[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[A. Generally]
[§ 2. Pro Forma Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 6575-6589]
CHAPTER 27
Amendments
A. GENERALLY
Sec. 2. Pro Forma Amendments
A pro forma amendment is a procedural formality--a device used to
obtain recognition during consideration of a bill being read for
amendment under the ``five-minute rule''--and such an amendment does
not contemplate any actual change in the bill. While pro forma
amendments are phrased to make some superficial change in the language
under consideration, such as ``to strike the last word,'' the
underlying purpose is to obtain time for debate which might otherwise
be prohibited because of the restriction in Rule XXIII, clause 5, that
there may be only five minutes of debate for and against any amendment
or amendment thereto.
Technically, a point of order should lie against a pro forma
amendment if it constitutes an amendment in the third degree, whether
offered while there is an amendment to an amendment pending, or offered
to an amendment to a substitute; but the Chair hesitates to initiate
action in ruling pro forma amendments out of order as in the third
degree, the Committee of the Whole having the power to shut off debate
when it chooses. (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member who has occupied five minutes on a pro forma amendment may
not lengthen this time by making another pro forma amendment, nor may
he then automatically extend this time by offering a substantive
amendment while other Members are seeking recognition,(5)
but he may rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment offered by
another Member when recognized for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See the discussion in the notes to Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House
Rules and Manual Sec. 873 (101st Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where a rule under which a bill is considered permits only
specified amendments and prohibits amendments to such amendments, no
pro forma amendments are in order and only two five-minute speeches are
permitted on each of the specified amendments.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 3.38, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has frequently been held that pro forma amendments are not in
order during consideration of an omnibus private bill.(7) In
fact, the
[[Page 6576]]
rule has been so broadly stated as to preclude such amendments on
private bills generally.(8) But on one occasion it has been
specifically ruled that it is in order during the consideration of
individual bills on the Private Calendar to strike out the last
word.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See, for example, Sec. 2.6, infra.
See also Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 893 (101st Cong.).
8. See 100 Cong. Rec. 1826, 1827, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 16, 1954;
and 80 Cong. Rec. 3158, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1936.
9. 80 Cong. Rec. 5075, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1936.
For discussion of private bills generally, see Ch. 22,
supra, Calendars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When in Order
Sec. 2.1 Any Member who gains the floor to offer any permissible
amendment is entitled to the floor, and it is not the duty of the
Chair to ask such Member whether he offers his amendment as a bona
fide or pro forma amendment.
On May 16, 1938,(10) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 83 Cong. Rec. 6938, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: . . . My parliamentary
inquiry is whether a point of order would lie against the motion of
a Member to strike out the title when, as a matter of fact, the
Member was not in favor of striking out the title.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The present occupant
of the chair would have no way of reading a Member's mind or
questioning his motive with reference to any amendment that he
might offer. The Chair thinks that any Member who gained the floor
to offer any permissible amendment would be in order and he would
be entitled to the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments in Nature of Substitute
Sec. 2.2 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute is being read
by sections pursuant to a special rule, substantive as well as pro
forma amendments are in order following the reading of each
section.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 22.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2.3 When an amendment in the nature of a substitute is, by
unanimous consent, considered as read and open to amendment, the
entire amendment is then subject to substantive or pro forma
amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 22.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Debate
Sec. 2.4 Debate in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute
rule is confined to the subject and, if the point of order is
raised, a Member may not under a pro forma
[[Page 6577]]
amendment discuss a section of the bill not immediately pending.
On Feb. 9, 1950,(14) The following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 1753, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 7201, a deficiency appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Cecil F.] White of California: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the gentleman is not discussing the bill and he
did not ask for unanimous consent to proceed out of order. . . .
Mr. [Reid F.] Murray of Wisconsin: . . . I moved to strike out
the last word. I am talking in connection with this bill. . . .
The Chairman: (15) The gentleman should discuss that
matter which is pending at the present time. The part of the bill
to which he refers has not been reached yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Mike Mansfield (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2.5 Debate on a pro forma amendment must be confined to the
portion of the bill to which the pro forma amendment has been
offered.
On June 21, 1974,(16) during consideration of a bill in
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made the ruling described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 20595, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was
H.R. 15472, agriculture, environment, and consumer
appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words. . . .
Mr. Chairman, I am taking this time now for fear that when we
get down to the end of the bill there will be a limitation of time,
and I will not have the opportunity to explain the amendment that I
intend to offer on the last page of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to set a maximum
limit on the appropriations under this bill to $12.7 billion. . . .
Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Moss: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that I must insist
upon the regular order, and the regular order is not being
observed. There has been no unanimous-consent request to proceed
out of order, and the House is now proceeding out of order. So I
call for the regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed in the regular order.
Mr. [H. John] Heinz [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. du Pont: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Heinz: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am afraid the intent----
Mr. Moss: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the regular order, and the
regular order is the point of the bill where we are now reading. It
is not a point to be reached at a later time. I insist upon the
regular order.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The gentleman in the
well received permission to strike out the last
[[Page 6578]]
word and then proceeded to discuss an amendment to be offered to
the last section of the bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
not discussing a part of the bill that is pending.
The point of order is sustained.
Private Bill
Sec. 2.6 The Chair on one occasion held that an amendment proposing to
reduce the amount of money in an omnibus private bill was a pro
forma amendment and therefore not in order.
On July 20, 1937,(18) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 7299, 7300, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
On page 5, line 9, strike out ``$5,000'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``$4,999.99.'' . . .
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: . . . I submit that this
is too small a matter to be considered by the House at this time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Chair must hold
that under the spirit of the rule for the consideration of omnibus
private bills, such an amendment, which is in effect a pro forma
amendment, is not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of Restrictive Rules on Pro Forma Amendments--Use of Pro Forma
Amendments Where Rule Permits Only Printed Amendments Not Subject
to Amendment
Sec. 2.7 Where there was pending a perfecting amendment to a title of a
bill being considered under a special rule permitting only germane
amendments printed in the Record for at least two calendar days to
be offered to that title, and prohibiting amendments thereto, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole indicated in response to
parliamentary inquiries that Rule XXIII clause 5 permitted only the
proponent and one opponent of the amendment to speak for five
minutes each, and that the special rule prohibited other Members
from offering pro forma amendments to that amendment to gain
additional time; and that the pendency of a perfecting amendment
precluded the offering of a pro forma amendment printed in the
Record as a perfecting amendment to the bill.
The Chair responded as indicated to inquiries made on Mar.
[[Page 6579]]
26, 1974,(20) during consideration of H.R. 69, to amend and
extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He stated further
that by unanimous consent additional time for debate on the amendment
could be obtained for either the proponent or opponent of the
amendment, but not for other Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 8242, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Peter] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Was there a time limit on the amendment when the gentleman
asked to be recognized in support of the amendment?
The Chairman: (1) That is correct. The gentleman
from New York already has been recognized for 5 minutes with
several extensions by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Peyser: I did not ask for it; the gentleman from
Connecticut asked for it.
The Chairman: The gentleman could have asked for an extension
on the time of the gentleman from Minnesota, but none on his own
time, under the rule.
Mr. Peyser: Mr. Chairman, I have another parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Peyser: I am not aware of any time limit to speak on the
amendments under the regular 5-minute rule.
The Chairman: The Chair might as well read the rule adopted in
the House for the benefit of the membership so they will
understand.
House Resolution 963 adopted in the House on March 12 provides
in part:
No amendment shall be in order to title I of said
substitute except germane amendments which have been printed in
the Congressional Record at least two calendar days prior to
their being offered during the consideration of said substitute
for amendment, and amendments offered by the direction of the
Committee on Education and Labor, and neither of said classes
of amendments shall be subject to amendment.
Under the provisions of the rule, the proponent of the
amendment is to be allowed 5 minutes, and a Member in opposition to
the amendment, 5 minutes. . . .
Under clause 5, rule XXIII, only one member may speak in
opposition, and under Public Resolution 963, a pro forma amendment
is in order only to the bill, not to an amendment. . . .
Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: The Chairman stated that
a pro forma amendment to the bill was in order?
The Chairman: That is correct.
Mr. Fraser: Should not a pro forma amendment to the bill be
considered in the nature of a perfecting amendment in order during
the consideration of Mr. Peyser's amendment?
The Chairman: The Chair will state that a pro forma amendment
would not be in order while the amendment is pending, because that
would be considered as a perfecting amendment to the amendment
under consideration.
Mr. Fraser: If the Chair would permit me to state, a pro forma
amendment is offered to the bill rather than
[[Page 6580]]
to an amendment. It seems to me it would not fall under the
constraint which the Chair has placed on it.
The Chairman: Under the rule there can be only one perfecting
amendment pending at a time, and a perfecting amendment is pending.
Therefore, a pro forma amendment would not be in order.
Sec. 2.8 Under a special rule permitting only germane amendments
printed in the Record for at least two calendar days to be offered
to a designated title of a bill, and prohibiting amendments
thereto, a Member was permitted to offer a pro forma amendment to
that title (``to strike the requisite number of words'') where that
amendment had been inserted in the Record by another Member, and at
a time when no substantive amendment was pending.
On Mar. 26, 1974,(2) the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 120 Cong. Rec. 8229, 8233, 8243, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. Under
consideration was H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (3) . . . Under the rule, no amendment
shall be in order to title I of the substitute committee amendment
printed in the reported bill except germane amendments which have
been printed in the Congressional Record at least 2 calendar days
prior to their being offered during the consideration of said
substitute for amendment, and amendment offered by direction of the
Committee on Education and Labor, and neither of said classes of
amendments shall be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles the
substitute committee amendment printed in the reported bill as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment.
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
Title I--Amendments of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965
extension of title i programs
Sec. 101. Section 102 of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as
``the Act'') is amended (1) by striking out ``for grants to
local educational agencies''. . . .
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky] (during the reading): Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of title I
be dispensed with, it be printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order. Under the rule the motion is not in order unless he
has printed the motion in the Record.
[[Page 6581]]
The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky was printed in the
Record.
Sec. 2.9 Where there was pending an amendment to a title of a bill
being considered under a special rule permitting only germane
amendments printed in the Record for at least two calendar days to
be offered to that title, and prohibiting amendments thereto, a
modification of an amendment printed in the Record was permitted in
Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent.
On Mar. 26, 1974,(4) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a bill,(5) a modification to an
amendment was permitted, as described above. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 120 Cong. Rec. 8253, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
5. H.R. 69, to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the committee substitute.
The Chairman: (6) Is the amendment printed in the
Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Mink: It is, Mr. Chairman.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Mink to the committee substitute:
The first sentence of Section 103(a)(1), beginning on line 13
on page 28, is amended to read as follows: ``Sec. 103. (a)(1)
There is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for
the purpose of this paragraph 1 per centum of the amount
appropriated for such year for payments to States under section
134(a). . . .
Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that at the end of the amendment . . . the
following words be added: ``and to the Secretary of the Interior
for payments pursuant to (d)(1) and (d)(2).'' . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
--Closed Rule Prohibiting Amendments Except by Direction of Committee
Sec. 2.10 Pro forma amendments are not in order when a bill is being
considered under a ``closed'' rule which permits no amendments
except by direction of the committee reporting the
bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 3.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Recognition Under Rule Permitting Pro Forma Amendments
Sec. 2.11 Where the Committee of the Whole resumed consideration of a
bill under a special rule prohibiting amendments
[[Page 6582]]
to a pending amendment except pro forma amendments for debate, the
Chair announced that he would first recognize Members who had not
offered pro forma amendments on the preceding day, priority of
recognition being given to members of the reporting committee.
On Aug. 3, 1977,(8) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act, the Chair made
a statement pertaining to the recognition of Members to offer pro forma
amendments, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 123 Cong. Rec. 26444, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (9) The Chair would like to make a
statement for the information of the Members of the Committee of
the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has before it a list of those who spoke on this
amendment yesterday. The Chair will recognize those who have not
spoken on this amendment first and, of course, preference will be
given to the members of the ad hoc committee and any Member, of
course, under the rule has the right to offer pro forma amendments.
The Chair will adhere to that direction.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) did not speak on this
amendment yesterday, so as a member of the ad hoc committee, for
what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) rise?
Mr. [John D.] Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
--Rule Permitting Only Committee Amendments
Sec. 2.12 Pro forma amendments are not in order during consideration of
a title of a bill being read pursuant to a special rule prohibiting
all amendments except committee amendments to that title.
On Oct. 13, 1977,(10) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 8309,(11) the Chair, citing from
the rule providing for consideration of the bill and amendments
thereto,(12) directed the Clerk to read by titles the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 33627, 33637, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. The Navigation Development Act.
12. H. Res. 776, adopted Oct. 6, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (13) . . . Pursuant to the rule, no
amendment to title II of said substitute, and no amendment in the
nature of a substitute changing title II of said substitute shall
be in order, except amendments offered by direction of the
Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall not be
subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will now read by titles the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute. . . .
[[Page 6583]]
Are there any committee amendments to title II?
Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman is recognized.
The Chair would, however, state that under the rule even pro forma
amendments are not allowed to title II.
--Preferential Motion Not Barred by Prohibition Against Pro Forma
Amendments
Sec. 2.13 A special order governing consideration of a bill in
Committee of the Whole which prohibits the Chair from entertaining
pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate does not preclude
the offering of a preferential motion that the Committee rise and
report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the
enacting clause be stricken, since that motion is not a pro forma
amendment and must be voted on (or withdrawn by unanimous consent).
An illustration of the proposition described above occurred on May
4, 1983,(14) during consideration of House Joint Resolution
13 (relating to a nuclear weapons freeze). The proceedings in the
Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 11072, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Levitas moves that the Committee rise and report the
resolution back to the House with the recommendation that the
resolving clause be stricken.
Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I have a
point of order.
The Chairman Pro Tempore (Leon E. Panetta, of California): The
gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the
rule is that there is a provision in the rule that prohibits
motions of this sort for the purpose of debate time. Is that
correct?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman
it only prohibits pro forma amendments, not preferential motions
such as the gentleman has offered.
--Effect of Rule on Scope of Debate
Sec. 2.14 While normally under the five-minute rule debate on a pro
forma amendment may relate either to a pending amendment in the
nature of a substitute or to a perfecting amendment thereto (as not
necessarily in the
[[Page 6584]]
third degree), where a special rule permitted the offering of both
perfecting amendments in the second degree and of pro forma
amendments to the substitute when perfecting amendments were not
pending, the Chair permitted pro forma amendments during pendency
of perfecting amendments but, in response to a point of order,
required that debate be related solely to the perfecting amendment.
On May 26, 1982 (15) during consideration of House
Concurrent Resolution 345 (16) in the Committee of the
Whole, the situation described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 12088, 12090, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike
the requisite number of words not because I intend to speak to the
amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, but instead to take this
time in concert with colleagues who care very much about what the
Latta amendment does to housing. Not for housing, but to housing. .
. .
Mr. [James H.] Quillen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I
understood we were debating the Conyers amendment, and I did not
hear permission to speak out of order.
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my remarks go to the Latta
substitute, and I believe that is pending before the committee.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair will have to state that
the matter that is pending is the Conyers amendment, and that
debate should be germane to the Conyers amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman insisted that debate proceed
in an ``orderly fashion'', that once a perfecting amendment was
offered, debate under the five-minute rule be confined thereto, and not
to one of the three underlying substitutes pending simultaneously.
Separate debate on those substitutes was to be permitted only between
consideration of numbered perfecting amendments.
Sec. 2.15 Where a special order permits both the offering of specified
perfecting amendments in a certain order and pro forma amendments,
the Chair has discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma
amendments to debate the underlying text between consideration of
perfecting amendments.
On May 26, 1982,(18) The Committee of the Whole having
under
[[Page 6585]]
consideration House Concurrent Resolution 345,(19) the Chair
responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the circumstances
described above. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. First concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time
after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the
last word to make other comments that may be of interest to
Members.
Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by
the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments
between amendments.
Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry,
Mr.Chairman, how would the gentleman from California be able to be
recognized to speak in behalf of something that he says he is not
going to offer?
The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That
is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes
will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between
amendments.
--Rule Permitting Only Designated Amendments
Sec. 2.16 Where a bill was being considered for amendment pursuant to a
special ``modified closed'' rule permitting only designated
amendments to be offered and precluding amendments thereto, with
debate on each amendment limited and controlled, the Chair
indicated that pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate were
not in order.
On May 21, 1986,(1) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 4800,(2) the Chair responded to a
parliamentary inquiry in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 132 Cong. Rec. 11484, 11566, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
2. The Omnibus Trade Act of 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (3) When the Committee of the Whole
rose on Tuesday, May 20, 1986, all time for general debate had
expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been
read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendments printed
in section 2 of House Resolution 456, agreed to by the House on May
15, 1986, are considered as having been adopted.
No other amendments to the bill are in order except the
following amendments printed in the Congressional Record of May 15,
1986, except amendment numbered (12) shall be the text of H.R. 4830
in lieu of being printed in the Record. . . .
Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
[[Page 6586]]
The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr Chairman, can I move to strike the last
word and get 5 minutes?
The Chairman: The time is controlled by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Roth). The gentleman has to seek time from the
gentleman from Wisconsin or the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Bonker).
After Expiration of Debate
Sec. 2.17 Where a limitation on debate under the five-minute rule on an
amendment and all amendments thereto has expired, no further debate
is in order and a Member may not gain time for debate by offering a
pro forma amendment ``to strike the last word.''
On Aug. 2, 1978,(4) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 12514,(5) the above-stated
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 124 Cong. Rec. 23947, 23954, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
5. The International Security Assistance Act of 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto
end at 4 o'clock.
The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.
The Chairman: Members standing at the time the motion was made
will be recognized for 1 minute and 20 seconds each. . . .
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lagomarsino) rise?
Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman that no
further debate is in order at this time.
Sec. 2.18 A motion to strike the last word is not in order after all
time for debate on a bill has expired.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 14.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2.19 When the time for debate on a bill is closed by unanimous
consent prior to the conclusion of the reading thereof, and debate
time has expired, the remainder of the bill is read but pro forma
amendments are not then in order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. 14.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro Forma Amendment Offered by Proponent of Pending Amendment
Sec. 2.20 Under the five-minute rule the proponent of a pending
amendment may offer a pro forma amendment thereto (for additional
debate
[[Page 6587]]
time) only by unanimous consent.
On Apr. 13, 1983,(9) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration House Joint Resolution 13,(10) the
above-stated proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 129 Cong. Rec. 8382, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Nuclear weapons freeze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
The Chairman: (11) Without objection, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Levitas) have an amendment pending?
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct. The
gentleman from Georgia has an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to the text pending.
Mr. Stratton: Well, is it proper to strike the last word on
one's own amendment?
The Chairman: The gentleman asked for recognition, and without
objection, he was recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stratton: I just wanted to make sure the amendment was
still pending.
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Sec. 2.21 A Member who has been recognized for five minutes in support
of his amendment in Committee of the Whole may offer a pro forma
amendment to his amendment to gain an additional five minutes only
by unanimous consent.
The proposition stated above was the basis for the following
proceedings which occurred on Mar. 18, 1986,(12) during
consideration of H.R. 4151 (13) in the Committee of the
Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 132 Cong. Rec. 5257, 5260, 5261, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walker:
(1) in the section heading, strike out ``effective date of
entitlements'' and insert in lieu thereof ``special budget act
rules for entitlements''; and
(2) strike out the period at the end of the section and
insert in lieu thereof the following: ``, and shall be
effective for any fiscal year only to the extent or in the
amounts provided in appropriation Acts.''.
After Mr. Walker's initial remarks in support of the amend
[[Page 6588]]
ment, the following proceedings took place:
Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gerald D. Kleczka (Wisc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Daniel A.] Mica [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, the normal
procedure is each individual is allowed to speak for one time, is
it not?
The Chairman: By unanimous consent, the gentleman can be
recognized for another period of time.
Mr. Mica: Mr. Chairman, I will not object at this time.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection
Parliamentarian's Note: Occasionally, the proponent of an amendment
has sought recognition as a matter of right ``in opposition to a pro
forma amendment'' offered by another Member in order to gain an
additional five minutes, on the assumption that in such case he is not
amending his own amendment but is complying with the five-minute rule
by speaking in opposition to another Member's amendment.
Debate After Adoption of Substitute
Sec. 2.22 Under the five-minute rule, no debate may intervene after a
substitute for an amendment has been adopted and before the vote on
the amendment, as amended, except by unanimous consent, since the
amendment has been amended in its entirety and no further
amendments including pro forma amendments are in order.
On Oct. 18, 1983,(15) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration H.R. 3231,(16) the above-stated
proposition was illustrated as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 28185, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Export Administration Act Amendments of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Bonker), as amended, as a substitute for the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth), as amended. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Toby] Roth [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
240, noes 173, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows. .
. .
So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the
amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [Edwin V.W.] Zschau [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
[[Page 6589]]
The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Zschau) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.