Order Code RS20147
Updated May 27, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Committee of the Whole: An Introduction
Judy Schneider
Specialist on the Congress
Government and Finance Division
Summary
The Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, more often referred
to as the “Committee of the Whole,” is the House of Representatives operating as a
committee on which every Member of the House serves. The House of Representatives
uses this parliamentary device to take procedural advantage of a somewhat different set
of rules governing proceedings in the Committee than those governing proceedings in
the House. The purpose is to expedite legislative consideration.
This report briefly reviews the history of the Committee of the Whole, describes
the current procedure associated with it, and identifies its procedural advantages. It will
be updated if the rules and procedures change.
History
The Committee of the Whole has been an accepted practice in the United States
Congress since the First Congress convened in 1789. It was used earlier in many of the
colonial legislatures, as well as in the Continental Congress. The custom has its
antecedents in English parliamentary practice. De Alva Stanwood Alexander, an historian
of the House of Representatives and a former Representative himself, wrote:
This Committee has a long history. It originated in the time of the Stuarts, when
taxation arrayed the Crown against the [House of] Commons, and suspicion made the
Speaker a tale-bearer to the King. To avoid the Chair’s espionage the Commons met
in secret, elected a chairman in whom it had confidence, and without fear of the King
freely exchanged its views respecting supplies. The informality of its procedure
survived the occasion for secrecy, but to this day the House of Commons keeps up the
fiction of concealment, the Speaker withdrawing from the hall when the Committee
convenes, and the chairman occupying the clerk’s desk.1
1 Alexander, De Alva Stanwood. History and Procedure of the House of Representatives.
Boston and New York. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1916, p. 257.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
Use of the Committee of the Whole in the current practice of the House of
Representatives has changed considerably from the form first used in 1789. Until the
early 1800s, the House used committees of the whole to work out the broad outlines of
major legislation. A select committee would then be appointed to draft a bill. When the
select committee reported the bill to the House, the House would then refer the measure
to a Committee of the Whole for debate and amendment before itself considering the
question of passage.2
Historian Ralph Volney Harlow commended on the committee of the whole as a
forum in which the broad outline of legislation could be discussed:
The committee of the whole is really a compromise between a regular session, and an
adjournment for purposes of discussion. The latter method could not be used to
advantage in any large assembly, because some restraining influence would be
necessary. But the primitive form of the committee of the whole was probably a short
adjournment, during which members could move about from one to another, and
freely discuss the merits of the matter under consideration.3
Gradually, the standing committee system grew up in the House of Representatives,
replacing the temporary select committees of the earlier era. Standing committees
assumed the overview and drafting functions previously divided between a committee of
the whole and a select committee.
As a result, the purpose for convening in Committee of the Whole began to change.
The concept found in current practice is that of the principal forum for discussion and
amendment of legislation. Contemporary Committee of the Whole procedures are not
without some restriction, but they are more flexible than those employed in the formal
sessions of the House of Representatives.
For a comparison of characteristics of the House and the Committee of the Whole
in contemporary practice, please see Table 1 at the end of this report.
Resolving Into Committee
When the House of Representatives resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole,
two simple rituals mark the transformation. First, the mace — a column of ebony rods
which sits on a green marble pedestal to the right of the Speaker on the podium — is
moved to a white marble pedestal positioned lower on the podium. The mace represents
the authority of the sergeant of arms to maintain order in the House. When it is removed
from the higher position on the podium, it signals the House is no longer meeting as the
House of Representatives in regular session, but in the Committee of the Whole.
Second, the Speaker descends the podium, and designates a majority party colleague
to take his place and assume the duties of the presiding officer during the deliberations
2 Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Origins and Development of Congress. Washington, D.C., 1976.
p. 83.
3 Harlow, Ralph Volney. The History of Legislative Methods in the Period Before 1825. New
Haven, Yale University Press, 1917. p. 92.

---

CRS-3
of the Committee of the Whole. The Member designated by the Speaker thus becomes
the chairman of the Committee of the Whole and is responsible for recognizing Members,
maintaining order, and ruling on points of order. During meetings of the Committee of
the Whole, Members address the chair not as “Mr. Speaker” but as “Mr. Chairman” or
“Madam Chairman.”
Under the Standing Rules of the House, a measure that raises revenue, directly or
indirectly appropriates money, or authorizes the expenditure of money must be considered
in the Committee of the Whole. Other types of measures may be considered in the
Committee of the Whole, if the House so decides, or if a rule-making statute so requires.
In either case, the House of Representatives must first agree to resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole. It does so in three ways: by unanimous consent, by adopting
a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, or by adopting a “special rule” that
authorizes the Speaker to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole for
the purpose of considering a specified measure.
In addition to making the consideration of a specific measure in order in the
Committee of the Whole, each of these three approaches will most likely limit general
debate time and assign its control. They may also specify the number and types of
amendments which may be offered, may designate debate time on amendments, and may
waive points of order against House rules, if a provision in the measure could otherwise
be held in violation of them.
Procedural Advantages
Once the House resolves itself into the Committee, the measure before the
Committee is debated and amended. In general, the Committee of the Whole observes
the rules of procedure of the House of Representatives insofar as they are applicable.
There are several important differences between proceedings in the House of
Representatives and proceedings in the Committee of the Whole that make legislative
deliberation in the Committee an attractive alternative.
Quorums. In the House, a majority of the membership is required to constitute a
quorum to conduct business. If all 435 seats are filled, a majority is 218 members. In the
Committee of the Whole, however, only 100 members are required to constitute a
quorum. The chairman may vacate further proceedings under a quorum call as soon as
100 members have answered the call, and the minimum 15-minute period allowed for a
quorum call need not be used in its entirety, as is the case in the House.
In addition, the chairman of the Committee is generally allowed the discretion of
whether or not to permit a quorum call during general debate. Furthermore, if the
presence of a quorum has been established once during any day’s deliberations in the
Committee, the chairman need not entertain a quorum call unless a pending question has
been put to a vote during the amendment process.
Debate on Amendments. The basic rule governing debate in the House is the
“one-hour” rule. In theory, this means any Member receives one hour to debate when
recognized on any question. By custom, this hour is divided between the majority and

---

CRS-4
minority, with each side receiving 30 minutes. Members often yield time to one another,
but normally only for the purpose of debate, and not for the offering of amendments or
procedural motions. It is unusual for the House to proceed to a second hour of debate
under the “one-hour” rule.
In the Committee of the Whole, however, the basic rule governing debate of
amendments is the “five-minute” rule. Supporters of amendments offered in Committee
receive five minutes of debate time and opponents of the proposition receive five minutes.
Thus, more Members are likely to participate in debate under the “five-minute” rule in
Committee than is possible under the “one-hour” rule in the House.
To gain five minutes of debate time on a pending amendment, a Member offers a
nonsubstantive amendment, also called a “pro forma amendment,” to “strike the last
word” or “strike the requisite number of words.” Thus, a Member overcomes the rule
applicable in the Committee of allowing only five minutes for a Member to speak in
support of an amendment and five minutes for a Member to speak in opposition to an
amendment. A Member may also seek unanimous consent to continue for a short,
specified period of time.
Ending Debate. In the House, debate can be ended by moving the previous
question. However, the previous question not only ends debate, it also brings the matter
before the House to an immediate vote. This precludes the possibility of any further
amendments or discussion. Neither debate nor amendments to the motion for the
previous question are in order.
The previous question is not in order in the Committee of the Whole. However,
additional and more flexible choices exist. A motion either to close debate or to limit the
time for further debate (e.g., to 20 minutes, to 4:00 p.m., etc.) may be offered in the
Committee. Either motion is debatable and can be further refined through amendment.
In practice, the floor manager of a bill will more often ask unanimous consent that debate
be either closed or limited and offer a motion only if unanimous consent cannot be
obtained.
In addition, even if a motion to close debate is agreed to in the Committee, Members
may still offer amendments they have filed at the desk. These will be considered, but
without debate. However, if Members had their amendments printed in the
Congressional Record in advance of floor proceedings, they are guaranteed 10 minutes
of debate on those amendments. In practice, this protection can be overturned by a
“special rule” adopted by the House prior to the commencement of proceedings in the
Committee if the special rule provides other amendment procedures.
Recorded Votes. A smaller number of Members are required to support a call for
a recorded vote in the Committee than are required in the House. In the House, one-fifth
of those present and supporting a recorded vote constitutes a sufficient number to trigger
a recorded vote. If the minimum 218 Members necessary to constitute a quorum in the
House are present, the number needed to call for a recorded vote would be 44. In
Committee, 25 Members are needed under any circumstances to support the call for a
recorded vote.

---

CRS-5
Rising of the Committee
The Committee of the Whole dissolves itself by “rising.” If the Committee has not
completed consideration of the measure before it, the floor manager may offer a simple
motion to rise. At a later time, the House may choose to resolve itself again into the
Committee of the Whole to resume consideration of the same measure. If the Committee
has completed its deliberations, Members may agree to a motion to rise and report to the
House of Representatives the actions and recommendations of the Committee. Once the
decision to rise has been made, the chairman of the Committee descends the podium and
the Speaker ascends to take his place as presiding officer of the House of Representatives.
The mace is returned to its original location.
The chairman then reports to the House those amendments that were adopted in the
Committee and the Committee’s recommendation on the question of final passage of the
measure. (Neither second-degree amendments nor substitutes that were adopted nor any
first or second-degree amendments that were defeated in the Committee are reported to
the House.) The House must then formally agree to any amendments reported by the
Committee. Therefore, it is possible that amendments that were adopted by the
Committee of the Whole could be defeated by the House of Representatives.
The House may agree to all the amendments reported to it by the Committee of the
Whole through one vote (“en gros”), or separate votes may be demanded on any
amendments agreed to in the Committee. The votes on amendments could also be
structured pursuant to the provisions of a “special rule” adopted earlier. Votes are put on
such amendments in the order in which they appear in the bill, not in the order by which
the request was made. The House then considers, with the possibility of several
intervening motions, the question of final passage of the measure.

---

CRS-6
Table 1. Comparison of Characteristics of the House and
the Committee of the Whole
House
Committee of the Whole
Mace raised
Mace lowered
Speaker presides
Chairman presides
One hour rule
Five minute rule for amendments
More than half the House (218) is a
100 is a quorum
quorum
44 Members (or 1/5th of those present) a
25 Members a “sufficient number” to
“sufficient number” to trigger a recorded
trigger a recorded vote
vote
Motion for previous question is in order;
Motion to limit or end debate is in order,
terminates debate and precludes offering
but does not preclude offering of further
further amendments.
amendments.
Motion to recommit in order
Not in order
Motion to reconsider in order
Not in order
Routine business of House
Not in order

---