[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 4]
[Chapter 110 - Consideration "In the House as in Committee of the Whole"]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
CONSIDERATION ``IN THE HOUSE AS IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE''
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provisions of Jefferson's Manual. Section 4923.
2. Consideration is under five-minute rule. Sections 4924,
4925.
3. The previous question applies. Sections 4926-4930.
4. The motion to refer in order. Sections 4931, 4932.
5. Substitute amendments permitted. Sections 4933, 4934.
6. Withdrawal of amendments. Section 4935.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4923. The procedure known as consideration ``in the House as in
Committee of the Whole.''
Consideration ``in the House as in Committee of the Whole'' is by
unanimous consent only, as the order of business gives no place for a
motion.
The House, while acting ``in the House as in Committee of the
Whole,'' may refer to a committee, use the previous question, deal with
disorder, take the yeas and nays, or adjourn.
Mr. Jefferson, in Section XXX of his Manual, defines the functions of
the House when acting as in Committee of the Whole: \1\
* * * Though it acts in some respects as a committee, in others it
preserves its character as a House. Thus (a) it is in the daily habit
of referring its business to a special committee. (b) It admits of the
previous question. If it did not, it would have no means of preventing
an improper discussion; not being able, as a committee is, to avoid it
by returning into the House.\2\ * * * (c) It would doubtless exercise
its powers as a House on any breach of order. (d) It takes a question
by yea and nay, as the House does. (e) It receives messages from the
President and the other House. (f) In the midst of a debate it receives
a motion to adjourn, and adjourns as a House, not as a committee.
4924. Under the latest ruling, when a bill is considered in the House
as in Committee of the Whole, it is considered under the five-minute
rule, without general debate.--On February 19, 1906,\3\ it was proposed
to consider in the House as in Committee of the Whole the bill (H. R.
12864) to provide for the purchase of certain coal lands in the
Philippine Islands, and to authorize the lease
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The House may, under its ordinary rules, act as in Committee of
the Whole only by unanimous consent, since the rules governing the
order of business and admissions of motions make no provision for a
motion to consider a matter ``in the House as in Committee of the
Whole.''
\2\ For changes in effect of previous question see section 5443 of
Vol. V, of this work.
\3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 2682.
Sec. 4925
of same and of the Batan Military Reservation for the purpose of
securing a local coal supply to the United States Government in the
Philippine Islands, when a question was raised as to general debate.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The Chair will state, for the information of the House, that under
the latest ruling if this motion should prevail then the bill would
come immediately before the House for consideration under the five-
minute rule, without general debate, except as general debate may be
had by unanimous consent.\2\
4925. On February 28, 1905,\3\ the House was proceeding to consider
``in the House as in Committee of the Whole ``the bill (H. R. 18464) to
amend the homestead laws as to certain unappropriated and unreserved
lands in South Dakota.
Mr. Eben W. Martin, of South Dakota, rising to a parliamentary
inquiry, asked if there would be debate other than the debate on
amendments under the five minute rule.
The Speaker \1\ said:
This is a proceeding by unanimous consent to consider the bill in the
House as in Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule. The
Chair is inclined to the opinion that the consideration of the bill
under that order would be under the five-minute rule unless it is
determined otherwise by unanimous consent. * * * It occurs to the
Chair, however, that the first reading of the bill in the House is not
required; that the regular order would be to read the bill for
consideration under the five-minute rule for amendment, paragraph by
paragraph. * * * House bills in the House ordinarily are considered
subject to the previous question as a whole. There is no five-minute
rule in the House of Representatives under the rules of the House. The
Chair knows of no way by which debate can be cut off in the House
except by the operation of the previous question. This bill is to be
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole, and it seems to
the Chair that the better rule would be, and is under such an order,
for the bill to be read under the five-minute rule. Much can be said on
the other side. The Chair has not looked up the precedents himself, but
the Chair is informed that the precedents are conflicting, but that the
weight of practice seems to be to consider such bills under the five-
minute rule, and unless the precedent should be clearly in favor of
general debate, under an agreement of this kind or a special order of
this kind, the Chair would be inclined to think that the better rule
would be that it should be considered under the five-minute rule. Under
the circumstances, the weight of precedents being in favor of that
view, the Chair is very clearly of the opinion that the bin should be
read for amendment under the five-minute rule.
After consideration had proceeded for a time, but before the reading
of the bill for amendments had been completed, Mr. Martin moved the
previous question on the bill and pending amendments to the final
passage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\2\ In one instance general debate was permitted. On December 7, 1900
(second session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 166), the bill (H. R.
3717) ``making oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products subject
to the laws of the State and Territory into which they are transported,
and to change the tax on oleomargarine,'' was under consideration in
the House as in Committee of the Whole.
During the progress of the general debate, Mr. William W. Grout, of
Vermont, moved that general debate be closed at a quarter past 4
o'clock, and that then the bill be read under the five-minute rule, and
the five-minute debate be continued for half an hour longer.
The Speaker (David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker) held that the
motion was in order only in the simple form of fixing a time for
closing general debate.
Mr. Grout then moved that general debate be closed at quarter past 4
o'clock, and the motion was agreed to.
\3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3673.
Sec. 4926
Mr. John F. Lacey, of Iowa, raised a question of order:
Mr. Speaker, under the order of the House, this bill has to be
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, and the
previous question is not in order until the bill has been so
considered. Debate may be closed on a paragraph, but at the conclusion
of the first paragraph and before the bill has been read in full, the
previous question on the whole bill would not be in order.
The Speaker ruled:
The Chair is informed that under prior rulings, under similar orders,
when a bill is in the House as in the Committee of the Whole the
consideration of it proceeds under the five-minute rule, but that the
House does not lose its control by a majority over the bill, and that
it is in the power of the House to order the previous question upon the
bill and amendments pending, if there be any. Otherwise the bill, even
if it had been gone through entirely, would be subject to indefinite
amendment and the House would be powerless to express its will, acting
by a majority.
4926. During consideration of a bill ``in the House as in Committee
of the Whole'' the previous question may be demanded while Members yet
desire to offer amendments.--On February 7, 1877,\1\ Mr. Henry Waldron,
of Michigan, from the Committee on Appropriations, presented the bill
(S. 1222) to supply deficiencies in the appropriation for public
printing and binding for the current fiscal year, and the House
proceeded to consider it in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
During the consideration of the bill under the five-minute rule, Mr.
Waldron moved the previous question.
Mr. Greenbury L. Fort, of Illinois, announced that he wished to
propose an amendment.
Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, made the point of order that when
the House permitted the bill to be considered in the House as in
Committee of the Whole, that carried with it the right to amend and to
debate the amendment, five minutes for and five minutes against.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair overrules the point of order, and holds the gentleman from
Michigan has the right to demand the previous question.\3\
4927. On April 27, 1887,\4\ a bill relating to a subtreasury at
Louisville, Ky., was under consideration in the House as in Committee
of the Whole.
Mr. James B. McCreary, of Kentucky, moved the previous question on
the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
Mr. Frank Hiscock, of New York, made the point of order that, as the
debate under the five-minute rule had not yet taken place, the motion
for the previous question was not in order.
The Speaker pro tempore \5\ held:
The present occupant of the chair, if there had been no previous
ruling on this subject, would be inclined to sustain the point of
order. But the Chair finds in the Digest the ruling of the Speaker of
the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1321.
\2\ Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
\3\ Mr. Speaker Keifer also ruled this way on January 6, 1883.
(Second session Forty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 928.)
\4\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3893; Journal, p.
1412.
\5\ William M. Springer, of Illinois, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 4928
House which the Clerk has just read. It is to the effect that the
consideration of bills in the House as in Committee of the Whole, under
the five-minute rule, does not in any way limit the operation of the
previous question. The previous question may be ordered at any time
after the five-minute debate has begun upon the bill. So the Speaker
has held, and it has been the uniform practice of the House.
4928. On February 9, 1899,\1\ the House was considering, ``in the
House as in Committee of the Whole,'' a joint resolution (H. J. Res.
358) to amend the war-revenue act.
Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, proposed an amendment, and after
debate thereon demanded the previous question on the bill and
amendment.
Mr. William H. Moody, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that
the demand for the previous question was not in order in the House when
sitting as a Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair thinks that the practice has been different. It has been
frequently done.
4929. On February 13, 1905,\3\ Mr. Joseph W. Babcock, of Wisconsin,
asked unanimous consent for the consideration in the House as in
Committee of the Whole of the bill (S. 3343) to authorize the
Anacostia, Surrattsville and Brandywine Electric Railway Company to
extend its street railway in the District of Columbia.
A question arising as to the procedure under such an order, and the
effect on the right to offer amendments, the Speaker,'' responding to a
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Charles L. Bartlett, of Georgia, said:
It would be within the power of the gentleman in charge of the bill
to cut off amendment by calling for the previous question. Of course,
it takes a majority to order the previous question. Whether the
gentleman would do that or not, is a matter between the gentleman from
Wisconsin and the gentleman from Georgia.
4930. During consideration ``in the House as in Committee of the
Whole'' the previous question may not be moved on a single section of a
bill.
A Member may not submit a question of order to the House except by
appeal.
Instance wherein the Chair submitted a question of order to the
decision of the House.
On December 18, 1884,\5\ the House was considering the Interstate
Commerce bill in the House as in Committee of the Whole, when Mr. John
H. Reagan, of Texas, proposed to move the previous question on the
first section of the bill.
Mr. Roswell G. Horr, of Michigan, made the point of order that the
motion was not in order.
After debate, the Speaker \6\ held:
The Chair recognizes not only the difficulty of this question under
the rules of the House and under the order made in this particular
case, but also the importance of its correct decision, as constituting,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 1654; Journal, p.
152.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 2499.
\4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Forty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 127; Record,
pp. 333-344.
\6\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
Sec. 4930
perhaps, a precedent to be followed hereafter; for, of course, whatever
is decided here, so far as it may be based entirely on the rules of the
House, will apply to other bills as well as to this. The order of the
House made last March was that this bill should be considered in the
House as in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. If the
bill were actually being considered in Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, it is conceded on all sides that the House would
still have power, under an express rule, to close debate not only upon
a pending amendment, but upon the whole section or paragraph under
consideration. Therefore the question presents itself at once whether
the House, when considering a bill in the House as in Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, has less power to close debate than if
it were actually in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union. The most the Chair can do is to assimilate the proceedings of
the committee in the House as nearly as possible to the proceedings in
the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
It has always been held when the House is considering a proposition
as in Committee of the Whole it must be read by section or paragraph,
as the case may be; but at the same time it has been held that the
previous question may be ordered on a pending question; that the yeas
and nays may be called, which can not, of course, be done in the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; that a motion to
recommit or reconsider may be made, or a motion to lay on the table,
which are not proper motions to be made in the Committee of the Whole
on the state of the Union. And it has always been the practice of the
House, and in fact had been ruled in the House repeatedly, that debate
could not be closed otherwise than by the previous question.
Now the Chair feels somewhat embarrassed by what transpired a few
days ago in reference to this matter, and he has some difficulty in
determining whether that amounted to an agreement or understanding on
both sides of the House that there should be unlimited debate and
unlimited opportunity for amendment, or whether it simply meant the
House should proceed in regard to this bill in the usual way bills are
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union.
There is another difficulty about entertaining a motion for the
previous question on a section of the bill. * * * It will be observed
that the rules \1\ of the House prescribe exactly what the effect of
the previous question shall be--that is, that it shall bring the House
to a direct vote upon the main or pending question, which presupposes
that there is a question pending. The gentleman from Texas demands the
previous question, not upon any pending motion or question, but upon
the section under consideration.
Suppose the House shall order the previous question upon it; what
vote is to be taken after that is done? It must be apparent that there
is no vote to be taken on the section itself, nor is there anything
upon which the previous question can operate, its only effect being to
cut off debate and amendment; and the Chair, therefore, is of the
opinion that when considering a bill in the House as in the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, a motion for the previous
question can not be entertained unless there be some question actually
pending before the House upon which the vote should be taken after the
previous question is ordered. If there was an amendment pending, that,
of course, would be a question upon which the vote would be taken. So
the Chair thinks that the gentleman's motion is premature, at all
events.
Mr. James H. Blount, of Georgia, asked of the Chair whether a motion
to limit debate on the section might not be made after the analogy of
the similar motion used to limit debate in Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker said:
It has been decided more than once that such a motion could not be
made with reference to a proposition actually pending in the House;
that the only way debate can be closed and the House brought to a
direct vote upon a proposition is to move the previous question.
Now, the Chair has intimated his opinion, but is not inclined to
decide now what effect the previous question would have if it could be
ordered at all on the section. The Chair has simply declined to
entertain a demand for the previous question upon the section of the
bill when there is no question pending in regard to that section at
all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 1 of Rule XVII. See section 5443 of Vol. V of this work.
Sec. 4931
Mr. Horr then offered an amendment to the section, and Mr. Hilary A.
Herbert, of Alabama, moved to close debate on the pending amendment and
the section. Mr. Herbert then requested that this question be submitted
to the House:
Mr. Herbert having moved to close debate on the pending section and
amendment, submitted the following as a question of order: Is it in
order, when a bill is under consideration in the House as in Committee
of the Whole under the five-minute rule, to move to limit debate on a
pending section, and on that motion demand the previous question, such
order to have the same effect as if the bill were in Committee of the
Whole?
The Speaker said:
The gentleman from Alabama does not submit the question to the House,
and the Chair does not recognize the right of a Member on the floor to
submit a question of order to the House except by an appeal. The Chair
submits this question to the House--that is, the question of order now
pending. * * * The gentleman from Alabama moves to close debate on the
pending amendment and the section of the bill under consideration; the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Keifer] makes the point of order that this can
not be done. The Chair now submits the question to the House, whether
it is in order to make a motion to close debate on a pending amendment
and on the section under consideration when the House is considering
the bill as in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.\1\
On a yea-and-nay vote the House decided, yeas 150, nays 88, that the
motion made by Mr. Herbert was in order.
Mr. John D. Long, of Massachusetts, having inquired as to the effect
of this vote on propositions to amend the section further, the Speaker
said:
The Chair has just said that he would entertain further amendments,
but without debate-in other words, he would give this motion precisely
the same effect which it would have if made and carried when the bill
was actually under consideration in Committee of the Whole on the state
of the Union.
4931. A bill being under consideration ``in the House as in Committee
of the Whole'' a motion to commit was decided to be in order, although
the reading by sections had not begun.--On January 19, 1892,\2\ the
House was considering, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill (H. R.
3513) providing for the public printing and binding and the
distribution of documents. This consideration was in pursuance of a
special order, adopted January 13 and providing--
That said bill shall be considered in the House; that it shall be
first read throughout and then by items, and as each item is read it
shall be open for amendment and debate as under the five-minute rule of
the House when in Committee of the Whole for the consideration of
appropriation bills, except that the previous question may be ordered
at any time on any item of said bill, after debate, when the House
shall so determine.
After debate on the bill Mr. John J. O'Neill, of Missouri, moved that
the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Printing.
Mr. James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that
the motion was not in order, on the ground that the House was then
considering the bill as in Committee of the Whole House, pursuant to a
special order of the House that it should be so considered, and that
the bill not having yet been read by sections the order of the House
had not been executed.
The Speaker pro tempore,\3\ in response to the point of order, stated
that the motion to recommit was one mode of consideration, and in the
opinion of the Chair
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The motion to close debate on a paragraph or section of a bill in
Committee of the Whole, since this decision, has been made undebatable
by a rule.
\2\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 31, 32; Record,
pp. 303, 432.
\3\ Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
Sec. 4932
it was for the House to determine how far it will go after the adoption
of a special order before it applies any one of the various methods of
disposition to the measure.
4932. On April 28, 1900,\1\ the House was considering the bill (S.
2799) to carry into effect the stipulations of Article VII of the
treaty between the United States and Spain, etc., reported from the
Committee on War Claims, and under consideration in the House as in
Committee of the Whole.
There having been general debate, and the reading of the bill by
sections for amendment not having begun, Mr. George W. Ray moved that
the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary with certain
instructions.
Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order
against the motion.
The Speaker pro tempore \2\ held that the motion to refer was in
order although the consideration of the bill by sections had not been
entered upon.
4933. A bill being under consideration ``in the House as in Committee
of the Whole'' an amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order
only after the consideration of the bill by sections has been
completed.--On April 23, 1894,\3\ the House resumed the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 6171) to authorize the Metropolitan Railroad Company
to change its motive power for the propulsion of cars, the same being
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
Section 3 of the bill having been read, and Mr. James D. Richardson,
of Tennessee, having proposed a substitute for that section, Mr.
William J. Coombs, of New York, demanded that the question be first put
on agreeing to a substitute for the whole bill which he had heretofore
proposed and had had read at the desk.
The Speaker pro tempore \4\ held that the substitute for the whole
bill would not be in order until the consideration of the bill by
sections had been completed, inasmuch as the bill was being considered
in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
4934 On July 16, 1894,\5\ the House was acting under a special order
providing for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4609) ``to establish
a uniform system of bankruptcy'' in the House as in Committee of the
Whole.
After general debate, the amendments recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary were agreed to in gross, and, by unanimous consent, were
considered subject to amendment in like manner as other parts of the
bill.
Mr. George W. Ray, of New York, and Mr. W. A. Stone, of Pennsylvania,
submitted the question of order: At what period of the consideration
would it be in order to move a substitute for the pending bill?
The Speaker pro tempore \6\ held that the substitute would be in
order after the reading of the bill by sections for amendment should be
concluded, and not before.\7\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4822, 4823.
\2\ Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, Speaker pro tempore.
\3\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 350, 351;
Record, p. 4002.
\4\ Alexander M. Dockery, of Missouri, Speaker pro tempore.
\5\ Second session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 484, 485;
Record, p. 7560.
\6\ James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, Speaker pro tempore.
\7\ This bill was considered under a special order, which limited the
reading of the bill for amendments to two hours.
Sec. 4935
4935. During consideration of a bill ``in the House as in Committee
of the Whole'' an amendment may be withdrawn at any time before action
has been had on it.--On March 3, 1898,\1\ the House, as in Committee of
the Whole, was considering the bill (H. R. 5359) to amend the postal
laws relating to second-class matter, when the question arose as to
whether or not an amendment offered by Mr. James M. Griggs, of Georgia,
might be withdrawn. The special order under which the bill was
considered specified that the bill should be considered in the House
and that it should ``be read through for amendments under the five
minute rule.''
The Speaker \2\ said:
The Chair finds the matter in this rather curious condition: That the
House is considering the bill in the House as in Committee of the
Whole. In the House the amendment can be withdrawn, and in the
Committee of the Whole it can not.
Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of California, here called attention to the fact
that, under the special order, the ``five-minute rule'' was the only
provision of the Committee of the Whole applying.
The Speaker replied:
The Chair is inclined to the opinion * * * the gentleman from Georgia
can be recognized to withdraw his amendment and to substitute for it
what he desires.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 2440.
\2\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.