• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Committee Of The Whole: What Role Does
It Play In Today's State Legislatures?

By:
Edward A. Burdick
Chief Clerk of the House
Minnesota

ASLCS Home Page

Two years ago a prominent and respected member of our legislative body known for her interest in procedure asked why our rules require all bills, except Special Order and Consent Calendar bills, be heard in a Committee of the Whole.1

In an attempt to learn what other states do, I immediately consulted several senior members of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries as well as staff from the National Conference of State Legislatures. My findings were rather incomplete, so I simply told her "because that's the way we have done it for over 100 years."

She was unhappy with my answer and disappointed that we could find no one who had reviewed the role of the Committee of the Whole in today's modern legislatures. I vowed to undertake that project "sometime in the near future." When the editor of this publication invited me to contribute an article for this issue, I immediately knew my subject.

Last May with the help of our able staff, we mailed a survey to all Clerks and Secretaries asking 27 questions relating to the Committee of the Whole. Several phone interviews were likewise conducted. In addition to questions about the process, the survey asked all Clerks and Secretaries if they could see any advantage or disadvantage to using the Committee of the Whole. The survey also asked if they thought the public is better served or not better served by using the Committee of the Whole.

The response was overwhelming and the information obtained was revealing and somewhat conflicting. Among the surprises were (1) the substantial differences in the way the Committee of the Whole is used, (2) the number of states which provide for the Committee of the Whole in their rules but never use it, (3) the lack of confidence some Clerks and Secretaries have in the Committee of the Whole procedure, and (4) the enthusiastic support which the process receives from other members who defend its use.

In keeping with our promise, we will not be naming any states or respondents in this article although one friendly respondent said, "You can publish my signed survey in the Washington Post, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the San Francisco Examiner --- or use it for a dartboard." We also promised not to make any radical recommendations, to which another friendly adversary asked, "Can I count on that?" Our only aim is to identify the role played by the Committee of the Whole in today's state legislatures.

To better understand the question, we first reviewed eleven of the popular parliamentary manuals2 for a historical perspective inasmuch as the procedure is known to be over 400 years old. We learned that the Committee of the Whole was designed to overcome a power struggle between the King of England and the House of Commons in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Here are a few of the most interesting quotes from these manuals relating to history of the procedure:

Reed's Parliamentary Rules: "Committee of the Whole - Origin. This is but the assembly itself in another form, since the membership is identical. It had its origin in a condition of affairs which has now no parallel. In former times the Speaker was selected by the House of Commons, but must be acceptable to the King. Hence it came to pass that the Speaker began to consider himself the servant of the crown rather than of the Commons, and betrayed their secrets, and was often but the king's spy. For that reason the Commons, when they desired to discuss questions of supply, resolved themselves into a Committee of the Whole, had a chairman of their own, and shut the Speaker out.

Thereupon they deliberated and spoke their real sentiments."3

Tilson's Parliamentary Law and Procedure: "Origin of Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole had its origin at a time in English history when the Parliament was engaged in a life and death struggle with the Crown. At that time the Speaker of the House of Commons was appointed by or had to be approved by the Crown and was naturally looked upon as friendly to, if not actually a talebearer to, the King.

"The Committee of the Whole was devised so that when relations were strained between the King and the House of Commons, the members might assemble in informal session, select a chairman of their own and proceed to the discussion of pending matters without the formality or restrictions of a session of the House of Commons as such. In such committees, the King's household expenses and other delicate matters might be discussed with greater freedom and with less danger to individual members than would be possible in formal sessions. In those days the King's household expenses, including the maintenance of his retainers, courtiers, courtesans and servants, made up a budget relatively formidable in its proportions, and was sometimes the subject of the most bitter discussions.

"The necessity for using the device in this way passed but the committee of the whole had proved itself so useful in the consideration of legislation controlling the purse that it was continued as an important part of the parliamentary machinery."4

Cushing's Manual: "Grand Committees and Committees of the Whole House. The origin and use of these committees must, therefore, be sought in some other source than the mere convenience of parliamentary procedure; and, by recurring to the history of the period when they were first introduced, it will be found, that they were the offspring of circumstances of a different character; and that they were invented, not to facilitate the passing of bills, in the ordinary course of legislation, but to afford means for bringing forward and discussing the great constitutional questions which were agitated in the parliaments of the first Stuarts.

"It is difficult, at the present day, to perceive any other difference between the house, and a committee of the whole house, than that the speaker presides in the former, and a chairman in the latter."5

Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure: "The Committee of the Whole. When a parliament, a house of Congress, or a state legislature wishes to act informally on a matter, it sometimes resolves itself into a committee of the whole. This requires the body to vote on the motion to become a committee of the whole, vote on a proposal or report, adjourn the committee, reconvene as the original body, read the report of the committee of the whole, and vote on it as the original assembly. This complicated procedure for a committee of the whole has been discarded by the Senate of the United States and by most organizations. Its purpose is achieved quite simply by a motion to consider a matter informally."6

All of us involved with the legislative process are aware that the system of rules and procedure used in American lawmaking bodies originated in the British Parliament, hence the name "parliamentary law."

An evolution of procedure has occurred since the original thirteen states began enacting laws to govern their citizens. Paul Mason writes, "Parliamentary law as it is applied in this country today differs greatly from the practice of Parliament at the time deliberative bodies were established in the United States."7

Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the use of the Committee of the Whole. What at one time was a common practice in most states is now not so common.

The first questions asked in our survey were "Does your body use the Committee of the Whole?" and "If so, how often?"

The answers were varied and informative. Here are a few of the most interesting responses to those questions:

"Very infrequently."

"We have only used the Committee of the Whole seven times since 1965."

"It is used every day, this is once or twice a week early in the session but more frequently near the end of the session."

"Maybe once a year."

"Scheduled every Thursday, then more often as the need arises."

"The procedure has been used twice in 20 years."

"Our rules provide for the Committee of the Whole but we never use it."

"No, never. I'm not familiar with the procedure."

"Almost daily. Doesn't everyone?"

"We have never used the Committee of the Whole but I believe we could under general parliamentary law."

"It is the 11th item on our order of business. We use it daily except near the end of the session."

"It has not been used in the 13 years I have been here."

"Very rarely; I believe the last time was 1967 or 1968."

"It is regularly scheduled. It is our second reading of bills."

"We use it all the time. We couldn't get along without it."

The following question was then asked only of those who do not use the Committee of the Whole: "Did you at one time use the Committee of the Whole in your body and, if so, why was it discontinued?"

These replies caught our attention:

"The last time it was used in our body was 1959 and there was massive resistance. There have been attempts in the last three years but they have not been successful. The procedure is still provided in our rules."

"Used once in 1991. Hadn't been used for many years prior to that. No one around here can remember."

"It was discontinued in 1977 but I don't know why."

"Use of the Committee of the Whole has been a part of our rules since the first legislative session of 1819. Our journals indicate that the Committee of the Whole was used frequently in the 19th century and decreased in the early 1900's through the mid-1960's. In my tenure since 1963 I can recall the procedure being used only once, that being in the mid-1960's. Although our current rules make reference to the Committee of the Whole it is not utilized. Its disappearance from our procedure has been due to a steady decline in its usage to the point that I doubt that many members are even aware of its existence."

"I don't know why we no longer use the Committee of the Whole. Because amendments are not permitted on the floor perhaps no purpose would be served by such a procedure."

"The last time we used the Committee of the Whole was in 1973. Our rules still provide for it and it has been threatened several times in the last 20 years but never used."

"It has been at least 35 years since it was used and no one is certain why it was discontinued."

"The Committee of the Whole was removed from our rules twenty years, or so, ago. To the best of anyone's recollection, it was removed for lack of use."

"Yes, but it was discontinued because of the size of our body and the fact that amendments offered and defeated were again offered on third reading. Also at issue was the lack of a formal record of the proceedings."

"The occasion has never arisen. Its use was seriously contemplated this year but it was not employed because it promised to be highly disruptive."

"It existed in our rules prior to 1979 when it was formally stricken at the request of the Speaker in the interests of providing more openness and accountability in the process."

"Yes, but it was discontinued in 1983 to provide for more of a public record on amendments to the budget."

"Yes. It was determined the process was outdated and that the bill can be amended on second reading as easily as in Committee of the Whole. Also, there is more accountability."

"The Committee of the Whole was used from 1815 to 1987. In 1987 all reference to use was stricken. Lack of use was reason for being discontinued."

"The rules provide for it. Usage was discontinued 30 plus years ago. Used once in 1978 as a forum for briefing on the trucking strike during the energy crisis."

Of the states that do use the Committee of the Whole the procedure varies substantially from body to body.

In some states the Committee of the Whole is a regular part of the daily order of business and all bills except those exempt by special rule must be heard in the committee. Bills scheduled for discussion in those states must be continued by motion if that order of business is skipped during any legislative day.

At the other end of the spectrum are legislative bodies which use the Committee of the Whole only rarely for special designated purposes such as ceremonies or public hearings to receive testimony from non-members.

Following are varied responses which demonstrate the many uses of the procedure:

"For a number of years we have used the Committee of the Whole as a vehicle to allow non-members on the floor to give comments and respond to questions rather than debate bills."

"It is generally used only during special (extraordinary) sessions to interview gubernatorial appointees to positions requiring confirmation."

"Committee of the Whole is an item on our daily order of business; however, it is not used daily because there are not enough bills available. At the beginning of the session Mondays are scheduled for Committee of the Whole and as the session continues Committee of the Whole is scheduled more frequently."

"It is a regularly scheduled item when tax and budget bills are on the calendar."

"The only time it is used is when a bill is recalled from a committee."

"It is used only for amending bills in our body --- maybe 5 or 6 times during a 90-day session."

"In our body we use Committee of the Whole regularly to debate and amend bills on General Orders. This is once or twice weekly early in the session but daily as the work load builds."

"Last session and the session before it was used for redistricting issues."

"It is a regular item used almost exclusively for consideration of bills on second reading."

"The Committee of the Whole is not a regularly scheduled item in our order of business. We normally use it once a year when we are considering the appropriation bill."

"Within our Committee of the Whole there are no recorded votes, only voice votes and standing votes. These are not recorded in the journal. When the Committee of the Whole rises and reports there is an opportunity for a member to ask for a rollcall vote on a bill that appeared on our second reading calendar. That vote is printed in the journal."

"We generally use the Committee of the Whole in the early part of the session to debate bills after second reading, but before third reading and final passage. It is a regularly scheduled item on our daily order of business (number 11 of 13). Later in the session we usually special order bills for immediate consideration and final passage."

"We use Committee of the Whole only when necessary if a measure requires immediate disposition, usually a commendating resolution."

"We use it only when our body needs to have an open discussion on a particular matter, usually a controversial issue. It is often referred to as 'when our body takes off its gloves.' The usual formality is not there."

"We sometimes resolve into a Committee of the Whole for special presentations."

"It was used once in the last 20 years to break a filibuster."

"We have never used it in regular session but we used it once during a constitutional convention."

"Our rules say that motions and propositions involving a tax or charge upon the people and all proceedings involving appropriations of money or authorizing payments out of appropriations already made shall be first considered in the Committee of the Whole."

Because we promised anonymity to all our respondents we received some rather frank comments about use of the Committee of the Whole, such as:

"I can't imagine how legislatures function without Committee of the Whole."

"The usual course of a bill will include consideration of committee members' amendments in committee and consideration of all members' amendments on second reading. As a result, the general consensus is that using the Committee of the Whole offers no advantages."

"It wouldn't work in our state where the meeting of the Committee of the Whole is actually a public hearing. One reason is only members are permitted on the floor."

"The procedure would be completely duplicative of what the standing committees are charged to do. The Committee of the Whole would have no particular expertise with any given complicated issue. In contrast, the standing committees are highly specialized and staffed with professionals who understand the bills being considered."

"I have no experience with the Committee of the Whole but I never understood its usefulness."

"We need no such rule in our body because we have strong standing committees."

"I'm not proud of the manner in which our body used the Committee of the Whole over 25 years ago. Members could vote one way in standing committee where votes were recorded then later could vote the opposite way in Committee of the Whole where votes were never recorded. Cameras were prohibited in the balcony so pictures could not be taken showing how members stood or raised their hands on division votes. Journal records were so incomplete it was difficult to trace Committee of the Whole procedure. Proceedings in Committee of the Whole were not tape recorded. There was no way to tell who made motions or offered amendments. The rules in our body have been changed and the process today is highly accountable and open to public scrutiny. I strongly support the Committee of the Whole procedure as currently used in our body."

"It would slow the process in our state."

"Our presiding officer is happy with Committee of the Whole procedure because he can turn the gavel over to someone else allowing him time to work on more important matters. He frequently leaves the chamber when we are in Committee of the Whole."

"It's an old-fashioned and out-dated procedure. Forget it!"

"I like the Committee of the Whole because it encourages debate and discussion and members can speak more than once."

"It is the only opportunity members who are not on a particular committee have to offer amendments. There is no limit to the number of amendments a member may offer in Committee of the Whole."

"It's an OK process if you reform it and make it open and accountable."

"The Committee of the Whole is too time-consuming and redundant."

"I expect the Committee of the Whole procedure to change in the near future due to term limit requirements. We will soon have new leadership every two or four years and traditions will give way."

"I think the purpose of the Committee of the Whole no longer exists. I believe it was probably used to accomplish things out of public view. Our process is much too public today. I think it would be a waste of time in our state."

"I think the public is better served when the Committee of the Whole is not used. More in-depth study of bills is possible with smaller groups of members that compose our standing committees."

"The standing committee is really a better forum for public hearings because there is more time for public input."

"I think that the Committee of the Whole process serves the Senates of this world far better than it serves the Houses. In other words, it works better with smaller bodies."

"It is important for the public to truly understand how members voted on amendments, etc. The Committee of the Whole process as practiced here does not provide for that."

"The disadvantage of using the Committee of the Whole is that it consumes valuable time of the entire body for matters which should be considered by standing committees."

"I think the Committee of the Whole is sometimes used to cover up actions of a legislative body. Henry Alexander Davidson in his manual, Handbook of Parliamentary Procedure, seems to agree. He lists the following as a situation when an organization might resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole: 'In discussing matters where it is felt unwise to have any detailed record of the debate. Only the recommendations of a committee of the whole are recorded.' The public should not be satisfied with such a process."

"You probably don't want to hear my thoughts about the Committee of the Whole because you wouldn't dare print them."

"Now that we have reformed our Committee of the Whole procedure it works very well here and need not be abandoned. It provides for informality and freer discussion of the issues."

83 of our 99 legislative bodies responded to the survey. The next several paragraphs represent our interpretation of the information contained in the responses.

40 houses currently use the Committee of the Whole; an additional 23 houses previously used the Committee of the Whole but no longer use it. The remaining 20 houses probably never used the Committee of the Whole but responses are inconclusive.

49 bodies today have a separate rule that governs Committee of the Whole procedure. 11 houses allow testimony from non-members during Committee of the Whole.

28 bodies use the Committee of the Whole to process bills, 18 of them on a daily or fairly regular basis. Four use it only for Tax and Appropriation bills.

12 bodies use the Committee of the Whole for purposes other than processing bills. One each use it for the following purposes: ceremonies, reviewing gubernatorial appointments and censure or expulsion of members.

Here is a breakdown of the procedure used by those 28 bodies who utilize the Committee of the Whole to process bills:

The first ASLCS comprehensive review of general parliamentary practices was made 20 years ago by our Committee on Comparative Development. Several questions in that original survey were asked about Committee of the Whole procedure. From that report came the successful series of ASLCS publications we now call Inside The Legislative Process.

This 1996 study relates entirely to the Committee of the Whole and confirms the notion long held by a large number of us that something can be learned from analyzing the process used in other states. After reading this article perhaps you, too, discovered that your Committee of the Whole procedure, if you have one, differs from that practiced by other legislative bodies.

We promised earlier this article would contain no radical recommendations and there will be none; however, we have one small suggestion.

The thought is that all of us should take another look at our Committee of the Whole procedure, or absence of one, and ask these questions: How does our procedure measure up today? Does it meet the criteria set by Paul Mason in chapter one, section one of his parliamentary manual?8 Does it permit the majority to rule openly and fairly? Does it protect the rights of the minority? Does it serve the public well? Does it save time and confusion? Does it provide an orderly consideration of the issues? Should it be changed? Would a friendly suggestion to leadership be in order?

We thank the many ASLCS members who responded to our questionnaire by mail, facsimile transmission and phone interviews. We appreciate the enthusiasm you have shown.

This project was more entertaining and enlightening than we expected. We are especially grateful for your frank expression of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the Committee of the Whole process.

Thanks also to the Professional Journal editor, the editorial board and those who printed this issue as well as members of my staff who ably assisted with this study.

__________________________

1 Minnesota House Permanent Rules (in part):

2 Cushing, Luther Stearns, Elements of the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies in the United States of America, 1856.

3 Reed, Thomas B., A Manual of General Parliamentary Law, page 67.

4 Tilson, John Q., Parliamentary Law and Procedure, page 440, and The Legislative Administrator, July, 1973.

5 Cushing, Luther Stearns, Elements of the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies of the United States of America, pages 1009 and 1013.

6 Sturgis, Alice Fleenor, Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, page 184.

7 Mason, Paul, Manual of Legislative Procedure, page 24.

8 Ibid., pages 3 and 4.

9 Survey of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries by ASLCS Committee on Comparative Development, May 14, 1976, pages 1, 34, 35.

For more information about ASLCS, write or call:

Sally Kittredge
National Conference of State Legislatures
1560 Broadway, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303/364-7700
FAX: 303/863-8003
E-mail: sally.kittredge@ncsl.org