profession 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, corporation, or other entity; or

      (e) receive compensation for teaching, without the prior 
notification and approval of the Committee on Ethics.
Copyright royalties

  3. (a) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
of the House may not receive an advance payment on copyright royalties. 
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 Commissioner, officer, or employee) 
working on behalf of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 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 Commissioner, officer, or employee of 
the House may not receive copyright royalties under a contract entered 
into on or after January 1, 1996, unless that contract is first approved 
by the Committee 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 Administrative 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 honorarium, the term ``officer or 
employee of the House'' means an individual (other than a Member, 
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 Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House, excluding any actual 
and necessary travel expenses incurred by that Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee (and one relative) to the 
extent that such expenses are paid or reimbursed by any other person. 
The amount otherwise determined 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, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee, the cost of transportation, and the cost of 
lodging and meals while away from the residence or principal place of 
employment of such individual.

  (d)(1) In this rule the term ``outside earned income'' means, with 
respect to a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House, wages, salaries, fees, and other amounts received 
or to be received as compensation for personal services actually 
rendered, but does not include--

      (A) the salary of a Member, Delegate, Resident 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 Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee;

      (C) any amount paid by, or on behalf of, a Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House to a tax-
qualified pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus plan and received by 
such individual from such a plan;

      (D) in the case of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House engaged in a trade or business in 
which such individual or the family of such individual holds a 
controlling interest and in which both personal services and capital are 
income-producing factors, any amount received by the Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee, so long as the personal 
services actually rendered by such individual in the trade or business 
do not generate a significant amount of income; or

      (E) copyright royalties received from established 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 organization'' 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 
provided that a Member of Congress may not accept honoraria in excess of 
40 percent of a Member's aggregate salary) (H. Res. 427, Precedents 
(Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 5.12). 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 (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, 
Sec. 5.12). 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 limitation 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. 13145). 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 
restrictions 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) (Precedents (Smith), ch. 7, Sec. 5.13). 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 definition 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 
relationship (sec. 2(q), 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. 7). 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. 80).

  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.).

  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 employee who accepts an honorarium of more than $2000 per 
speech. A statutory 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 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).


Gifts
  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).



1100. Gift rule.

  5. (a)(1)(A)(i)  A Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not 
knowingly accept a gift except as provided in this clause.


  (ii) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
of the House may not knowingly accept a gift from a registered lobbyist 
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 paragraph.

  (B)(i) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
of the House may accept a gift (other than cash or cash equivalent) not 
prohibited by subdivision (A)(ii) that the Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or employee reasonably and in good faith believes 
to have a value of less than $50 and a cumulative value from one source 
during a calendar 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 
individual recipients and not to the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner. Formal recordkeeping is not required by this subdivision, 
but a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 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 entertainment 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 offers 
that ticket for sale to the public.

  (2)(A) In this clause the term ``gift'' means a gratuity, favor, 
discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item 
having monetary value. The term includes gifts of services, 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, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House, or a gift to any other 
individual based on that individual's relationship with the Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee, shall be 
considered a gift to the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee if it is given with the knowledge and acquiescence 
of the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 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.

  (ii) If food or refreshment is provided at the same time and place to 
both a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 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, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or employee 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 election 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 section 109(16) of 
title I of the Ethics in Government 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 Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House has reason to believe that, under the 
circumstances, the gift was provided because of the official position of 
such individual and not because of the personal friendship.

      (ii) In determining whether a gift is provided on the basis of 
personal friendship, the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House shall consider the circumstances under 
which the gift was offered, 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 expense fund established for the benefit of a 
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
House that is otherwise lawfully made in accordance with the 
restrictions and disclosure requirements of the Committee on Ethics.

      (F) A gift from another Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House or Senate.

      (G) Food, refreshments, lodging, transportation, and other 
benefits--

          (i) resulting from the outside business or employment 
activities of the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House (or other outside activities 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 employment 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, periodicals, other written 
materials, audiotapes, videotapes, or other forms of communication.

      (J) Awards or prizes that are given to competitors in contests or 
events open to the public, including random drawings.

      (K) Honorary degrees (and associated travel, food, refreshments, 
and entertainment) and other bona fide, nonmonetary awards presented in 
recognition of public service (and associated food, refreshments, and 
entertainment provided in the presentation of such degrees and awards).

      (L) Training (including food and refreshments furnished to all 
attendees as an integral part of the training) if such training is in 
the interest of the House.

      (M) Bequests, inheritances, and other transfers at death.

      (N) An item, the receipt of which is authorized by the Foreign 
Gifts and Decorations Act, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
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 
Government 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--

          (i) available to the public or to a class consisting of all 
Federal employees, whether or not restricted on the basis of geographic 
consideration;

          (ii) offered to members of a group or class in which 
membership is unrelated to congressional employment;

          (iii) offered to members of an organization, such as an 
employees' association or congressional credit union, in which 
membership is related to congressional employment and similar 
opportunities are available to large segments of the public through 
organizations of similar size;

          (iv) offered to a group or class that is not defined in a 
manner that specifically discriminates 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 generally available to the public; or

          (vi) in the form of reduced membership or other fees for 
participation in organization activities offered to all Government 
employees by professional organizations if the only restrictions on 
membership relate to professional qualifications.

      (S) A plaque, trophy, or other item that is substantially 
commemorative in nature and that is intended for presentation.

      (T) Anything for which, in an unusual case, a waiver is granted by 
the Committee on Ethics.

      (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 Resident Commissioner represents that are intended 
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 Commissioner, officer, or employee 
of the House may accept an offer of free attendance at a widely attended 
convention, conference, symposium, forum, panel discussion, dinner, 
viewing, reception, or similar event, provided by the sponsor of the 
event, if--

      (i) the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House participates 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 representative function of the Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House.

  (B) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of 
the House who attends an event described in subdivision (A) may accept a 
sponsor's unsolicited offer of free attendance at the event for an 
accompanying individual.

  (C) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of 
the House, or the spouse or dependent thereof, may accept a sponsor'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 section 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 attendance'' may include waiver 
of all or part of a conference or other fee, the provision of local 
transportation, or the provision of food, refreshments, entertainment, 
and instructional materials furnished 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 setting with all or substantially all other attendees.

  (5) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of 
the House may not 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 tangible 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 Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House for 
necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses for travel to a 
meeting, speaking engagement, factfinding trip, or similar event in 
connection with the duties of such individual as an officeholder shall 
be considered as a reimbursement to the House and not a gift prohibited 
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 
retains or employs registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal 
(except as provided in subdivision (C)), if the Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee--

      (i) in the case of an employee, receives advance authorization, 
from the Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or officer under 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 completed.

  (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 Commissioner, 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 principal) if it is, under regulations prescribed by the 
Committee on Ethics to implement this provision--

      (i) directly from an institution of higher education within the 
meaning of section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965; or

      (ii) provided only for attendance at or participation in a one-day 
event (exclusive of travel time and an overnight stay).
Regulations prescribed to implement this provision may permit a two-
night stay when determined by the committee on a case-by-case basis to 
be practically required to participate in the one-day event.

  (2) Each advance authorization to accept reimbursement shall be signed 
(including in electronic form) by the Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, or officer of the House under whose direct supervision the 
employee 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 travel; and

      (D) a determination that the travel is in connection with the 
duties of the employee as an officeholder and would not create the 
appearance that the employee is using public office for private gain.

  (3) Each disclosure made under subparagraph (1)(A) shall be signed 
(including in electronic form) by the Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, or officer (in the case of travel by that Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or officer) or by the Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, or officer under whose direct supervision the 
employee works (in the case of travel by an employee) and shall 
include--

      (A) a good faith estimate of total transportation expenses 
reimbursed or to be reimbursed;

      (B) a good faith estimate of total lodging expenses reimbursed or 
to be reimbursed;

      (C) a good faith estimate of total meal expenses reimbursed or to 
be reimbursed;

      (D) a good faith estimate of the total of other expenses 
reimbursed or to be reimbursed;

      (E) a determination that all such expenses are necessary 
transportation, lodging, and related expenses as defined in subparagraph 
(4);

      (F) a description of meetings and events attended; 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, Resident 
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, 
including reimbursement for necessary transportation, whether or not 
such transportation occurs within the periods described in subdivision 
(A);

      (C) does not include expenditures for recreational activities, nor 
does it include entertainment other than that provided to all attendees 
as an integral part of the event, except 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 advance authorizations, 
certifications, and disclosures 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), a Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, 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 institution of higher education within the meaning 
of section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

  (2) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of 
the House may not accept a reimbursement (including payment in kind) for 
transportation, lodging, or related expenses under the exception in 
paragraph (b)(1)(C)(ii) of this clause for a trip that is financed in 
whole or in part by a private entity that retains or employs registered 
lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal unless any involvement of a 
registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal in the planning, 
organization, request, 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.

  (3) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of 
the House may not accept a reimbursement (including payment in kind) for 
transportation, lodging, or related expenses 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, requested, or arranged by a registered 
lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal.

  (d) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 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 before such trip a written 
certification signed (including in electronic form) by the source or (in 
the case of a corporate person) 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

              (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 requirements 
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 involvement of a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
principal in the planning, organization, 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 directly or indirectly for the purpose of financing any 
aspect of the trip;

          (D) that the traveler will not be accompanied on any segment 
of the trip by a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal 
(except in the case of a trip for which the source of reimbursement is 
an institution 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 promulgated the regulations 
mandated in paragraph (i)(1)(B) of this clause, obtain the prior 
approval of the committee for such trip.

  (e) A gift prohibited by paragraph (a)(1) includes the following:

      (1) Anything provided by a registered lobbyist or an agent of a 
foreign principal to an entity that is maintained or controlled by a 
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 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 specification of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House (not including a mass mailing or other 
solicitation 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, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House.

      (4) A financial contribution or expenditure made by a registered 
lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal relating to a conference, 
retreat, or similar event, sponsored by or affiliated with an official 
congressional organization, for or on behalf of Members, Delegates, the 
Resident Commissioner, officers, or employees 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 a Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House is not 
considered a gift under this clause if it is reported as provided in 
subparagraph (2).

  (2) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
who designates or recommends a contribution to a charitable organization 
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 the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.
The Clerk shall make public information received under this subparagraph 
as soon as possible after it is received.

  (g) In this clause--

      (1) the term ``registered lobbyist'' means a lobbyist registered 
under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act or any successor statute;

      (2) the term ``agent of a foreign principal'' means an agent of a 
foreign principal registered 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 interpreted and 
enforced solely by the Committee on Ethics. The Committee on Ethics is 
authorized 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 intervals 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 travel covered by 
this clause, including any required 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 annually by the General Services 
Administration, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense.


  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 
Congress 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 redesignated 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) (effective 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 (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 eliminated (secs. 2(l), 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, pp. 7, 9). 
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. 80). 
Paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (d)(1) were amended in the 117th Congress 
to permit electronic signatures (sec. 2(l)(4), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, 
p. _).


Claims against the Government


Sec. 1101. Former rules on employment practices 
and application of certain laws.

  The earliest  form of the rule on ``employment 
practices'' was designated as rule LI. It grew out of the Fair 
Employment Practices Resolution first adopted in the 100th Congress 
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 28.1) and renewed in the 101st 
Congress (H. Res. 15, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 85). The terms 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 Congress (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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, 
Sec. 28.2). 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 Congress the Gift Rule was redesignated as rule LI (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).





1102. Officers and employees not to be agents of 
claims.

  6.  A person may not be an officer or employee of the House, or 
continue in its employment, 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 
January 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 obsolete reference to the Committee on House 
Administration (P.L. 101-194). Gender-based references were eliminated 
in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before 
the House recodified its rules in 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 
Federal criminal code also address the conduct of Members, officers, and 
employees 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).




Sec. 1102a. Lobbying contact with spouse of Member.

  7.  A 
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall prohibit all staff 
employed by that Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner (including 
staff in personal, committee, and leadership offices) from making any 
lobbying contact (as defined in section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
of 1995) with that individual's spouse if that spouse is a lobbyist 
under the Lobbying Disclosure 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).


[[Page 1034]]

a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or a 
private entity that retains or employs such a registered lobbyist.



Sec. 1102b. Prohibition during political 
convention.

  8.  During the dates on which the national political party to 
which a Member (including 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 Member, other than in the capacity as a candidate for such office, 
if such event is directly paid for by 





 
  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. 7).

                                Rule XXVI


                          financial disclosure



Sec. 1103. Financial report disclosing certain financial 
interests.

  1.  The Clerk shall send a copy of each report filed with the 
Clerk under title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 within the 
seven-day period beginning on the date on which the report is filed to 
the Committee on Ethics.


  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 Resident Commissioner, 
officers, and employees of the House.


  3. Members of the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics shall 
file annual financial disclosure 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 position. 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 with the Clerk within the seven-day period beginning 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 available to the public 
by August 1 of each year.

  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, effective 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), but this last requirement was repealed in the 113th 
Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). 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 conforming changes in certain dates (P.L. 101-194). 
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was found in former 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. 3743). A gender-based reference 
was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 
2009, p. 7). This rule was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect a 
change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). 
Clause 3 was amended in the 114th Congress to replace an archaic 
reference to clause 1 with an August 1 deadline (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35).


[[Page 1036]]

  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.). For a requirement that the Clerk make financial 
disclosure reports available to the public in electronic form, see 
section 8 of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 
(P.L. 112-105, as amended by P.L. 113-7).




 
  Pertinent provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 can be 
found at 5 U.S.C. 13101-11.

                               Rule XXVII


       Disclosure by Members and Staff of Employment Negotiations



Sec. 1103a. Employment negotiation disclosure.

  1.  A Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall not directly negotiate or have 
any agreement of future employment 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 Ethics a statement, which must 
be signed (including in electronic form) by the Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner, regarding such negotiations or agreement, 
including the name of the private entity or entities involved in such 
negotiations or agreement, and the date such negotiations or agreement 
commenced.


  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 
Ethics that such individual is negotiating or has any agreement of 
future employment or compensation.

  3. The disclosure and notification under this rule shall be made 
within 3 business days after the commencement of such negotiation or 
agreement of future employment or compensation.


  4. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, and an officer or 
employee to whom this rule applies, shall recuse themself from any 
matter in which there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of a 
conflict for that Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
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.


[[Page 1037]]


 
  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. 7). This rule was amended in the 
112th Congress to reflect a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. 
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). See also section 17 of the Stop Trading on 
Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-105). In the 117th 
Congress clause 1 was amended to permit electronic signatures and an 
additional gender-based reference was eliminated (secs. 2(d)(6), 
2(l)(5), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).

                               Rule XXVIII


                               (Reserved.)




[[Page 1038]]
 


Sec. 1104. Former rule on public debt limit.

  The  rule 
``Statutory Limit on Public Debt'' was repealed in the 118th Congress 
(sec. 2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). For its text and history, 
see Sec. 1104 of the House Rules and Manual for the 117th Congress (H. 
Doc. 116-177).


                                Rule XXIX


                           general provisions



Sec. 1105. Relations of Jefferson's Manual and provisions 
of law to the Rules of the House.

  1.  The provisions of law that 
constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the previous Congress 
shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable, and 
the rules of parliamentary 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. (Reserved.)


  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 Sec. Sec. 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 to act as 
a catch-all when gender-based references throughout the rules were 
eliminated (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7), and such clause 
was deleted in the 117th Congress when remaining gender-based references 
in the rules were eliminated (sec. 2(d)(7), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. 
_). The importance of Jefferson's Manual as an authority in 
congressional procedure has been discussed (VII, 1029, 1049; VIII, 2501, 
2517, 2518, 3330).




Sec. 1105a. Layover satisfied by electronic 
availability.

  3.  If a measure or matter is publicly available at an 
electronic document repository operated by the Clerk, it shall be 
considered as having been available to Members, Delegates, and the 
Resident Commissioner for purposes of these rules.


  This clause was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(c)(2), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and amended in the 115th Congress to specify the 
electronic document repository maintained by the Clerk instead of a 
location to be designated by the Committee on House Administration (sec. 
2(r), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. 37). Before that amendment, the House 
had provided a transition rule pending the designation by the committee 
under the prior form of this clause (sec. 3(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, 
p. 80; sec. 3(o), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 37).


  In the 117th and 118th Congresses the House directed the Clerk and 
other officers and officials of the House to improve upon the electronic 
document repository operated by the Clerk for use by committees (sec. 
3(k), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _; sec. 3(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, 
p. _).




Sec. 1105b. Authoritative guidance of budgetary 
levels.

  4.  Authoritative guidance from the Committee on the Budget 
concerning the impact of a legislative proposition on the levels of new 
budget authority, outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority 
and revenues may be provided by the chair of the committee.



[[Page 1041]]

  This clause was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(d)(3), H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). This authority elucidates the responsibilities of 
the Committee on the Budget under section 312 of the Congressional 
Budget Act (see Sec. 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. 80). The House in the 115th and 118th Congresses 
provided that certain conveyances of Federal land not be considered as 
providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing 
mandatory spending, or increasing outlays (sec. 3(q), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2017, p. 39; sec. 3(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _). The House in the 
117th and 118th Congresses authorized the chair of the committee to make 
specified adjustments notwithstanding any subsequent adoption of a 
concurrent resolution on the budget (sec. 3(v), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, 
p. _; sec. 3(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 9, 2023, p. _), and in the 118th 
Congress, the House permitted such adjustments to be made by the 
Majority Leader prior to the election of the chair.
========================================================================