Delegates to the U.S. Congress:
History and Current Status
Updated March 21, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R40555

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

Summary
Delegates, representing territories that had not yet achieved statehood, have served in the House
since the late 1700s. In the 20th century, the concept of delegate grew to include representation of
territories where the United States exercises some degree of control but were not expected to
become states.
In the 117th Congress (2021-2022), the U.S. insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the federal municipality of the District of
Columbia are each represented in Congress by a delegate to the House of Representatives. In
addition, Puerto Rico is represented by a resident commissioner, whose position is treated the
same as a delegate.
This report provides historical background on the development of the position of delegate to
Congress and on the rights of a delegate once seated.
The Constitution makes no provision for territorial representation, and early laws providing for
territorial delegates to Congress did not specify the duties, privileges, and obligations of these
representatives. It was left to the House and the delegates themselves to define their role. On
January 13, 1795, the House took an important step toward establishing the functions of delegates
when it appointed James White, the first territorial representative, to membership on a select
committee. In subsequent years, delegates continued to serve on select committees as well as on
conference committees. The first assignment of a delegate to a standing committee occurred
under a House rule in 1871, which gave delegates places as additional members on two standing
committees. In these committees, the delegates exercised the same powers and privileges as they
did in the House; that is, they could debate but not vote.
In the 1970s, delegates gained the right to be elected to standing committees (in the same manner
as Members of the House) and to exercise in those committees the same powers and privileges as
Members of the House, including the right to vote. Today, delegates enjoy powers, rights, and
responsibilities identical, in most respects, to those of House Members from the states. Like these
Members, delegates can speak, introduce bills and resolutions, and offer amendments on the
House floor; they can speak, offer amendments, and vote in House committees. Under the rules of
the 117th Congress (2021-2022), delegates may not vote in House floor sessions or preside over
them. However, they may preside over the Committee of the Whole and vote in those sessions.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

Introduction
The office of territorial delegate predates the Constitution, having been created by the Continental
Congress through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Constitution itself is silent on the issue
of territorial representation, but the statutory authority was continued, and territorial delegates
have been a regular part of congressional operations since. Through most of the 19th century,
territorial delegates represented areas that were ultimately on the way to statehood.
The United States acquired a number overseas territories following the 1898 Spanish-American
War. Congress created the post of resident commissioner to represent those areas that had, by
treaty or law, a different relationship to the federal government. The office of resident
commissioner allowed for representation in the House in only two instances. The Philippine
Islands were represented by two resident commissioners until independence was declared in
1946. Puerto Rico has been represented by a single resident commissioner since 1901.1
Puerto Rico was the only territory represented in Congress from 1959 to the 1970s. At that time,
Congress returned to the concept of delegate to provide representation to other territories and the
District of Columbia.
In the 117th Congress (2021-2022), American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia are each represented in
Congress by a delegate to the House of Representatives.2 The delegates enjoy many, but not all,
of the powers and privileges of House Members from the states.
Evolution of Territorial Delegates
Northwest Ordinance
The office of delegate—sometimes called “nonvoting delegate”—dates to the late 1700s, when
territories bound for statehood were granted congressional representation. The Northwest
Ordinance of 1787, which was enacted under the Articles of Confederation in order to establish a
government for the territory northwest of the Ohio River, provided for a territorial delegate.3
Earlier, the Ordinance of 1784 had made provision for territorial representation in Congress, but it
had never been put into effect.4

1 The first resident commissioner from Puerto Rico, Federico Degetau, was elected in 1900 and served in the position
from March 4, 1901, to March 3, 1905. However, the resident commissioner position was not given floor privileges in
the House until 1902 and, thus, did not represent constituents in the House chamber until that year. See the entry for
Degetau in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/
D000196, and the House resolution that provided floor privileges for the resident commissioner, H.Res. 169 (57th
Congress).
2 In the case of Puerto Rico, the congressional representative is called a resident commissioner. Today, the offices of
resident commissioner and delegate are essentially the same, though the resident commissioner is elected to a four-year
term, while delegates are elected to two-year terms. The term delegates as used in this report includes the Puerto Rican
resident commissioner, unless otherwise noted.
3 “The Northwest Ordinance: An Annotated Text,” in The Northwest Ordinance, 1787, ed. Robert M. Taylor Jr.
(Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1987), pp. 51-53.
4 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 6 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 615. Still
earlier references to territorial representation in Congress can be found in a 1776 letter from Silas Deane to the Select
Committee of Congress and in Thomas Paine’s Public Good (1780). Ohio in the Time of the Confederation, ed. Archer
Butler Hulbert (Marietta, OH: Marietta Historical Commission, 1918), pp. 1, 3, 6, 12.
Congressional Research Service

1

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

Following ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the first Congress reenacted the Northwest
Ordinance.5 The ordinance specified that the government of the Northwest Territory would
initially consist of a governor and other officials appointed by Congress. According to Section 9,
once the free adult male population in the district6 reached 5,000, qualified voters would be able
to elect representatives from their counties or townships to a territorial house of representatives.7
This territorial house, together with an appointed legislative council, would elect a delegate to
Congress. As stated in Section 12 of the Northwest Ordinance:
As soon as a legislature shall be formed in the district, the Council and house assembled in
one room, shall have authority by joint ballot to elect a Delegate to Congress, who shall
have a seat in Congress, with a right of debating, but not of voting, during this temporary
Government.8
The delegate’s duties, privileges, and obligations were otherwise left unspecified.
First Delegate
In 1790, Congress extended all the privileges authorized in the Northwest Ordinance to the
inhabitants of the territory south of the Ohio River and provided that “the government of the said
territory south of the Ohio, shall be similar to that which is now exercised in the territory
northwest of the Ohio.”9 Four years later, the territory south of the Ohio River sent the first
territorial delegate to Congress.10 On November 11, 1794, James White presented his application
to the House of Representatives for seating in the Third Congress.11 A House committee reported
White’s application favorably and submitted a resolution to admit him, touching off a wide-
ranging discussion on the House floor about the delegate’s proper role.12
An immediate question arose as the House considered the issue: Should the delegate serve in the
House or in the Senate? The Northwest Ordinance, which had been enacted by the unicameral
Congress under the Articles of Confederation, had only specified a “seat in Congress.” Some
Members of Congress argued that the proper place for Delegate White was the Senate since his
method of election, by the territorial legislature, was similar to that of Senators. Others suggested
that perhaps White should sit in both chambers. Proposals for seeking Senate concurrence in the
matter of admitting Delegate White and for confining his right of debate to territorial matters
were rejected. On November 18, 1794, the House approved the resolution to admit Delegate
White to a nonvoting seat in that body.13 At least one delegate or resident commissioner has
served in every Congress since, with the single exception of the Fifth Congress (1797-1799).

5 Act of August 7, 1789, ch. 8, 1 Stat 50-53. The act made some modifications to the original ordinance in order to
adapt it from the government operating under the Articles of Confederation to that operating under the Constitution.
6 The ordinance established the territory as one district but allowed for subdivision in the future, as expedient. “The
Northwest Ordinance: An Annotated Text,” p. 31.
7 “The Northwest Ordinance,” pp. 36-51.
8 “The Northwest Ordinance,” p. 51.
9 Act of May 26, 1790, ch. 14, 1 Stat 123.
10 The Northwest Territory did not send a delegate to Congress until 1799, when they sent William Henry Harrison,
who later became the ninth President of the United States.
11 Annals of Congress, vol. 4, 3rd Cong., 2nd sess., November 11, 1794, p. 873.
12 Everett S. Brown, “The Territorial Delegate to Congress,” in The Territorial Delegate to Congress and Other Essays
(Ann Arbor, MI: George Wahr Publishing Company, 1950), pp. 4-5.
13 Annals of Congress, vol. 4, 3rd Cong., 2nd sess., November 18, 1794, pp. 884-889.
Congressional Research Service

2

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

House floor debate surrounding Delegate White’s taking the oath further revealed House
Members’ various perceptions of his status. Some Members believed that White should be
required to take the oath. Representative James Madison disagreed:
The proper definition of Mr. White is to be found in the Laws and Rules of the Constitution.
He is not a member of Congress, therefore, and so cannot be directed to take an oath, unless
he chooses to do it voluntarily.14
Describing Delegate White as “no more than an Envoy to Congress,” Representative William
Smith maintained that it would be “very improper to call on this gentlemen to take such an oath.”
He characterized White as “not a Representative from, but an Officer deputed by the people of the
Western Territory.” In making the case that it “would be wrong to accept his oath,”
Representative Jonathan Dayton emphasized White’s lack of voting power: “He is not a member.
He cannot vote, which is the essential part.” Representative Dayton compared Delegate White’s
influence in the House to that of a printer who “may be said to argue and influence, when he
comes to this House, takes notes, and prints them in the newspapers.”15
Ultimately, the House decided that since White was not a Member, he was not required to take the
oath.16 All delegates after White have taken the oath, however.17
Congress also granted to White the same franking privileges and compensation as Members of
the House,18 establishing several precedents for the treatment of future delegates. In 1802,
Congress passed legislation that extended the franking privilege to, and provided for the
compensation of, “any person admitted, or who may hereafter be admitted to take a seat in
Congress, as a delegate.”19 Like White, all future delegates would sit in the House. This practice
was written into law in 1817. The law stated, in part:
[S]uch delegate shall be elected every second year, for the same term of two years for
which members of the house of representatives of the United States are elected; and in that
house each of the said delegates shall have a seat with a right of debating, but not of
voting.20
Subsequent statutes authorizing delegates also specified service in the House.
The question of what constituted a territory was raised in conjunction with the acquisition and
control of Alaska. While the United States signed the treaty purchasing the land later known as
Alaska in 1867, it was not until 1884 that Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation
creating a form of government for the area.21 Benjamin Harrison, then a Senator from Indiana and
later the 23rd President of the United States, managed the bill on the Senate floor and noted that
Congress was intentionally not establishing a full territorial government for Alaska. Because of

14 Annals of Congress, November 18, 1794, pp. 884-889.
15 Annals of Congress, November 18, 1794, pp. 889-890.
16 Annals of Congress, November 18, 1794, p. 890.
17 The act of June 1, 1789, 1 Stat. 23, requires all taking federal office to swear an oath to support the Constitution.
While the law does not specifically include delegates among those required to take the oath, the law is referenced in the
minutes of the House just before the Speaker administered the oath to the second delegate to appear before the House,
William Henry Harrison, Annals of Congress, December 2, 1799, pp. 187-188.
18 Act of December 3, 1794, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 403-404.
19 Act of February 18, 1802, ch. 5, 2 Stat. 130-131.
20 Act of March 3, 1817, ch. 42, 3 Stat. 363.
21 Act of May 17, 1884, ch. 53, 23 Stat 24.
Congressional Research Service

3

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

the small population in the area, there was not support for establishing a territorial government,
he said. The bill explicitly barred the seating of a delegate.
I want to say to the Senate that we are attempting here some legislation that is sui generis
in some respects in the organization of this great Territory of Alaska. It was not believed
that we should confer upon the few people residing there a full territorial organization. We
have described the Territory as a civil district and have organized it for a government
simple in form.... We have made it simple and inexpensive because we supposed it would
better meet the views of those who feel the necessity for some form of government for
Alaska, but do not believe we should go to the expense of a full Territorial administration.22
From the 49th Congress forward, bills were introduced regularly to grant Alaska a delegate, and in
1906, in the 59th Congress, Congress enacted legislation to do so.23
Congress enacted legislation in 1900 creating a territorial government for the Hawaiian Islands,
which included a provision for a delegate from Hawaii.24 There was no floor debate in either the
House or the Senate on including the delegate provision in the bill.25
Unincorporated Territories
After the U.S. acquisition of overseas territories following the 1898 Spanish-American War, the
Supreme Court put forth a new concept of territorial status. In a series of cases known as the
Insular Cases (1901-1922), the Court distinguished between “incorporated” and “unincorporated”
territories. Incorporated territories were considered integral parts of the United States to which all
relevant provisions of the U.S. Constitution applied. They were understood to be bound for
eventual statehood. The territories acquired during the Spanish-American War were considered
unincorporated, not destined for statehood, and as such, only the “fundamental” parts of the
Constitution applied of their own force. The political status of unincorporated territories, the
Court said, was a matter for Congress to determine by legislation.26
Congress did grant representation to two of the territories acquired from Spain—Puerto Rico and
the Philippines. It did so, however, in a way that distinguished their situation from statehood-
bound territories. Rather than authorizing delegates, Congress provided for one resident
commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico27 and two resident commissioners from the
Philippines28 who were to be entitled to “official recognition as such by all departments.”
According to political scientist Abraham Holtzman:
[N]o reference to Congress or the House of Representatives was made in the authorizing
statutes. Apparently, it was Congress’s intent that the mandate of these representatives be
broader than service in the U.S. legislature.... This suggests a role for resident commissioners

22 Senator Benjamin Harrison, “Government for Alaska,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 15 (January 23,
1884), p. 594.
23 Act of May 7, 1906, 34 Stat. 169.
24 Act of April 3, 1900, 31 Stat. 148.
25 Inclusion of the provision is noted in remarks on the bill, but there was no debate on the question. Rep. William
Knox, “Government for the Territory of Hawaii,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 33 (April 3, 1900), p.
3709.
26 Frederick R. Coudert, “The Evolution of the Doctrine of Territorial Incorporation,” Columbia Law Review, vol. 26
(November 1926), pp. 823-850. For more on the insular cases and Puerto Rico, see CRS Report R42765, Puerto Rico’s
Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions, by R. Sam Garrett.
27 Act of April 12, 1900, ch. 191, 31 Stat. 77, 86.
28 Act of July 1, 1902, ch. 1369, 32 Stat. 691, 694.
Congressional Research Service

4

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

more akin to that of a foreign diplomat than that of a legislator. Nevertheless, the representatives
from these two territories did serve in the House.29
The resident commissioners from Puerto Rico
Effort to Represent the Cherokee
and the Philippines did not initially enjoy the
Nation in the House of Representatives
same privileges as the prior non-voting
In August 2019, the chief of the Cherokee Nation
delegates. In 1902, the House granted the
nominated Kimberly Teehee, the tribe’s vice president
Puerto Rican resident commissioner the right
of government relations, to serve as a delegate to the
to be present on the floor but not the right to
House. In announcing the selection, Chief Chuck
Hoskin Jr. referenced the Treaty of New Echota,
speak.30 Two years later, the Puerto Rican
concluded in 1835 between the Cherokees and the
resident commissioner was given the “same
United States. Article 7 of that treaty provided that the
powers and privileges as to committee service
Cherokee Nation “shall be entitled to a delegate in the
and in the House as are possessed by
House of Representatives of the United States
Delegates” and was deemed “competent to
whenever Congress shall make provision for the same.”
serve on the Committee on Insular Affairs as
According to the Cherokee Nation, since the
announcement, the tribe has worked with Members of
an additional member.”31
Congress “to urge support for its treaty right and to
The first two resident commissioners for the
encourage the House to seat its Delegate Kim
Teehee.” As of March 2022, however, Congress had
Philippines began their service in 1907.32 The
not made provisions for a Cherokee Nation delegate
following year, the House granted them floor
or any other delegate that would represent a Native
privileges and the right to debate for the
American tribe on the floor of the House.
remainder of the 60th Congress.33 In
Sources: “Delegate to Congress,” Cherokee Nation,
subsequent Congresses, these rights were
updated March 22, 2021; “Chief Hoskin Announces the
continued via House resolutions or by
Appointment of a Cherokee Nation Delegate to
Congress,” Anadisgoi, August 22, 2019; “After 184
unanimous consent. However, the resident
Years, Cherokees Seek House Delegate Seat Promised
commissioners from the Philippines were
in Treaty,” Roll Call, October 16, 2019; “Cherokee
never permitted to serve on standing
Nation Seeks to Send First Delegate to Congress,” New
committees.
York Times, August 27, 2019; Treaty with the Cherokees
(New Echota), 7 Stat. 478 (1835).
The posts of resident commissioners differed
from those of delegates in other significant ways. Initially, the Philippines, owing to its
substantially larger population and dispersed land mass, was authorized two resident
commissioners who served for three-year terms. The second resident commissioner position was
abolished as part of the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934,34 which set a timetable leading to the
ultimate independence of the Philippines. The resident commissioner from Puerto Rico was
initially chosen for a two-year term, but Congress in 1917 responded to an initiative of the Puerto
Rican government and extended it to four years beginning with the election of 1920.35
For 11 years following the admission of Hawaii to the Union in 1959, the resident commissioner
from Puerto Rico was the only territorial representative serving in Congress. The District of

29 Abraham Holtzman, “Empire and Representation: The U.S. Congress,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 11 (May
1986), p. 253.
30 See H.Res. 169 (57th Congress) and debate in House, Congressional Record, vol. 35 (June 28, 1902), p. 7608.
31 See H.Res. 197 (58th Congress) and debate in House, Congressional Record, vol. 38 (February 2, 1904), pp. 1523,
1529.
32 The Philippines were initially allowed two resident commissioners to serve at the same time.
33 See H.Res. 190 (60th Congress) and debate in House, Congressional Record, vol. 42 (February 4, 1908), p. 1540.
34 Formally known as the Philippine Independence Act, P.L. 73-127, 48 Stat 456.
35 Act of March 2, 1917, ch. 145, 39 Stat. 951, 963.
Congressional Research Service

5

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

Columbia was authorized by Congress in 1970 to elect a delegate.36 The delegates’ ranks grew
with the authorization of congressional representation for the territories of Guam and the U.S.
Virgin Islands in 1972. Through amendment of House rules, “each Delegate to the House” was
given the same committee assignment rights and committee powers and privileges as Members of
the House. In 1978, the territory of American Samoa gained the right to send a delegate to the
House. According to the authorizing statute:
Until the Rules of the House of Representatives are amended to provide otherwise, the
Delegate from American Samoa ... shall be entitled to whatever privileges and immunities
that are, or hereinafter may be, granted to the nonvoting Delegate from the Territory of
Guam.
Similar language was used again in the 110th Congress to authorize the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands to send a delegate to Congress, beginning with the 111th Congress.37
Delegates’ Rights and Responsibilities
Since the first delegate was sent to Congress, the House has debated the role delegates could play.
Some Members, noting that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 2, requires that the House be
made up of representatives “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,” have
expressed concerns that allowing delegates to have the same rights and responsibilities as
Members would be unconstitutional. Because delegates, by definition, do not represent states,
Members have on several occasions debated what rights such delegates should exercise in the
House.38
One example of this debate is the variation in the role delegates have been allowed to play in
committees. For significant periods, delegates were not appointed to standing committees and
could not vote during committee consideration of measures or matters even on those committees
where they were permitted to serve. Which committees delegates could serve on, and their rights
on those committees, have been debated periodically in Congress over the last 200 years. This
debate also spread to questions about whether delegates could vote while the House was acting as
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, a parliamentary device used by the
House to facilitate debate and amendment of legislation. That question has been contested in the
House since the 103rd Congress.39
Currently, delegates enjoy powers, rights, and responsibilities identical, in many respects, to those
of House Members from the states. Delegates can speak and introduce bills and resolutions on the

36 P.L. 91-405, Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 845, 848. Congress had previously authorized a DC Delegate (Act of February
21, 1871, ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, 426) but soon afterward repealed that provision (Act of June 20, 1874, ch. 337, 18 Stat.
116).
37 P.L. 110-229, 122 Stat 868, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (S. 2739). During World War II, the
United States took control of the Northern Mariana Islands from the Japanese. Following the war, the United States
administered the Northern Mariana Islands at the request of the United Nations. In 1975, the United States and
representatives of the islands reached an agreement, known as the “Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America,” and in 1986 residents of the Northern
Mariana Islands were granted U.S. citizenship. See also U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Northern Mariana Islands Covenant Implementation Act, Report to accompany H.R. 3079, 110th Cong., 2nd
sess., April 10, 2008, S.Rept. 110-324 (Washington: GPO, 2008).
38 For a current summary of the rights of delegates and the resident commissioner, see CRS Report R40170,
Parliamentary Rights of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, by Jane A. Hudiburg.
39 For more on the Committee of the Whole, see CRS Report 95-563, The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An
Introduction, by Christopher M. Davis.
Congressional Research Service

6

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

floor of the House, offer amendments and most motions on the House floor, and speak and vote in
House committees. Delegates are not, however, Members of the House. They cannot vote on the
House floor; consequently, they cannot offer motions to reconsider a vote during floor debate, and
they are not counted for quorum purposes in the House. In the 117th Congress—and previously in
the 103rd (1993-1994), 110th (2007-2008) 111th (2009-2010) and 116th (2019-2020) Congresses—
delegates have been permitted to vote in and preside over the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Assignments and Voting
The House began to define the functions of delegates when, on January 13, 1795, it appointed
White to serve as a member of a select committee to investigate better means of promulgating the
laws of the United States.40 During several subsequent Congresses, the House continued the
practice of allowing delegates to serve on select committees. William Henry Harrison, the first
delegate to represent the Northwest Territory (and later, the ninth President of the United States),
served on a number of select committees—some of which had been created at his initiative—that
addressed issues such as public land laws and the judiciary in the territories.41 In December 1799,
Harrison became the first delegate to chair a select committee.42 An active participant in House
debates, Delegate Harrison likewise served as a House conferee in disputes with the Senate.43
The first regular assignment of a delegate to standing committee occurred under a House rule
adopted in December 1871. The rule directed the Speaker of the House to appoint a delegate as an
additional member of the Committee on the Territories and to appoint the DC delegate as an
additional member of the Committee for the District of Columbia.44 Additional committee
assignments were authorized in 1876, 1880, and 1887.45 Describing the concurrent development
of the delegates’ non-legislative role, historian Earl S. Pomeroy wrote:
The territorial delegate increased in stature appreciably between 1861 and 1890. Without
the formal powers of a congressman, he acquired more of a congressman’s influence and
general functions. He was disseminator of information, lobbyist, agent of territorial
officers, of the territorial legislature, and of his constituency, self-constituted dispenser of
patronage. He interceded at times in almost every process of control over the territories,
and generally no one challenged his right to intercede.46
Along with the right to sit on a standing committee, the House has also debated what rights
delegates could exercise once on the committees. Historians differ on whether delegates were

40 Annals of Congress, vol. 4, 3rd Cong., 2nd sess., January 13, 1795, p. 1082.
41 See, for example, Annals of Congress, vol. 10, 6th Cong., 1st sess., December 1799-April 1800, pp. 193, 197-198,
209-210, 477, 510, 513, 660.
42 Delegate Harrison was appointed chair of a select committee to inquire whether any, and, if any, what alterations are
necessary in the laws authorizing the sale of the lands of the United States Northwest of the Ohio; see U.S. Congress,
House, Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 6th Cong., 1st sess., p. 543.
43 U.S. Congress, House, Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 6th Cong., 1st sess., p. 604.
44 Congressional Globe, vol. 102, 42nd Cong., 2nd sess., December 13, 1871, pp. 117-118. This was during the short
period (1871-1874) during which the District of Columbia was first granted a delegate. P.L. 91-405, September 22,
1970, 84 Stat. 845, 848. Congress had previously authorized a DC delegate (Act of February 21, 1871, ch. 62, 16 Stat.
419, 426) but soon afterward repealed that provision (Act of June 20, 1874, ch. 337, 18 Stat. 116).
45 Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives, 60th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1907), vol. II, §1297, p.
864, (hereafter Hinds’ Precedents). In committee, the delegates had the same powers and privileges as on the floor of
the House (and, thus, could not vote) and could make any motion except to reconsider (which presumes that the mover
had previously voted).
46 Earl S. Pomeroy, The Territories and the United States (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1947), p. 80.
Congressional Research Service

7

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

allowed to vote in committees prior to the early 1970s. One account states that as “additional
members” of standing committees from 1871 through 1971, delegates did not have the right to
vote in committee.47
Some evidence, however, suggests that delegates were allowed to vote in committee in an earlier
period. According to a September 3, 1841, report of the Committee of Elections:
With the single exception of voting, the Delegate enjoys every other privilege and exercises
every other right of a Representative. He can act as a member of a standing or special
committee and vote on the business before said committees, and he may thus exercise an
important influence on those initiatory proceedings by which business is prepared for the
action of the House. He is also required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the
United States.48
Even if the delegates at one point had that right, they clearly did not have it in the 1880s. On
February 23, 1884, a proposition was made in the House that delegates be allowed to vote in
committee. The proposition was referred to the Committee on Rules, but no action was taken.
The right of delegates to vote in committee resurfaced as an issue in the 1930s. After a lengthy
investigation, a House committee reported that neither the Constitution nor any statutes supported
such a committee vote. Although a House rule provided for the appointment of territorial
delegates as additional members on certain committees, the report noted that “the House could
not elect to one of its standing committees a person not a Member of the House.” According to
the report:
The designation “additional member” applied to a Delegate clearly indicates the character
of the assignment. Expressly the Delegate shall exercise in the committee ... the same
powers and privileges as in the House, to wit, the “right of debating, but not the right of
voting.”49
In the 1970s, the system of territorial representation in Congress underwent significant change as
more territories were granted delegates and as delegates were given increased powers.50 In 1970,
Congress enacted the Legislative Reorganization Act, which contained a provision to amend the
House rule on delegates to read:
The Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico shall be elected to serve
on standing committees in the same manner as Members of the House and shall possess in
such committees the same powers and privileges as the other Members.51
The provision was offered in a floor amendment by Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner Jorge
Cordova.
My amendment would abolish this privilege [service on a committee as an “additional
member”]. It would provide for the election of the Resident Commissioner to standing
committees in the same manner as Members of the House are elected. This would mean,
in effect, that the Resident Commissioner may be fortunate to secure election to one of the
three committees on which he now serves. But my amendment would also provide that the

47 Holtzman, “Empires and Representation,” p. 261.
48 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Elections, David Levy, 27th Cong., 1st sess., September 3, 1841, H.Rept. 10, p.
5. This case concerned whether David Levy, from the territory of Florida, was a citizen of the United States. The
committee held that Levy was not a citizen and, as such, could not serve as a delegate.
49 Hinds’ Precedents, vol. 2, §1300, p. 865.
50 Debate in House, Congressional Record, vol. 75 (January 18, 1932), pp. 2163-2164.
51 P.L. 91-510, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1140, 1161.
Congressional Research Service

8

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

Resident Commissioner have the same rights in committee as other members, which
means, of course, that he would have the right to vote within the committee.
Representative Thomas S. Foley, who later served as Speaker of the House, supported the
amendment, saying that the grant of voting rights in committee to delegates was within the power
of the House.
The committees of the House of Representatives are creatures of the House of
Representatives. They can be extinguished at will and created at will. It does not even
require concurrence of the other body when we take such an action. Depriving members of
the right to vote in a committee is fully within the power of the House, by abolishing the
committee. Giving them additional rights to vote is within the power of the House by
creating a new committee.... Nothing that the Resident Commissioner could do in a
committee vote could become a final decision unless a majority of the elected Members of
Congress supported his position. However, in the standing committee itself I think that the
Member from Puerto Rico should have a vote. I think the House has the constitutional
authority to give him a vote in that limited area.
The amendment was opposed by Representative B. F. Sisk, the floor manager of the bill and a
senior member of the House Rules Committee. Sisk asked rhetorically whether the Cordova
amendment “would be interpreted so that he would be entitled to vote in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.” In response, sometime later, Cordova observed that
“The amendment which I have offered refers expressly to the standing committees. I believe the
Committee of the Whole House is not a standing committee.” The Cordova amendment was
agreed to by voice vote.52
In 1971, the House rewrote its rules according the rights in committee set forth in the Legislative
Reorganization Act to the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico as well as to the newly
authorized DC delegate.53 In 1973, the House again changed its rules to provide for the election
of all delegates to the House to standing committees, reflecting the creation of new delegate
positions from American Samoa and Guam in 1972.54
Committee of the Whole Voting Rights
Since at least the 103rd Congress, there has been debate in the House on whether delegates should
vote when the House is acting as the Committee of the Whole. Delegates were first granted this
right during the 103rd Congress, and it has changed several times as majority party control of the
House has changed. Delegates were permitted to vote in the Committee of the Whole in the 103rd
Congress, the 110th Congress, and the 111th Congress. Following a break of several Congresses,
the right was reinstated in the 116th Congress and continues in the 117th Congress.
In the Congresses in which the privilege has been allowed, House rules also provided that, if the
votes of the delegates were decisive—that is, if the result of the vote would have changed but for
the voting of the delegates—then the Committee of the Whole would immediately rise, and the
House itself, where delegates may not vote, would vote on the question. Once the question was
settled, the Committee of the Whole would resume its work.55

52 The full debate on the Cordova amendment can be found in Congressional Record, vol. 116 (September 15, 1970),
pp. 31843-31852.
53 Debate in House, Congressional Record, 92nd Cong. 1st sess., vol. 117 (January 21, 1971), pp. 14, 143-144.
54 “House Rules,” Debate in the House, Congressional Record (January 3, 1973), pp. 17-27.
55 During the periods when the House has permitted delegate voting in Committee of the Whole, the authority has been
included in House Rule III, clause 3(a), and permission for the delegates to preside over the Committee of the Whole
has been located in House Rule XVIII, clause 1.
Congressional Research Service

9

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

Following initial adoption of the rule allowing delegates to vote in Committee of the Whole in
1993, a group of House Members filed a lawsuit challenging the change. They argued that the
rule change violated Article I of the Constitution by granting legislative power to delegates who
were not “Members [of the House of Representatives] chosen every second Year by the People of
the several States.” They took issue with the characterization of the Committee of the Whole as a
committee and maintained, instead, that it was tantamount to the full House. In their complaint,
the plaintiffs stated:
[N]on-member voting in the Committee of the Whole impairs and dilutes the constitutional
rights of the plaintiff-Representatives, both as Members of the House and as voters who
enjoy the right to full, fair and proportionate representation in the House of
Representatives.56
They further alleged that the House did not have the authority to unilaterally expand the powers
of the delegates.
The House defendants57 countered that the House of Representatives was constitutionally
empowered to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”58 They argued that the Committee of the
Whole, like other congressional committees, was an advisory body created by the House and was
not subject to the requirements in Article I. They rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the
Committee of the Whole effectively controlled action in the House, citing both the preliminary
nature of its proceedings and the provision for an automatic revote in cases in which delegate
votes were decisive.59
In March 1993, Judge Harold H. Greene of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
upheld the changes to the House rules. As his opinion made clear, however, he did so only
because of the automatic revote provision. “If the only action of the House of Representatives had
been to grant to the Delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, and American
Samoa, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico the authority to vote in the Committee
of the Whole,” he wrote, “its action would have been plainly unconstitutional.”60 His opinion
further stated:
[W]hile the action the House took on January 5, 1993 undoubtedly gave the Delegates
greater stature and prestige both in Congress and in their home districts, it did not enhance
their right to vote on legislation.... [B]y virtue of Rule XXIII they [the votes of the
Delegates] are meaningless. It follows that the House action had no effect on legislative
power, and that it did not violate Article I or any other provision of the Constitution.61
In January 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the
constitutionality of the House rule changes.62

56 Michel v. Anderson, No. 93-0039 (HHG), Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, at 4 (D.D.C. January 7,
1993).
57 The defendants were the Clerk of the House, the delegates, and the resident commissioner.
58 U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §5.
59 Michel v. Anderson, No. 93-0039 (HHG), House Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and in
Opposition to Preliminary Injunction (D.D.C. February 2, 1993).
60 Michel v. Anderson, 817 F.Supp. 126, 147 (D.D.C. 1993).
61 Michel v. Anderson, 817 F.Supp. 126, 147 (D.D.C. 1993), pp. 147-148.
62 Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 (D.D. Cir. 1994).
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

Table 1. Statutes Providing for Territorial Representation in Congress
Territory
Statute
Year
Northwest of the river Ohio
1 Stat. 50
1789a
South of the river Ohio
1 Stat. 123
1790
Mississippi
1 Stat. 549
1798
Indiana
2 Stat. 58
1800
Orleans
2 Stat. 322
1805
Michigan
2 Stat. 309
1805
Illinois
2 Stat. 514
1809
Missouri
2 Stat. 743
1812
Alabama
3 Stat. 371
1817
Arkansas
3 Stat. 493
1819
Florida
3 Stat. 354
1822
Wisconsin
5 Stat. 10
1838
Iowa
5 Stat. 10
1838
Oregon
9 Stat. 323
1848
Minnesota
9 Stat. 403
1849
New Mexico
9 Stat. 446
1850
Utah
9 Stat. 453
1850
Washington
10 Stat. 172
1853
Nebraska
10 Stat. 277
1854
Kansas
10 Stat. 283
1854
Colorado
12 Stat. 172
1861
Nevada
12 Stat. 209
1861
Dakota
12 Stat. 239
1861
Arizona
12 Stat. 664
1863
Idaho
12 Stat. 808
1863
Montana
13 Stat. 853
1864
Wyoming
15 Stat. 178
1868
District of Columbia
16 Stat. 426
1871
Oklahoma
29 Stat. 81
1890
Puerto Rico
31 Stat. 86
1900
Hawaii
31 Stat. 141
1900
Philippine Islands
32 Stat. 694
1902
Alaska
34 Stat. 169
1906
District of Columbia
84 Stat. 848
1970
Virgin Islands
86 Stat. 118
1972
Guam
86 Stat. 118
1972
Congressional Research Service

11

Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status

American Samoa
92 Stat. 2078
1978
Commonwealth of the Northern
122 Stat. 868
2008
Mariana Islands
Sources: “Non-voting delegates to the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 124 (October 3, 1978), p. 33287; P.L.
110-229.
Note:
a. This measure from the First Congress re-enacted the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, with
the changes made necessary by ratification of the Constitution. The original Northwest Ordinance had been
enacted under the Articles of Confederation.

Author Information

Jane A. Hudiburg

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Acknowledgments
This report builds on earlier reports on territorial delegates prepared by Christopher M. Davis, Andorra
Bruno, former colleagues Paul Rundquist and Betsy Palmer, and the late William H. Tansill. The listed
author is available to answer questions from congressional clients about its content.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R40555 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED
12