House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor
May 13, 2021
Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022) Jane A. Hudiburg
In January 2021, the House agreed to H.Res. 8, a resolution adopting the rules of the House of
Analyst on Congress and
Representatives for the 117th Congress (2021-2022). H.Res. 8 provided amendments to the
the Legislative Process
standing rules and separate orders affecting floor proceedings, including the consideration of

legislation and access to the House chamber. The House subsequently adopted two additional
resolutions, H.Res. 38 and H.Res. 73, which authorized the fining of Members for contravening

certain chamber policies under specified circumstances.
Among its provisions, H.Res. 8 removed a specific form of the motion to recommit, specifically, those offered with
instructions. The motion to recommit with instructions previously enabled the minority party to propose, debate, and obtain a
vote on alternative policy options before the initial House passage of bills and resolutions considered under the terms of
special rules reported by the House Rules Committee.
The rules package for the 117th Congress continued, with slight alterations, the practice in the 116th Congress of voting by
proxy during pandemic “covered” periods. It also refined the 72-hour public availability period established in the 116th
Congress (2019-2020) to clarify that review periods for specified types of legislation begin at the time the text is posted
electronically. The new rules stipulate that title amendments are in order only if offered by the majority leader or a designee.
The rules package facilitated the process for Members to withdraw as cosponsors to House measures while requiring the
Clerk to establish a process for House Members to demonstrate their support for Senate bills. New rules extended floor
privileges to the mayor of the District of Columbia and removed floor privileges for former Members, House officers, and
certain House employees if such individuals have been convicted of crimes in relation to their election or service to the
House. Finally, H.Res. 8 removed the qualified privilege previously afforded to measures addressing the District of Columbia
as well as the prohibition on the consideration of certain legislative measures unless the House has previously made available
searchable electronic comparative prints.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Consideration of Legislation ............................................................................................. 1
Motion to Recommit .................................................................................................. 1
Remote Voting by Proxy or Secure Technology .............................................................. 2
Remote Voting by Proxy........................................................................................ 3
Remote Voting by Secure Technology...................................................................... 3
Title Amendments...................................................................................................... 4
District of Columbia Business ..................................................................................... 4
Availability and Printing Requirements ......................................................................... 5
Clarification of 72-Hour Availability ....................................................................... 5
Printing Requirements........................................................................................... 6
Electronic Comparative Prints ................................................................................ 6
Demonstrating Support for House and Senate Measures .................................................. 7
Withdrawing Cosponsorship of House Measures ....................................................... 7
House Member Support for Senate Measures............................................................ 7
Hall of the House ............................................................................................................ 8
Floor Privileges Granted, Mayor of the District of Columbia ............................................ 8
Floor Privileges Removed, Certain Convicted Individuals................................................ 8
Fines Imposed for Rules Violations in Chamber ............................................................. 8
Fines for Failure to Wear a Mask in the House .......................................................... 8
Fines for Failure to Complete Security Screenings..................................................... 9

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 10

Congressional Research Service

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

Introduction
On January 4, 2021, the House agreed to H.Res. 8, the rules package for the 117th Congress
(2021-2022). H.Res. 8 provided amendments to the standing rules and also contained standing
orders that affect floor proceedings in the House.1 Subsequently, the House agreed to H.Res. 38
and H.Res. 73, which authorized the fining of Members2 for contravening certain House chamber
policies under specified circumstances.
This report identifies and explains selected changes to House rules in the 117th Congress (2021-
2022) that affect floor proceedings, including the consideration of legislation and access to the
House chamber.3 It identifies procedures that have been altered or removed or are no longer
mandated, as wel as additions and clarifications to House rules as compared to standing rules in
force during the 116th Congress (2019-2020).4
Consideration of Legislation
Motion to Recommit
The House rules package modified the motion to recommit (clause 2 of House Rule XIX) by
eliminating the option of making a motion to recommit “with instructions.” It also removed the
period of deliberation before a vote on the motion to recommit without instructions (that is, a
“straight” motion to recommit). In the 117th Congress, Members cannot use this motion to
propose an alternative policy proposal (which was contained in the previously al owed
instructions) or debate a straight motion to recommit. Instead, the sole parliamentary effect of a

1 T he House agrees to its standing rules as one of the first orders of business at the start of each new Congress.
Generally, as in H.Res. 8, the House agrees to many of the same rules as the previous Congress, with amendments to
those rules and separate orders packaged as a simple House resolution and presented to the House. Separate orders are
provisions that affect House procedures but are not codified in the standing rules of the House. T hey remain in effect
for the duration of the Congress unless a subsequent resolution provides for their adjustment.
2 In this report, the term Member includes the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner.
3 T his report does not consider changes related to the budget process, committee procedure (unless it affects floor
procedure), separate orders that are the same as those agreed to in the 116th Congress (e.g., the separate order in H.Res.
8 that clarifies procedure regarding the War Powers Resolution, because it is identical to a separate order contained in
H.Res. 6, 116th Congress), or the administration of Congress (i.e., modifications to the Code of Official Conduct,
employee training and protections, and congressional member organizations). For information about changes to budget
and appropriations procedure, see CRS Report R46659, Changes to House Rules Affecting the Congressional Budget
Process Included in H.Res. 8 (117th Congress), by Megan S. Lynch and James V. Saturno. For changes to House rules
concerning floor procedure in the 116th Congress, see CRS Report R45787, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor
Proceedings in the 116th Congress (2019-2020), by Jane A. Hudiburg.
4 See H.Res. 8; U.S. Congress, House, Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress,
prepared by Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House of Representatives, 117 th Cong., 1st sess., 2021; U.S. Congress,
House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual and the Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States One
Hundred Sixteenth Congress (hereinafter House Manual, 116th Congress), 115th Cong., 2nd sess., 2019 (Washingt on:
GPO, 2019); U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, H.Res. 8, Adopting the Rules for the 116th Congress, Section-
by-Section Analysis, 117th Cong., 1st sess., 2021; Charles W. Johnson, John V. Sullivan, and T homas J. Wickham Jr.,
House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House (Washington: GPO, 2017) (hereinafter
House Practice). For information on changes to floor procedure in the 116 th Congress, see CRS Report R45787, House
Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 116th Congress (2019 -2020), by Jane A. Hudiburg.
Congressional Research Service

1

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

successful motion to recommit would be to send a measure back to committee and thus delay
further action on the measure.5
Commonly offered by the minority leader or a designee, the motion to recommit is in order
immediately before the vote on final passage on a bil or joint resolution. If successful, straight
motions to recommit send a measure back to committee indefinitely. In contrast, the motion to
recommit with instructions, prior to this rules change, enabled a mechanism by which the House
could vote to immediately amend the measure on the House floor, provided that the amendment,
as stated in the “instructions,” was otherwise in order under House rules (such as those on
germaneness).6
In the 117th Congress, House rules continue to prohibit the Rules Committee from reporting a
special rule that would prevent the straight motion to recommit from being offered during initial
House consideration of a measure.7 However, as amended, clause 2(a) of Rule XIX no longer
al ows debate on the motion. Instead, the previous question, which closes the debate period,
“shal be considered as ordered on any motion to recommit.”8
In earlier Congresses, the minority party frequently offered motions to recommit with or without
instructions on measures raised and considered under the terms of special rules. The motions
were debatable for 10 minutes and were often subject to roll cal votes that recorded Members’
support for or opposition to the proposed alternative. In the 117th Congress, straight motions to
recommit do not provide for a minority policy alternative to be offered as instructions, and the
motions are not debatable.9
Remote Voting by Proxy or Secure Technology
By separate order, H.Res. 8 continued, with slight modifications, remote voting and proxy rules
set forth in H.Res. 965 (116th Congress) as agreed to in the previous Congress. H.Res. 965
enabled Members, during pandemic-related “covered periods,” to designate another Member to
cast a “proxy” vote on their behalf in the House chamber in accordance with the terms in the

5 When used in regard to measures that have not previously been referred to a Ho use committee, the motion is
technically a motion to commit. For purposes of clause 2 of Rule XIX, a motion to commit is treated in the same
manner as a motion to recommit. See CRS Report R44330, The Motion to Recom m it in the House of Representatives,
by Megan S. Lynch.
6 If the House adopted the motion, the measure would remain on the floor, and the committee chair or designee would
immediately rise and report the bill back to the House with the amendment contained in the instructions. Afterward, the
House would vote on the amendment and then on the bill itself, as it may have been amended. For a more detailed
explanation of the history of the motion to recommit (with or without instructions), see CRS Report R44330, The
Motion to Recom m it in the House of Representatives, by Megan S. Lynch; and CRS Report RL34757, The Motion to
Recom m it in the House of Representatives: Effects and Recent Trends, by Megan S. Lynch.
7 Rule XIII, clause 6(c).
8 T he previous question motion proposes to end debate and amendment and bring about an immediate vote on the
underlying measure or question at hand. If the previous question is considered as ordered, there is no period of debate
before the vote on the measure. See CRS Report R43424, Considering Legislation on the House Floor: Com m on
Practices in Brief, by Elizabeth Rybicki.
9 T he minority party can continue to use the period of general debate, which occurs before the consideration of
amendments (if any are in order), to propose alternative policy options. If the minority party subsequently offers a
motion to recommit, the vote in favor of the motion may be framed as a vote for the policy alternative. See Olivia
Beavers, “Scoop! Motion Commotion!,” Politico, February 25, 2021, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/huddle/
2021/02/25/tk-491900.
Congressional Research Service

2

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

resolution and regulations issued by the Rules Committee. H.Res. 8 extended those procedures to
the 117th Congress.10
The separate order also required the chair (in consultation with the ranking member) of the
Committee on House Administration to identify and submit operable and secure technology that
may be used to conduct remote voting in the House. Following the certification of this
technology, the chair of the Rules Committee (in consultation with the ranking member) is
directed, pursuant to the extended provisions of H.Res. 965, to submit regulations to enable
Members to vote off-site without requiring the presence of Members serving as proxies in the
chamber.11
Remote Voting by Proxy
H.Res. 8 re-established the procedure, initial y set forth in H.Res. 965, for designating or
revoking a proxy. During a “covered period,” Members may designate a proxy, and may alter or
revoke a designation, by submitting signed letters to the Clerk. If a Member who had previously
designated a proxy casts a vote in the chamber, the proxy designation is automatical y revoked,
even without the submittal of a revocation letter.
H.Res. 8 continued, with one modification, the notification and availability requirements
concerning proxy designations. In the 116th Congress, the Clerk was to maintain a public list of
designations, alterations, and revocations and notify House leadership and the Members involved
when letters had been submitted, including letters of revocation received after the automatic
revocation of a proxy. In the 117th Congress, the Clerk is to follow the same notification practice
except for letters of revocation received after a designation is automatical y revoked. The Clerk
does not have to notify House leadership or the Members involved, or make a revocation publicly
available, if a revocation letter is received after the Member votes or is recorded as present in the
chamber.
Remote Voting by Secure Technology
The 117th Congress separate order requires the chair of the Committee on House Administration
chair, in consultation with the ranking member, to identify “specific operable and secure
technology” that may be used for remote voting in the House. Furthermore, the chair shal submit
the technology to the Speaker and to the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Rules
and “provide certification of such submission to the House.”
In the 116th Congress, H.Res. 965 required the chair of the Committee on House Administration
to determine that operable and secure technology exists. Subsequently, the staff of the committee

10 H.Res. 965 states, in part: “[A]t any time after the Speaker or the Speaker’s designee is notified by the Sergeant -at-
Arms, in consultation with the Attending Physician, that a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is in
effect, the Speaker or the Speaker’s designee, in consultation with the Minor ity Leader or the Minority Leader’s
designee, may designate a period (hereafter in this resolution referred to as a “covered period”) during which a Member
who is designated by another Member as a proxy in accordance with section 2 [of H.Res. 965] may cast the vote of
such other Member or record the presence of such other Member in the House. ” T he House Committee on Rules posts
the regulations associated with H.Res. 965 in Key Docum ents: Congressional Em ergency Rem ote Proceedings at
https://rules.house.gov/press-releases/key-documents-congressional-emergency-remote-proceedings.
11 For more information about remote voting by proxy and by secure technology, see the House report that
accompanied H.Res. 965 (116th Congress): U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Authorizing Rem ote Voting by
Proxy in the House of Representatives, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., May 14, 2020, H.Rept. 116-420 (Washington: GPO,
2020).
Congressional Research Service

3

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

provided a report concluding that technology did exist to provide secure remote voting.12 Given
that determination, the 117th Congress separate order requires the chair of House Administration
to identify and deliver a specific technology.
Otherwise, the provisions of Section 5 in H.Res. 965 apply in the 117th Congress. That is,
following the certification of technology, the chair of the Committee on Rules, upon consultation
with the ranking member, is to submit regulations for the implementation of remote voting in the
House. This submission would enable such voting to occur once the Speaker notifies the House
that the regulations have been submitted.
Title Amendments
As amended by H.Res. 6, clause 6 of Rule XVI makes title amendments in order “only if offered
by the Majority Leader or a designee.” Unless so designated, Members, in the 117th Congress,
wil not be recognized to propose changes to a bil title or resolution title.
House rules limit Members’ ability to change the title of a measure once it has been introduced.
Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XVI, an amendment to a measure’s title is not in order until after the
bil or resolution is passed or agreed to, and agreement to such an amendment is to be decided
without debate. Rules of the 117th Congress further restrict the offering of these amendments.
District of Columbia Business
H.Res. 8 removed what was previously clause 4 of Rule XV, “District of Columbia business.”
The House designates certain days of the week or the month to consider specific types of motions
or measures, such as motions to suspend the rules, legislation assigned to the Private or Discharge
Calendars, and, prior to the 117th Congress, legislation related to the District of Columbia’s
municipal affairs.
The Constitution provides Congress with the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in al
Cases whatsoever” over the District, which serves as the seat of the government of the United
States.13 Beginning in 1870, the House established specific days on which to consider District of
Columbia business.14 In previous Congresses, clause 4 of Rule XV designated the second and
fourth Mondays of the month to consider District-related legislation cal ed up by the Committee
on Oversight and Reform.15
However, the House was no longer using this provision to consider the District’s municipal
affairs legislation. Instead, for the past several Congresses, such legislation has usual y been

12 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Staff Report on Feasibility of Remote Voting in the United
States House of Representatives Pursuant to House Resolution 965, Sec. 5, 17, 116 th Cong., 2nd sess. (2020); U.S.
Congress, Committee on House Administration, T he Report on the Activities of the Committee on House
Administration during the 116th Congress, 116th Cong., 2nd sess. (2020), H.Rept. 116-707 (Washington: GPO, 2020),
pp. 82-83.
13 According to Supreme Court rulings, the constitutional power was intended to exclude other states from assuming
control over District matters. Congress may delegate its constitutional authority to the District of Columbia’s municipal
government and has increasingly done so since the enactment of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in 1973 (P.L.
93-198); U.S. Const. art. I, §8; District of Colum bia v. John R. Thom pson Com pany, 346 U.S. 100 (1946);
Stoutengurgh v. Hennick, 129 U.S. 141 (1889); House Practice, ch. 20, §1.
14 House Manual, 116th Congress, §894.
15 District of Columbia Days were reserved for District -related legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Oversight and Reform (i.e., not District appropriations legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations); House Practice, ch. 20, §2.
Congressional Research Service

4

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

raised and considered under suspension of the rules procedure or under the terms of a special rule
reported by the Rules Committee and agreed to by the House.
Availability and Printing Requirements
Clarification of 72-Hour Availability
House rules require a period of public availability before measures may be considered on the
floor. In the 117th Congress, the rules, as amended, make explicit that the 72-hour availability
period for specific forms of legislation begins at the time the text is posted electronical y. The
new rules clarify that clause 3 of Rule XXIX, concerning the use of Clerk-operated electronic
document repositories, applies to the availability requirement for unreported bil s and resolutions
and Senate amendments reported in disagreement by a conference committee.
H.Res. 8 amended clause 11 of Rule XXI to specify that the 72-hour availability period (required
before the consideration of an unreported bil or joint resolution) begins at the time the text of the
measure is made publicly available rather than at the time the measure is made available. This
change makes explicit that the period begins at the time the House posts in electronic form, or
otherwise makes publicly available, the text to be considered.
H.Res. 8 amended clause 8(b) of Rule XXII to clarify the 72-hour availability period for a Senate
amendment reported in disagreement by a conference committee. Under the change, the period
now begins at the time the amendment is posted on a publicly available website operated by the
Clerk or when it is printed in the Congressional Record.16 Prior to the 117th Congress, this clause
did not state that an electronic posting may also begin the availability period.
In the 116th Congress, the rules package amended Rules XIII, XXI, and XXII to establish, for
certain legislative text and committee reports, a 72-hour review period. The previous review
period spanned until the “third calendar day” on which the measures’ text or committee reports
had been available.17 Clause 3 of Rule XXIX, first established in 112th Congress (2011-2012) and
modified in the 115th Congress (2017-2018), enabled the posting of legislative text and committee
reports on electronic document repositories maintained by the House Clerk’s Office to satisfy
such availability requirements.18

16 T he House and Senate must agree to the same bill text before the bill (or joint resolution) can be presented to the
President. When one chamber passes a bill, the other chamber may amend and pass the bill with differences in text. If
the first chamber does not agree to the amended text, a conference committee may form to resolve the differences
between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Occasionally, the conference committee is unable to come to an
agreement on all of the amendments to the bill. In such cases, the committee reports a partial conference report, as well
as any amendments that remain unresolved. If the amendments were originated by the Senate, the House first approves
the partial conference report, then takes up the Senate amendments reported in disagreement . See CRS Report 96-708,
Conference Com m ittee and Related Procedures: An In troduction, by Elizabeth Rybicki.
17 Prior to the 116th Congress (2019-2020), measures or reported matter could not be considered until the “third
calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on
which the legislative text had been made available.” U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual and the
Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, 114th Cong., 2nd sess.,
2017 (Washingt on: GPO, 2017), §850.
18 House Manual, 116th Congress, §1105a.
Congressional Research Service

5

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

H.Res. 8 clarified that these earlier-established provisions in House rules apply to unreported bil s
and resolutions and to Senate amendments reported in disagreement by a conference committee.
However, as with other standing rules, the House can agree to waive this 72-hour requirement.19
Printing Requirements
H.Res. 8 modified the prohibition against the consideration of primary or supplemental expense
authorization resolutions before a prescribed availability period. Prior to the 117th Congress, these
resolutions, which authorize payments for committees, commissions, and other congressional
entities, were not to be considered unless a “printed report thereon was available the previous
calendar day.” H.Res. 8 struck the word printed from each place it appears in clause 6 of Rule X.
In the 117th Congress, the consideration of committee expense authorization resolutions continues
to require an accompanying report to be publicly available the previous calendar day, but the
report does not need to be physical y printed. Instead, the previous day availability requirement is
met if the report is made available in either electronic or printed form.
Electronic Comparative Prints
H.Res. 8 amended Rule XXI to remove what was previously clause 12, which required the
posting of a searchable electronic comparative print on a House website before certain legislation
could be considered on the floor. This clause required, prior to floor consideration, the posting of
comparative prints of any bil s, joint resolutions, or amendments in the nature of a substitute that
proposed to repeal or amend a statute or part of a statute or any changes to reported text. In both
instances, the electronic comparative prints were to show, via appropriate typographical devices,
the proposed changes in text in comparison to either (a) current law or (b) the text as reported.
The House first adopted clause 12 of Rule XXI at the start of the 115th Congress (2017-2018). It
is similar to clause 3(e) of Rule XIII, known as the Ramseyer rule, which requires the inclusion of
comparative prints in committee reports of legislation proposing to amend current law.20 The
Ramseyer rule remains in effect as a requirement for committee reports.
Clause 12 of Rule XXI encompassed more measures than those affected under the Ramseyer rule,
as it included amendments proposing to change reported text, as wel as bil s and joint resolutions
amending current law. In addition, it applied to unreported bil s and joint resolutions that could
potential y be considered by the House, while the Ramseyer rule applies to written committee
reports and thus would not affect the consideration of unreported measures.
While the clause 12 requirement is removed from House rules, a separate order contained in
H.Res. 8 instructs the Committee on House Administration, the Clerk, and other House officials
to continue efforts to “broaden the availability and utility of legislative documents in machine
readable formats.” These efforts are intended to further the House’s ability to produce electronic
comparative prints showing differences between versions of legislation and between proposed
legislation and current law.

19 For information about the use and the waiving of the “72-hour rule,” see CRS Report RS22015, Availability of
Legislative Measures in the House of Representatives (The “72-Hour Rule”), by Elizabeth Rybicki.
20 First established in 1929, the Ramseyer rule requires a committee to include in its report of a “bill or joint resolution
proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part thereof” the text of the current law and a comparative print showing the
omissions and insertions proposed. House Manual, 116th Congress, §846.
Congressional Research Service

6

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

Demonstrating Support for House and Senate Measures
Withdrawing Cosponsorship of House Measures
Rules of the 117th Congress now al ow Members seeking to withdraw their cosponsorship of a
House measure to do so without having to obtain the unanimous consent of the House.21 As
amended by H.Res. 8, clause 7(b) of Rule XII enables Members to demand from the floor that
their names be removed. That is, Members no longer need the consent of the House to withdraw
as cosponsors; they can simply notify the House that they are withdrawing. As in earlier
Congresses, the sponsor of the measure does need unanimous consent to remove the name of
another Member cosponsor, and no withdrawal wil be recognized once the bil has been reported
or the relevant committees have been discharged of their consideration.
House Member Support for Senate Measures
H.Res. 8 provided a separate order instructing the Clerk to submit, by February 1, 2021,
regulations establishing a process for “Members to indicate their support for Senate measures that
have been received by the House.” The new process, enabling Members to formal y express
support for Senate-passed measures that have been received by the House, was to include a
publicly available list of Members supporting such measures.
Pursuant to this order, the Clerk submitted proposed regulations to the Rules Committee to enable
a formalized procedure to demonstrate support.22 These regulations mandate that Members may
only indicate support for a Senate bil , joint resolution, or concurrent resolution that has been
received in the House. (Simple resolutions [S.Res.] adopted by the Senate are not sent to the
House.) Congress.gov identifies supporting House Members for such measures. The period to
indicate support closes when al House committees of referral have reported the measure, the
measure has passed the House, or the House has initiated consideration under the terms of a
special rule.23
House Members cannot cosponsor Senate-originated bil s and joint resolutions (and, conversely,
Senators cannot cosponsor House-originated measures).24 Instead, Members have used a variety
of less-formal means to demonstrate their support for Senate measures.25 The new regulations
provide a more structured process for expressing such support.

21 For more information about the cosponsorship of House measures, see CRS Report RS22477, Sponsorship and
Cosponsorship of House Bills, by Mark J. Oleszek.
22 Congressional Record, daily edition (February 2, 2021), p. H275.
23 T he Clerk has provided a “House Member Support for Senate Measure” form on the internal House website at
https://housenet.house.gov/sites/housenet.house.gov/files/documents/quick-guide-senate-measures-support.pdf.
Members are to sign and submit one form per measure. Forms that are not signed or contain multip le names will not be
processed. When the House is in session, forms may be submitted th rough the hopper on the House floor or through
email submission to Clerk_SupportSenateMeasures@housemail.house.gov. Members may submit their own forms or
authorize, via a “Staff Authorization Form,” a staff member to do so on their behalf. Authorized staff are to subm it
“House Member Support” forms as email attachments to the Office of the Clerk. T he emails must be sent while the
House is in session or during the 15-minute period prior to the House convening or within 15 minutes after
adjournment.
24 See CRS Report 98-279, Sponsorship and Cosponsorship of Senate Bills, by Mark J. Oleszek.
25 Prior to the 117th Congress, House Members could informally announce their support for Senate measures during
non-legislative debate (one-minute, special-order, or morning-hour speeches) or via other constituent communications.
Members could also introduce or cosponsor a House-originated “ companion” measure containing the same or similar
text as the Senate legislation. In the 117th Congress, Members may continue to employ these alternative means to
Congressional Research Service

7

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

Hall of the House
Floor Privileges Granted, Mayor of the District of Columbia
H.Res. 8 amended clause 2(a) of Rule IV to add the Mayor of the District of Columbia to the list
of positional categories granted floor privileges while the House is in session. This rules change
gives the Mayor the same status in the House as in the Senate.26
Floor Privileges Removed, Certain Convicted Individuals
The rules package amended clause 4(a) of Rule IV to add language revoking floor privileges for
any former Member, Parliamentarian, elected officer, or minority employee nominated as an
elected officer if such individual “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.” This prohibition
includes the chamber’s adjacent rooms and the Speaker’s lobby and the cloakrooms but shal not
apply to joint sessions and other occasions designated by the Speaker.
Fines Imposed for Rules Violations in Chamber
Following approval of H.Res. 8, the House agreed to two resolutions (H.Res. 38 and H.Res. 73)
that authorized the fining of Members for contravening chamber protocols. As separate orders,
the policies established in these resolutions remain in effect only for the duration of the 117th
Congress unless they are re-established or repealed by a subsequent resolution.
Fines for Failure to Wear a Mask in the House
The Speaker’s announced policies of the 117th Congress27 require Members to wear masks in the
chamber during a “covered period,” as designated by the Speaker in consultation with the
Attending Physician.28 Members not wearing masks wil not be recognized.29
On January 12, 2021, the House agreed to H.Res. 38, a resolution that, among its provisions,
authorized and directed the Sergeant at Arms to impose fines against a Member for failure to wear
a mask in the House chamber during a pandemic “covered period” in violation of the Speaker’s
announced policy. Such fines shal be “treated as though imposed” under clause 3(g) of Rule II.

express support for Senate measures.
26 T he Senate first granted floor privileges to the Mayor of the District of Columbia in 1979 and to the position’s
precursors, the DC Commissioners, in 1884. See CRS Report R46257, Senate Floor Privileges: History and Current
Practice, by Jane A. Hudiburg.
27 “Conduct during a Covered Period,” Congressional Record, vol. 167, 117th Cong., 1st sess. (January 4, 2021), p. H38.
28 Covered period is defined in H.Res. 965 (116th Congress) and remains in effect under the terms of H.Res. 8 (117th
Congress). T he Speaker or designee may designate, in consultation with the minority leader or designee, a pandemic
covered period after being notified by the Sergeant at Arms, in consultation with the Attending Physician, “that a public
health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is in effect.” Covered periods are to terminate after 45 days but may be
extended in 45-day increments if the Speaker provides notification that the public health emergency remains in effect.
29 T he announced policy of January 4, 2021, stated: “Members will not be recognized unless they are wearing a mask,
and recognition will be withdrawn if they remove their mask while speaking;” Congressional Record, January 4, 2021,
p. H40. On May 11, 2021, the Office of the Attending Physician anno unced an update to this policy. Members, once
recognized, may remove their masks to speak at a microphone in the chamber. T hey are to replace their masks at the
conclusion of their remarks. For more information, contact the Office of the Attending Physicia n at
https://attendingphysician.house.gov.
Congressional Research Service

8

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

That provision imposes fines ($500 for the first offense and $2,500 for any subsequent offenses)
for the use of electronic devices in the chamber in contravention of House rules.
Members deemed to be in violation of the mask policy may appeal the fine in writing to the
Committee on Ethics within 30 calendar days or five legislative days, whichever is later, of such
notification, pursuant to clause 3(g) of Rule II. The Committee on Ethics then has the same
amount of time to make a ruling. (The 30-day time period to consider the appeal was not to begin
before the Ethics chair provides notification that the committee has adopted its rules for the 117th
Congress.30)
Fines for Failure to Complete Security Screenings
In response to the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the Speaker directed the Capitol
Police to instal magnetometers (metal detectors) at the entrance doors to the House chamber as a
means to ensure compliance with Capitol Police Board regulations prohibiting firearms in the
chamber.31 At that time, the Speaker announced that a forthcoming resolution would impose fines
on Members who refuse to follow the new screening protocols.32
Accordingly, on February 2, 2021, the House passed H.Res. 73, providing the Sergeant at Arms
with the “authority to fine Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner for failure to
complete security screening for entrance to the House Chamber.”33 Fines imposed “shal be
$5,000 for a first offense and $10,000 for any subsequent offense.”
Pursuant to the resolution, the Sergeant at Arms is to notify in writing the Member involved, the
Speaker, the Committee on Ethics, and the Chief Administrator of any fine imposed. This
notification is to be made publicly available by the chair of the Committee on Ethics. The
Member may appeal the fine within 30 calendar days or five legislative days, whichever is later,
of the notification. The Committee on Ethics then has an equal amount of time to consider the
appeal.
The Ethics review period begins at the time the appeal is received or upon notification that the
committee has adopted its written rules (whichever date is later). Following the review, the fine is
upheld unless the majority of the Ethics Committee agrees to the appeal. The committee provides
a public notification of the final status of the fine after it makes its ruling on the appeal or, if no
appeal is filed, after the period al owed for filing the appeal has closed.

30 Subsequent to the agreement of H.Res. 38, the House agreed to H.Res. 85, which amended H.Res. 38 to clarify that
the 30-day period in which the Ethics Committee is to consider the appeal shall not begin before the chair provides
notification that the committee has adopted its rules, rather than at the time the committee adopts its rules.
31 Pursuant to Rule I, the Speaker “shall preserve order” (clause 2) and has “general control of the Hall of the House
[and] the corridors and passages in the part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the House” (clause 3).
32 Office of the Speaker, “Pelosi Statement Announcing Rule Change Mandating Fines for Refusing to Follow New
Chamber Security Screening Protocols,” January 13, 2021, https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/11321-2.
33 Pursuant to Section 7 of H.Res. 85, H.Res. 73 was considered adopted by the House on February 2, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

9

House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 117th Congress (2021-2022)

Author Information

Jane A. Hudiburg

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

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 n ot 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
R46790 · VERSION 1 · NEW
10