[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 9, Chapter 27]
[Chapter 27. Amendments]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 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.