    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 107th Congress]
    [107th Congress]
    [House Document 106-320]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 728-755]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                   Rule XVIII

    Resolving into the Committee of the Whole
           the committee of the whole house on the state of the union

    Sec. 970. Selection of Chairman of Committee of the Whole; and
    his power to preserve order.

      1.  Whenever the House resolves into the
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Speaker
    shall leave the chair after appointing a Chairman to preside. In case of
    disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries or lobby, the
    Chairman may cause the same to be cleared.

    [[Page 729]]

      This provision (former clause 1(a) of rule XXIII), adopted in 1880,
    was made from two older rules dating from 1789 and modified in 1794 to
    provide for the appointment of the Chairman instead of the inconvenient
    method of election by the committee (IV, 4704). It was amended in the
    103d Congress to permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to
    preside in the Committee of the Whole (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49),
    but that authority was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H.
    Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Delegates presided in two instances
    during the 103d Congress (Oct. 6, 1994, p. 28533; Oct. 7, 1994, p.
    29167). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
    this provision was found in former clause 1(a) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    Sec. 971. Functions of the Chairman of the Committee of
    the Whole.

      The  Sergeant-at-Arms attends the sittings of the Committee of
    the Whole and, under direction of the Chairman, maintains order (I,
    257). Decisions of the Chairman on questions of order may be appealed.
    In stating the appeal the question is put as in the House: ``Shall the
    decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?'' The
    Committee of the Whole may not postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling
    of the Chair (even by unanimous consent); and an appeal of a ruling of
    the Chair may be withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole as a matter of
    right (June 8, 2000, p. ----). A majority vote sustains the ruling (Aug.
    1, 1989, p. 17159). In rare cases wherein the Chairman has been defied
    or insulted, he has directed the Committee to rise, left the chair and,
    on the chair being taken by the Speaker, has reported the facts to the
    House (II, 1350, 1651, 1653). While the Committee of the Whole does not
    control the Congressional Record, the Chairman may direct the exclusion
    of disorderly words spoken by a Member after he has been called to order
    (V, 6987), but may not determine the privileges of a Member under
    general ``leave to print'' (V, 6988). The Chairman decides questions of
    order arising in the Committee independently of the Speaker (V, 6927,
    6928), but has declined to consider a question that had arisen in the
    House just before the Committee began to sit (IV, 4725, 4726) or a
    question that may arise in the House in the future (June 21, 1995, p.
    16682). The Chairman does not take cognizance of a ``point of order''
    against the legislative schedule, its announcement being the prerogative
    of the Leadership (Nov. 10, 1999, p. ----). He recognizes for debate (V,
    5003); but like the Speaker is forbidden to recognize for requests to
    suspend the rule of admission to the floor (V, 7285). He may direct the
    Committee to rise when the hour previously fixed for adjournment of the
    House arrives, or when the hour previously fixed by the House for
    consideration of other business arrives, in which case he reports in the
    regular way (IV, 4785; VIII, 2376; Aug. 22, 1974, p. 30077); but if the
    Committee happens to be in session at the hour fixed for the meeting of
    the House on a new legislative day, it rests with the Committee and not
    with the Chairman to determine whether or not the Committee shall rise
    (V, 6736, 6737). Although arguments on a point of order may not be
    revised, extended, or inserted, the Committee of the Whole by unanimous
    consent has allowed a Member to insert remarks about a point of order to
    follow the ruling thereon (July 13, 2000, p. ----).

    [[Page 730]]

    question without debate: ``Shall the House resolve itself into the
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration
    of this matter?'', naming it.

    Sec. 972. Speaker's declaration into Committee of the
    Whole pursuant to special order.

      2. (a)  Except as provided in paragraph (b)
    and in clause 7 of rule XV, the House resolves into the Committee of the
    Whole House on the state of the Union by motion. When such a motion is
    entertained, the Speaker shall put the

      (b) After the House has adopted a resolution reported by the Committee
    on Rules providing a special order of business for the consideration of
    a measure in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
    the Speaker may at any time, when no question is pending before the
    House, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole for
    the consideration of that measure without intervening motion, unless the
    special order of business provides otherwise.

    Measures requiring initial consideration in the Committee of the Whole
      Paragraph (a) was adopted when the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress to codify the form of the motion to resolve into the
    Committee of the Whole (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). Paragraph (b)
    was added in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). Before
    the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph (b) was
    found in former clause 1(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
    ----).

    [[Page 731]]

    resolution, or Senate amendment that fails to comply with this clause is
    subject to a point of order against its consideration.

    Sec. 973. Subjects requiring consideration in Committee of the
    Whole.

      3.  All bills, resolutions, or Senate amendments (as provided in
    clause 3 of rule XXII) involving a tax or charge on the people, raising
    revenue, directly or indirectly making appropriations of money or
    property or requiring such appropriations to be made, authorizing
    payments out of appropriations already made, releasing any liability to
    the United States for money or property, or referring a claim to the
    Court of Claims, shall be first considered in the Committee of the Whole
    House on the state of the Union. A bill,

      The first form of this rule was adopted in 1794 and was perfected by
    amendments in 1874 and 1896 (IV, 4792). Before the House recodified its
    rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3
    of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    Sec. 974. Construction of the rule, requiring
    consideration in Committee of the Whole.

      To require  consideration in Committee of
    the Whole, a bill must show on its face that it falls within the
    requirements of the rule (IV, 4811-4817; VIII, 2391). Where the
    expenditure is a mere matter of speculation (IV, 4818-4821; VIII, 2388),
    or where the bill might involve a charge but does not necessarily do so
    (IV, 4809, 4810), the rule does not apply. In passing upon the question
    as to whether a proposition involves a charge upon the Treasury, the
    Speaker is confined to the provisions of the text and may not take into
    consideration personal knowledge not directly deducible therefrom (VIII,
    2386, 2391). Resolutions reported by the Committee on House
    Administration appropriating from the contingent fund (now referred to
    as ``applicable accounts of the House described in clause 1(i)(1) of
    rule X'') of the House are considered in the House (VIII, 2415, 2416).
    Authorizations of expenditures from the contingent fund, under the later
    ruling (IV, 4862-4867) do not fall within the specifications of the rule
    (IV, 4868). A bill providing for an expenditure which is to be borne
    otherwise than by the Government (IV, 4831; VIII, 2400), or relating to
    money in the Treasury in trust (IV, 4835, 4836, 4853; VIII, 2413), is
    not governed by the rule. However, where a bill sets in motion a train
    of circumstances destined ultimately to involve certain expenditures, it
    must be considered in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4827; VIII, 2399), as
    well as bills ultimately authorizing officials in certain contingencies
    to part with property belonging to the United States (VIII, 2399). The
    requirements of the rule apply to amendments as well as to bills (IV,
    4793, 4794; VIII, 2331), and also to any portion of a bill requiring an
    appropriation, even though it be merely incidental to the bill's main
    purpose (IV, 4825). Under the later practice general (as well as private
    and special) bills providing for the adjudication and payment of claims
    are held to be within the requirements of the rule (IV, 4856-4859).

    [[Page 732]]

    in Committee of the Whole, they may not be sent there on the suggestion
    of the point of order that they contain matter ordinarily requiring
    consideration therein (V, 6559-6561). When a bill is made a special
    order (IV, 3216-3224), or when unanimous consent is given for its
    consideration (IV, 4823; VIII, 2393), the effect is to discharge the
    Committee of the Whole and bring the bill before the House itself for
    its consideration (IV, 3216; VII, 788), and in such event the bill is
    considered either in the House pursuant to a special order or ``in the
    House as in the Committee of the Whole'' (VIII, 2393). When a bill once
    considered in Committee of the Whole is recommitted, it is not, when
    again reported, necessarily subject to the point of order that it must
    be considered in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4828, 4829; V, 5545, 5546,
    5591).

    Sec. 975. Subjects not requiring consideration in
    Committee of the Whole.

      The  House may consider in Committee of the Whole
    subjects not specified in the rule (IV, 4822); for example, major
    amendments to the Rules of the House have been considered in Committee
    of the Whole pursuant to special orders (H. Res. 988, Committee Reform
    Amendments of 1974, considered in Committee of the Whole pursuant to H.
    Res. 1395, Sept. 30, 1974, p. 32953; H.R. 17654, Legislative
    Reorganization Act of 1970, considered in Committee of the Whole
    pursuant to H. Res. 1093, July 13, 1970, p. 23901). While conference
    reports were formerly considered

    Sec. 976. General practice as to consideration in
    Committee of the Whole.

      Provisions  placing liability jointly on the United States
    and the District of Columbia (IV, 4833), granting an easement on public
    lands or in streets belonging to the United States (IV, 4840-4842),
    dedicating public land to be forever used as a public park (IV, 4837,
    4838), providing site for statue (VIII, 2405), confirming grants of
    public lands (IV, 4843) and creating new offices (IV, 4824, 4846), have
    been held to require consideration in Committee of the Whole. Indian
    lands have not been considered property of the Government within the
    meaning of the rule (IV, 4844, 4845; VIII, 2413). While a bill removing
    the rate of postage has been held to be within the rule as affecting
    revenues (IV, 4861), a bill relating to taxes on bank circulation have
    not been so considered (IV, 4854, 4855).

    Order of business
      The mere making of a unanimous-consent request to dispense with the
    reading of an amendment and to revise and extend remarks thereon is not
    such intervening business as would render a point of order untimely
    under this clause, where the Member making the point of order is on his
    feet seeking recognition (July 16, 1991, p. 18391; see Procedure, ch.
    31, sec. 5.7).

    Sec. 977. Order of business in Committee of the
    Whole.

      4. (a)  Subject to subparagraph (b) business on the calendar of the
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union may be taken up
    in regular order, or in such order as the Committee may determine,
    unless the measure to be considered was determined by the House at the
    time of resolving into the Committee of the Whole.

    [[Page 733]]

    olutions making general appropriations have precedence under this
    clause.

      (b) Motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for
    consideration of bills and joint res

      The early practice left the order of taking up bills to be determined
    entirely by the Committee, but in 1844 the House began by rule to
    regulate the order, and in 1880 adopted the present rule (IV, 4729).
    When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
    provision was transferred from former clause 4 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). At that time references in this provision to
    revenue bills and rivers and harbors bills were deleted to conform it to
    changes made to the Rules of House by the Committee Reform Amendments of
    1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), which revoked the
    privilege to report such bills at any time.

    Reading for amendment-
      The power of the Committee to determine the order of considering bills
    on its calendar is construed to authorize a motion to establish an order
    (IV, 4730) or a motion to take up a specified bill out of its order (IV,
    4731, 4732; VIII, 2333). Except in cases wherein the rules make specific
    provisions therefor a motion is not in order in the House to fix the
    order in which business on the calendars of the Committee of the Whole
    shall be taken up (IV, 4733). The Committee of the Whole having voted to
    consider a particular bill, and consideration having begun, a motion to
    reconsider or change that vote is not in order (IV, 4765). When there is
    unfinished business in Committee of the Whole, it is usually first in
    order (IV, 4735; VIII, 2334).

    [[Page 734]]

    privilege of debate shall be allowed in favor of and against any
    amendment that may be offered to an amendment. An amendment, or an
    amendment to an amendment, may be withdrawn by its proponent only by the
    unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole.

    Sec. 978. General debate and amendment under the fiveminute
    rule in Committee of the Whole.

      5. (a)  Before general debate commences on a
    measure in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
    it shall be read in full. When general debate is concluded or closed by
    order of the House, the measure under consideration shall be read for
    amendment. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who offers an
    amendment shall be allowed five minutes to explain it, after which the
    Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who shall first obtain the
    floor shall be allowed five minutes to speak in opposition to it. There
    shall be no further debate thereon, but the same

      (b) When a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner offers an
    amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
    the Clerk shall promptly transmit five copies of the amendment to the
    majority committee table and five copies to the minority committee
    table. The Clerk also shall deliver at least one copy of the amendment
    to the majority cloakroom and at least one copy to the minority
    cloakroom.

    [[Page 735]]

    5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Before the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(a) of rule
    XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). The recodification also
    conformed paragraph (a) to the recodified clause 8 of rule XVI to
    reflect the modern practice of first and second readings (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). The fact that copies of an amendment have not
    been made available as required in this clause is not grounds for a
    point of order against the amendment (June 21, 1974, p. 20609; Mar. 25,
    1976, p. 7997).
      A rule of 1789 provided that bills should be read and debated in
    Committee of the Whole and in the House by clauses. Although that rule
    has disappeared, the practice continues in Committee of the Whole but
    not in the House. Originally there was unlimited debate in Committee of
    the Whole both as to the bill generally and also as to any amendment.
    However, in 1841 the rule that no Member should speak more than an hour
    was applied both to the Committee of the Whole and the House. At the
    same time another rule was adopted to prevent indefinite prolongation of
    debate in Committee of the Whole by permitting the House by majority
    vote to order the discharge of the Committee of the Whole from the
    consideration of a bill after acting, without debate, on pending
    amendments and any other amendments that might be offered. The effect of
    this was to empower the House to close general debate at any time after
    it had actually begun in the Committee and thereby require amendments to
    be voted on without debate. In 1847 a rule provided that any Member
    proposing an amendment should have five minutes in which to explain it,
    and in 1850 an amendment to the rule also permitted five minutes in
    opposition and guarded against abuse by forbidding the withdrawal of an
    amendment once offered (V, 5221). In the 104th Congress the Speaker
    announced his intention to strictly enforce time limitations on debate
    (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 457). Paragraph (b), placing the responsibility for
    providing copies of amendments on the Clerk, was part of the Legislative
    Reorganization Act of 1970 (sec. 124; 84 Stat. 1140) and was added to
    the rule in the 92d Congress (H. Res.

    Sec. 979. Motion to close general debate in
    Committee of the Whole.

      The motion  to close general debate in Committee of the
    Whole, successor in the practice to the motion to discharge provided by
    the rule of 1841, is made in the House pending the motion that the House
    resolve itself into Committee, and not after the House has voted to go
    into Committee (V, 5208). Though the motion is not debatable, the
    previous question is sometimes ordered on it to prevent amendment (V,
    5203). Where the previous question is ordered, the 40 minutes debate
    under clause 1(a) of rule XIX (former clause 2 of rule XXVII) is not
    allowed (VIII, 2555, 2690). General debate must have already begun in
    Committee of the Whole before the motion to limit debate it is in order
    in the House (V, 5204-5206). The motion may not apply to a series of
    bills (V, 5209) and must be offered to apply to the whole and not to a
    part of a bill (V, 5207). A proposition for a division of time may not
    be made as a part of it (V, 5210, 5211). The motion may not be made in
    Committee of the Whole (V, 5217; VIII, 2548); but, in absence of an
    order by the House, the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous consent
    determine as to general debate (V, 5232; VIII, 2553). Where the House
    has fixed the time, the Committee may not, even by unanimous consent,
    extend it (V, 5212-5216; VIII, 2321, 2550; Mar. 27, 1984, p. 6599; June
    17, 1999, p. ----). General debate must close before amendments, or
    motions for disposition of the bill, may be offered (IV, 4744, 4778; V,
    5221). General debate is closed by the fact that no Member desires to
    participate further (IV, 4745). Where no member of a committee
    designated to control time is present at the appropriate time during
    general debate in Committee of the Whole, the Chair may presume the time
    to have been yielded back (June 11, 1984, p. 15744).

      A simple motion to rise is in order during general debate if offered
    by a Member managing time or a Member to whom a manager yields for that
    purpose (June 10, 1999, p. ----). However, a Member may not, in time
    yielded to him for general debate, move that the Committee rise (May 25,
    1967, p. 14121) or yield to another for such motion (Feb. 22, 1950, p.
    2178; May 17, 2000, p. ----).-

    [[Page 736]]

    (V, 5221). Revenue, general appropriation, lighthouse, and river and
    harbor bills are generally read by paragraphs. Other bills are read by
    sections (IV, 4738, 4740). The matter is in the discretion of the Chair
    (VIII, 2341, 2344, 2346), although the Committee of the Whole has
    overruled his decision (VIII, 2347). A bill (or the remainder of a bill)
    may be considered as having been read and open to amendment by unanimous
    consent but not by motion (June 18, 1976, p. 19296). A Senate amendment,
    however, is read in entirety, and not by either paragraphs or sections
    (V, 6194) and an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered from
    the floor must also be read in its entirety and is then open to
    amendment at any point, and a unanimous-consent request in Committee of
    the Whole that it be read by sections for amendment is not in order
    (Mar. 25, 1975, p. 8490). To a bill read by paragraph, a motion to
    strike an entire title, encompassing multiple paragraphs, is not in
    order (Aug. 5, 1998, p. ----). The Committee of the Whole may not, even
    by unanimous consent, prohibit the offering of an amendment otherwise in
    order under the five-minute rule (July 31, 1984, p. 21701; Mar. 7, 1995,
    p. 11931). When a paragraph or section has been passed, it is not in
    order to return thereto (IV, 4742, 4743) except by unanimous consent
    (IV, 4746, 4747; Deschler's Precedents, vol. 8, ch. 26, sec. 2.26) or
    when, the reading of the bill being concluded and a motion to rise being
    decided in the negative, the Committee on motion votes to return (IV,
    4748). Where a bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any
    point, adoption of an amendment adding a new section at the end of the
    bill does not preclude subsequent amendments to previous sections of the
    bill (Apr. 17, 1986, p. 7861). However, the chairman may direct a return
    to a section whereon, by error, no action was had on a pending amendment
    (IV, 4750). Points of order against a paragraph should be made before
    the next paragraph is read (V, 6931; VIII, 2351). The paragraph or
    section having been read, and an amendment offered, the right to explain
    or oppose that amendment has precedence of a motion to amend it (IV,
    4751). In this debate recognitions are governed by the conditions of the
    pending question rather than by the general relations of majority and
    minority (V, 5223). The Member recognized may not yield time (V, 5035-
    5037; May 8, 1987, p. 11832; Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34686) unless he remains
    on his feet (June 10, 1998, p. ----); and he must confine himself to the
    subject (V, 5240-5256; VIII, 2591). Where debate on an amendment is
    limited or allocated by special order to a proponent and an opponent,
    the Members controlling the debate may yield and reserve time; whereas
    debate time on amendments under the five-minute rule cannot be reserved
    (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21425). A Member recognized under the five-minute rule
    may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment (Dec. 12, 14,
    1973, pp. 41171, 41716; Sept. 8, 1976, p. 29243; Mar. 7, 1995, p. 7107).

    Sec. 980. Reading and amendment under the
    fiveminute rule.

      The reading  of the bill for amendment is not specifically
    required by the present form of the rule; but is done under a practice
    which was originally instituted by the rule of 1789 and has continued,
    although the rule was eliminated, undoubtedly by inadvertence, in the
    codification of 1880

    [[Page 737]]

    under a reservation of objection against the proponent's time for debate
    on the amendment (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1978; May 27, 1993, p. 11931).
      Where the Chair recognizes the proponent of an amendment to propound a
    unanimous-consent request to modify the text of the amendment before
    commencing debate thereon, the Chair does not charge time consumed

      The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer amendments
    between majority and minority Members (giving priority to committee
    members) (July 20, 2000, p. ----).-

    [[Page 738]]

    Quorum and voting

    Sec. 981. Pro forma amendments under the fiveminute
    rule.

      The pro  forma amendment to ``strike out the last word'' has long been
    used for purposes of debate or explanation where an actual amendment is
    not contemplated (V, 5778; VIII, 2591). Unless a special rule precludes
    any amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate, a
    pro forma amendment may be voted on unless withdrawn (VIII, 2874). A
    Member who has occupied five minutes on a pro forma amendment to debate
    a pending substantive amendment may not lengthen this time by making
    another pro forma amendment (V, 5222; VIII, 2560), may not offer another
    pro forma amendment after intervening debate on a pending amendment,
    even on a subsequent day (July 14, 1998, p. ----), and may not extend
    debate time by offering a substantive amendment while other Members are
    seeking recognition (July 28, 1965, p. 18631). A Member recognized to
    offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule may not during
    that time offer a substantive amendment but must be separately
    recognized for that purpose by the Chair (Nov. 19, 1987, p. 32880). A
    Member may speak in opposition to a pending amendment and subsequently
    offer a pro forma amendment and debate that (June 30, 1955, p. 9614); a
    Member may offer a second degree amendment and then offer a pro forma
    amendment to debate the underlying first degree amendment (June 28,
    1995, p. 17633); and a Member who has debated a substantive amendment
    may thereafter rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment thereto (July
    20, 1951, p. 8566). A Member who has offered a substantive amendment and
    then debated it for five minutes may not extend his time by offering a
    pro forma amendment, as it is not in order for the offeror of an
    amendment to amend his own amendment except by unanimous consent (Oct.
    14, 1987, p. 27898). A pro forma amendment may be offered after a
    substitute has been adopted and before the vote on the amendment, as
    amended, by unanimous consent only, since the amendment has been amended
    in its entirety and no further amendments, including pro forma
    amendments, are in order (Oct. 18, 1983, p. 28185; June 28, 1995, p.
    17633). A Member recognized on a pro forma amendment may not allocate or
    reserve time, though he may in yielding indicate to the Chair when he
    intends to reclaim his time (May 19, 1987, p. 12811; July 13, 1994, p.
    16438). The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer pro forma
    amendments between majority and minority Members (giving priority to
    committee members) rather than between sides of the question (Mar. 21,
    1994, p. 5730).

    Sec. 982. Failure of a quorum in Committee of the
    Whole.

      6. (a)  A quorum of a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
    Union is 100 Members. The first time that a Committee of the Whole finds
    itself without a quorum during a day, the Chairman shall invoke the
    procedure for a quorum call set forth in clause 2 of rule XX, unless he
    elects to invoke an alternate procedure set forth in clause 3 or clause
    4(a) of rule XX. If a quorum appears, the Committee of the Whole shall
    continue its business. If a quorum does not appear, the Committee of the
    Whole shall rise, and the Chairman shall report the names of absentees
    to the House.

      (b)(1) The Chairman may refuse to entertain a point of order that a
    quorum is not present during general debate.

      (2) After a quorum has once been established on a day, the Chairman
    may entertain a point of order that a quorum is not present only when
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is operating
    under the five-minute rule and the Chairman has put the pending
    proposition to a vote.

      (3) Upon sustaining a point of order that a quorum is not present, the
    Chairman may announce that, following a regular quorum call under
    paragraph (a), the minimum time for electronic voting on the pending
    question shall be five minutes.

    [[Page 739]]

    Union, the Chairman may announce an intention to declare that a quorum
    is constituted at any time during the quorum call when he determines
    that a quorum has appeared. If the Chairman interrupts the quorum call
    by declaring that a quorum is constituted, proceedings under the quorum
    call shall be considered as vacated, and the Committee of the Whole
    shall continue its sitting and resume its business.
      (c) When ordering a quorum call in the Committee of the Whole House on
    the state of the

      (d) A quorum is not required in the Committee of the Whole House on
    the state of the Union for adoption of a motion that the Committee rise.

      It was the early practice for the Committee of the Whole to rise on
    finding itself without a quorum (IV, 2977), and it was not until 1847
    that a rule (former clause 2(a) of rule XXIII) was adopted. The rule was
    amended in 1880, again in 1890 (which included the concept that a quorum
    in the Committee should be one hundred rather than a quorum of the House
    (IV, 2966)), and in 1971 (Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). On October 13, 1972
    (H. Res. 1123, p. 36012) the rule was amended to reflect the
    installation of the electronic voting system in the House Chamber. The
    clause was amended in the 93d Congress to permit the Chair to vacate
    proceedings under the call in his discretion when a quorum appears (H.
    Res. 998, Apr. 9, 1974, pp. 10195-99). In the 95th Congress the clause
    was substantially changed to allow quorum calls only under the five-
    minute rule where the Chairman has put the question on a pending
    proposition, after a quorum of the Committee of the Whole has been once
    established on that day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). The clause
    was amended again in the 96th Congress to permit the Committee to
    continue its business following the appearance of a quorum so that the
    Speaker need not take the chair to receive the Committee's report of
    absentees as in previous practice, and to enable the Chairman to reduce
    to five minutes the period for a recorded vote immediately following a
    regular quorum call (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16). In the 97th
    Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) the clause was amended to
    allow the Chairman the discretion whether or not to entertain a point of
    order of no quorum during general debate only. Before the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
    former clause 2(a) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    [[Page 740]]

    another bill on that day is irrelevant during consideration (Sept. 19,
    1984, p. 26082)). Where a recorded vote on a prior amendment or motion
    during the five-minute rule on that bill on that day has established a
    quorum, a subsequent point of no quorum during debate is precluded (June
    3, 1992, p. 13336), although a subsequent call of the Committee may be
    ordered by unanimous consent (May 10, 1984, p. 11869; Dec. 17, 1985, p.
    37469; June 25, 1986, p. 15551). A vote by division is not such
    intervening business as would preclude a five-minute vote under clause
    6(b)(3) (July 22, 1994, p. 17609).
      The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole must entertain a point of
    order of no quorum during the five-minute rule if a quorum has not yet
    been established in the Committee on the bill then pending (and the fact
    that a quorum of the Committee has previously been established on

      The Speaker interpreted clause 6(c) to permit the Chairman of the
    Committee of the Whole to announce in advance, at the time that the
    absence of a quorum is ascertained, that he will vacate proceedings when
    a quorum appears, and to convert to a regular quorum call if a quorum
    does not appear at any time during the call (May 13, 1974, p. 14148).
    The Chair need not convert to a regular quorum call precisely at the
    expiration of 15 minutes if 100 Members have not responded on a
    ``notice'' quorum call but may continue to exercise his discretion to
    vacate proceedings at any time during the entire period permitted for
    the conduct of the call by clause 2 of rule XX (July 17, 1974, p.
    23673).

      Before the installation of the electronic system, a quorum in the
    Committee was established by a call of the roll. At one time the roll
    was called but once (IV, 2967); but in the later practice it was called
    twice as on other roll calls (VI, 668). Under the modern practice the
    Chairman normally directs that Members record their presence by
    electronic device. The Chair may however, in his discretion, order that
    Members respond by the alternative procedures in clause 3 of rule XX
    (alphabetical call of the roll) or clause 4(a) of rule XX (clerk
    tellers) (for the use of clerk tellers for a ``notice'' quorum call in
    Committee of the Whole, see July 13, 1983, p. 18858).

    [[Page 741]]

    Chair has relied on his immediately prior count on a point of no quorum
    and on his observation of several Members present but not voting on the
    division vote in finding the presence of a quorum of the Committee of
    the Whole (June 29, 1988, p. 16504). No quorum being present when a vote
    is taken in Committee of the Whole, and the Committee having risen
    before a quorum appeared, such vote is invalid, and the question is put
    de novo when the Committee resumes its business (VI, 676, 677). While an
    ``automatic'' roll call (under clause 6(a) of rule XX) is not in order
    in Committee of the Whole, a point of order of no quorum may intervene
    between the announcement of a division vote result and the transaction
    of further business, and a demand for a recorded vote following the
    quorum call is not thereby precluded (Oct. 9, 1975, p. 32598). Where a
    recorded vote is refused but the Chair has not announced the result of a
    voice vote on an amendment, and the demand for a division vote remains
    possible, the question remains pending and the Chair is obligated to
    entertain a point of order of no quorum under this provision (June 6,
    1979, p. 13648).
      Where the Committee has risen to report the absence of a quorum, it
    resumes its session by direction of the Speaker on the appearance of a
    quorum (IV, 2968; VI, 674). The quorum which must appear to permit the
    Committee to continue its business is a quorum of the Committee and not
    of the House (IV, 2970, 2971). However, if such quorum fails to appear,
    a quorum of the House is required for the Committee to resume its
    sitting (VI, 674). It was formerly held that after the Committee has
    risen and reported its roll call, a motion to adjourn was in order
    before direction as to resumption of the session (IV, 2969); but under
    the later practice the Committee immediately resumed its session without
    intervening motion or unanimous-consent requests (VI, 672, 673; VIII,
    2377, 2379, 2436). The failure of a quorum of the House to answer on
    this roll call does not interfere with the authority of the Speaker to
    direct the Committee to resume its session (IV, 2969). The Chairman's
    count of a quorum is not subject to verification by tellers (VIII, 2369,
    2436), may not be challenged by an appeal (July 24, 1974, p. 25012), and
    may include those present and not voting (VI, 641). On a division vote
    totaling less than 100, the

    Sec. 983. Rising and reports of Committee of the
    Whole.

      The presence  of a quorum is not necessary for adoption of a motion that the
    Committee of the Whole rise (IV, 2975, 2976, 4914; clause 6(d) of rule
    XVIII; Mar. 5, 1980, p. 4801; Oct. 3, 1985, p. 26096; May 21, 1992, p.
    12394).

      A simple motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is privileged
    (VIII, 2369), takes precedence over a motion to amend (May 21, 1992, p.
    12394), and is not debatable (May 17, 2000, p. ----). However, the
    motion cannot interrupt a Member who has the floor (VIII, 2370, 2371)
    and may be ruled out when dilatory (VIII, 2800). For a further
    discussion of the motion to rise, see Sec. 334, supra.

      A point of order of no quorum may not be entertained, on a day on
    which a quorum has been established, during the period after the
    Committee of the Whole has risen after completing its consideration of a
    bill or resolution and before the Chairman of the Committee has reported
    the bill or resolution back to the House. The Chairman having announced
    the absence of a quorum in Committee of the Whole, a motion to rise is
    in order and if a quorum develops on the vote by which the motion is
    rejected the roll is not called and the Committee proceeds with its
    business (VIII, 2369). The passage of a bill by the House is not
    invalidated by the fact that the Committee of the Whole reported it on
    an erroneous supposition that a record vote had disclosed a quorum (IV,
    2972).

      (e) In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the
    Chairman shall order a recorded vote on a request supported by at least
    25 Members.

    [[Page 742]]

    this provision was found in former clause 2(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    -  (f) <> In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
    the Chairman may reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
    voting without any intervening business or debate on any or all pending
    amendments after a record vote has been taken on the first pending
    amendment.
      This provision was adopted in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15,
    1979, pp. 7-16). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress,

      (g) The Chairman may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any
    amendment. The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at
    any time. The Chairman may reduce to five minutes the minimum time for
    electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another
    electronic vote without interviewing business, provided that the minimum
    time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall
    be 15 minutes.

      Paragraph (f) was added in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
    p. 39). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
    paragraph (f) was found in former clause 2(c) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). A vote by division is not such intervening
    business as would preclude a five-minute vote under this paragraph (July
    22, 1994, p. 17609).

    [[Page 743]]

    ceedings on a request for a recorded vote had been postponed could be
    modified by unanimous consent on the initiative of its proponent (Mar.
    30, 2000, p. ----); (3) a request for a recorded vote on an amendment on
    which proceedings had been postponed could be withdrawn by unanimous
    consent before proceedings resumed on the request as unfinished
    business, in which case the amendment stood disposed of by the voice
    vote thereon (May 16, 2000, p. ----); (4) it did not permit the Chair to
    postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (even by unanimous
    consent) (June 8, 2000, p. ----); (5) the Committee of the Whole by
    unanimous consent could vacate postponed proceedings, thereby permitting
    the Chair to put the question de novo (June 20, 2000, p. ----); and (6)
    the Committee of the Whole could resume proceedings on unfinished
    business consisting of a ``stack'' of amendments even while another
    amendment was pending (July 10, 2000, p. ----). The offering of a pro
    forma amendment to discuss the legislative program, or an extended one-
    minute speech by a Member to express gratitude to the Members on a
    personal matter, is considered intervening business such as to preclude
    a five-minute vote under this authority except by unanimous consent
    (June 22, 2000, p. ----; June 27, 2000, p. ----).
      Paragraph (g) was added in the 107th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
    2001, p. ----). Before the adoption of paragraph (g), the Chairman of
    the Committee of the Whole could not entertain a unanimous-consent
    request to reduce below 15 minutes the minimum time for recorded votes
    (June 18, 1987, p. 16764) or to postpone and cluster votes on amendments
    (July 13, 1995, p. 18871; Sept. 27, 1995, p. 26611; July 14, 1998, p. --
    --). Special rules of the House prior to adoption of paragraph (g)
    routinely provided the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole authority
    to postpone and cluster requests for recorded votes. Where a special
    rule provided such authority: (1) use of that authority, and the order
    of clustering, was entirely within the discretion of the Chair (Aug. 5,
    1998, p. ----; Mar. 29, 2000, p. ----); (2) an amendment pending as
    unfinished business where pro

    Sec. 985. Former provision for de novo vote where Delegates
    decisive.

        When the 103d Congress enabled voting by the Delegates and
    the Resident Commissioner in the Committee of the Whole, it also added a
    paragraph (d) to former clause 2 of rule XXIII to provide for immediate
    reconsideration in the House of questions resolved in the Committee of
    the Whole House on the state of the Union by a margin within which the
    votes of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner have been decisive (H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). When the 104th Congress repealed the
    authority for the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote in the
    Committee of the Whole, it also repealed former clause 2(d) (sec.
    212(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468).

    Dispensing with the reading of an amendment
      Under the former paragraph (d), whether the votes cast by the
    delegates were decisive was determined by a ``but for'' test, the
    question being whether the result would have been different if their
    votes were not counted (May 19, 1993, p. 10409). An amendment adopted by
    immediate proceedings de novo in the House under the former paragraph
    (d) did not disturb the sequence of a ``king-of-the-hill'' procedure
    established by a special rule waiving all points of order against
    subsequent amendments (Mar. 17, 1994, p. 5388).

    [[Page 744]]

    of the Whole dispense with the reading of an amendment that has been
    printed in the bill or resolution as reported by a committee, or an
    amendment that a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has caused
    to be printed in the Congressional Record. Such a motion shall be
    decided without debate.

    Sec. 986. Motion to dispense with reading.

      7.  It shall be in
    order in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to
    move that the Committee

    Closing debate-
      This provision was added in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
    1981, pp. 98-113) to permit a motion to dispense with the reading of
    certain amendments in the Committee of the Whole. Before the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
    former clause 5(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    Sec. 987. Closing the fiveminute debate in Committee of the
    Whole.

      8. (a)  Subject to paragraph (b) at any time after the Committee of the
    Whole House on the state of the Union has begun five-minute debate on
    amendments to any portion of a bill or resolution, it shall be in order
    to move that the Committee of the Whole close all debate on that portion
    of the bill or resolution or on the pending amendments only. Such a
    motion shall be decided without debate. The adoption of such a motion
    does not preclude further amendment, to be decided without debate.

    [[Page 745]]

    amendment to be printed in the Record shall be allowed five minutes to
    explain it, after which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
    who shall first obtain the floor shall be allowed five minutes to speak
    in opposition to it. There shall be no further debate thereon.
      (b) If the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
    closes debate on any portion of a bill or resolution before there has
    been debate on an amendment that a Member, Delegate, or Resident
    Commissioner has caused to be printed in the Congressional Record at
    least one day before its consideration, the Member, Delegate, or
    Resident Commissioner who caused the

      (c) Material submitted for printing in the Congressional Record under
    this clause shall indicate the full text of the proposed amendment, the
    name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner proposing it, the
    number of the bill or resolution to which it will be offered, and the
    point in the bill or resolution or amendment thereto where the amendment
    is intended to be offered. The amendment shall appear in a portion of
    the Record designated for that purpose. Amendments to a specified
    measure submitted for printing in that portion of the Record shall be
    numbered in the order printed.

      This clause (former clause 6 of rule XXIII) was adopted in 1860, with
    amendments in 1880 and 1885 (V, 5221, 5224). Paragraph (b), permitting
    10 minutes for debate on an amendment that has been printed in the
    Record even after the Committee of the Whole closes debate, was inserted
    in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144) following the
    enactment of an identical provision in section 119 of the Legislative
    Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140). In the 105th Congress that
    provision was amended to accommodate the printing of amendments to
    measures not yet reported (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. ----). The third
    sentence, relating to the procedure for submitting and printing of
    amendments, was added in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 1387, Nov. 25, 1974,
    p. 37270). The last sentence, relating to the numbering of printed
    amendments, was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 217, H. Res. 6, Jan.
    4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6 of rule XXIII (H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). A clerical correction was effected to
    paragraph (c) in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001,
    p. ----).

    [[Page 746]]

    or with the Official Reporters of Debates within 15 minutes following
    adjournment, and must bear the Member's original signature (Nov. 25,
    1974, p. 37270). Although ordinarily the expiration of time for debate
    on a bill and all amendments thereto precludes debate on amendments
    offered thereafter (July 18, 1968, p. 22110), debate on an amendment
    printed in the Record may nevertheless proceed for 10 minutes under this
    clause (Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27715). Printing an amendment in the Record
    under this clause permits debate notwithstanding a limitation of debate
    only if the amendment has been properly offered, and does not permit the
    offering of an amendment not otherwise in order under the rules (Apr.
    23, 1975, p. 11491); and the guaranteed five minutes may be claimed only
    if the offeror of the amendment is the Member who caused it to be
    printed under the rule (June 1, 1976, p. 16044; June 29, 1989, p. 13928;
    June 19, 1991, p. 15473). The guaranteed time applies to an amendment
    offered as a substitute for another amendment, rather than as a primary
    amendment, if offered in the precise form printed (June 26, 1979, p.
    16682), but where such a substitute amendment has not been printed in
    the Record it may not be debated unless time is yielded within the
    original 10 minutes (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34710). Where a special order
    requires amendments to be printed in the Record to qualify during the
    consideration of a bill under the five-minute rule, but makes no
    designation concerning offerors, any printed amendment may be offered by
    any Member (Mar. 22, 1990, p. 5017); but only the Member causing the
    amendment to be printed is entitled to the time for debate guaranteed by
    this clause.
      The Speaker announced that amendments to be printed in the Record
    pursuant to this clause must be deposited in a separate box at the
    Rostrum

      The motion to close five-minute debate is not in order until such
    debate has begun (V, 5225; VIII, 2567), which means after one five-
    minute speech (V, 5226; VIII, 2573). The motion to strike the enacting
    clause under clause 9 (former clause 7) of this rule is preferential to
    the motion to close debate (June 28, 1995, p. 17647; July 13, 1995, p.
    18872). Although any Member may move, or request unanimous consent, to
    limit debate under the five-minute rule, the manager of the bill has
    priority in recognition for such purpose (June 19, 1984, p. 17055). The
    House, as well as the Committee of the Whole, may close five-minute
    debate after it has begun (V, 5229, 5231), but rarely exercises this
    right. The motion to close debate, while not debatable (Apr. 23, 1975,
    p. 11534; June 5, 1975, p. 17187, July 14, 1998, p. ----), may be
    amended (V, 5227; VIII, 2578). A time limitation imposed by the
    Committee of the Whole under this clause may be rescinded or modified
    only by unanimous consent (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28904). While the
    Committee of the Whole may limit debate on amendments, it may not
    restrict the offering of amendments in contravention of a special order
    adopted by the House (June 25, 1985, p. 17201). The Committee of the
    Whole by unanimous consent may limit and allocate control of time for
    debate on amendments not yet offered (May 6, 1998, p. ----). The motion
    may be ruled out when dilatory (V, 5734).

    [[Page 747]]

    on debate on a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute and all
    amendments thereto, but not on the underlying original text, debate on
    perfecting amendments to the original text proceeds under the five-
    minute rule absent another time limitation (Apr. 13, 1983, p. 8402).
    Where the time for debate on a pending amendment in the form of a motion
    to strike and all amendments thereto has been limited, a subsequently
    offered perfecting amendment considered as preferential to (rather than
    as an amendment to) the motion to strike remains separately debatable
    outside the limitation (July 20, 1995, p. 19788). Where five-minute
    debate has been limited to a certain number of minutes without reference
    to a time certain, the time consumed by reading of amendments, quorum
    calls, points of order and votes does not reduce the amount of time
    remaining for debate (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28459; Nov. 9, 1971, p. 40060).
    However, where debate has been limited to a time certain, such
    activities as reading and voting consume time otherwise available for
    debate (May 6, 1970, p. 14452; Oct. 7, 1976, p. 26305). Unlike time
    placed under a Member's control, five-minute debate (or time derived
    therefrom under a limitation) may not be reserved or yielded in blocks
    except by unanimous consent (Mar. 2, 1976, p. 4992; May 11, 1976, p.
    13416; June 14, 1977, p. 18833). A motion to limit debate on a pending
    amendment may neither allocate the time proposed to remain nor vary the
    order of recognition to close debate, though the Committee of the Whole
    may do either separately by unanimous consent (July 12, 1988, p. 17767).
    The Committee of the Whole may: (1) by motion, limit debate on a pending
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (considered as read)
    and on all amendments thereto to a time certain; and then (2) by
    unanimous-consent request or motion, separately limit debate on each
    perfecting amendment as it is offered (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5794).
      The closing of debate on the last section of a bill does not preclude
    debate on a substitute for the whole text (V, 5228). Where there is a
    time limitation

    [[Page 748]]

      Under a limitation on debate the Chair may, in his discretion, choose
    among the following: (1) permit continued debate under the five-minute
    rule; (2) divide the remaining time among those desiring to speak; or
    (3) divide the remaining time between a proponent and an opponent to be
    yielded by them to other Members (May 25, 1982, p. 11672; May 10, 2000,
    p. ----). The Chair also may, in his discretion, give priority in
    recognition under a limitation to those Members seeking to offer
    amendments, over other Members standing at the time the limitation was
    agreed to (May 26, 1977, pp. 16950-52). Where time for debate has been
    limited on a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain several
    hours away, the Chair may, in his discretion, continue to proceed under
    the five-minute rule until he desires to allocate remaining time on
    possible amendments, and may then divide that time among proponents of
    anticipated amendments and committee members opposing those amendments
    (July 16, 1981, p. 16044; Feb. 28, 1995, pp. 6306-08; May 10, 2000, p.
    ----). The Chair has discretion to reallocate time to conform to the
    limit set by unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 16,
    1995, p. 8115).

    Striking the enacting clause
      As codified in clause 3(c) of rule XVII (and except as indicated in
    Sec. 959, supra) the manager of the bill, and not the proponent of the
    pending amendment, has the right to close controlled debate on an
    amendment (July 16, 1981, p. 16043), even where he is also the proponent
    of a pending amendment to the amendment (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5792).

    Sec. 988. The motion to strike out the enacting words of a
    bill.

      9.  A motion that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
    the Union rise and report a bill or resolution to the House with the
    recommendation that the enacting or resolving clause be stricken shall
    have precedence of a motion to amend, and, if carried in the House,
    shall constitute a rejection of the bill or resolution. Whenever a bill
    or resolution is reported from the Committee of the Whole with such
    adverse recommendation and the recommendation is rejected by the House,
    the bill or resolution shall stand recommitted to the Committee of the
    Whole without further action by the House. Before the question of
    concurrence is submitted, it shall be in order to move that the House
    refer the bill or resolution to a committee, with or without
    instructions. If a bill or resolution is so referred, then when it is
    again reported to the House it shall be referred to the Committee of the
    Whole without debate.

    [[Page 749]]

    (V, 5326, 5332). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
    Congress, this provision was found in former clause 7 of rule XXIII (H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). The motion must be in writing and in the
    proper form (July 24, 1986, p. 17641; Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22071; Sept. 12,
    1986, p. 23178).
      The practice of rejecting a bill by striking out the enacting words
    dates from a time as early as 1812, but the first rule on the subject
    was not adopted until 1822. By amendments in 1860, 1870, and 1880 the
    rule has been brought into its present form (V, 5326). The rule before
    1880 applied in the House as well as in Committee of the Whole. In the
    revision of 1880, it was classified among the rules relating to the
    Committee of the Whole, but there is nothing to indicate that this
    change was intended to limit the scope of the motion. It was probably a
    recognition merely of the fact that the motion was used most frequently
    in Committee of the Whole

    Sec. 989. Practice as to use of the motion to
    strike out the enacting clause.

      The motion  may not be made until the first
    section of the bill has been read (V, 5327; VIII, 2619). Having
    precedence of a motion to amend, it may be offered while an amendment is
    pending (V, 5328-5331; VIII, 2622, 2624, 2627). The motion takes
    precedence over the motion to amend and therefore over the motion to
    rise and report at the end of the reading of a general appropriation
    bill for amendment under clause 2(d) of rule XXI (July 24, 1986, p.
    17641). The motion also takes precedence over a motion to limit debate
    on pending amendments (June 28, 1995, p. 17647; July 13, 1995, p.
    18874). Where a special order provides that a bill shall be open to
    amendment in Committee of the Whole, a motion to strike out the enacting
    words is in order (VII, 787); contra (IV, 3215), but after the stage of
    amendment has been passed the motion to strike out the enacting words is
    not in order (IV, 4782; VIII, 2368). Where a bill is being considered
    under a special order which permits only committee amendments and no
    amendments thereto, a motion that the Committee rise and report with the
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is not in order
    where no committee amendments are in fact offered (Apr. 16, 1970, p.
    12092).

      The motion is debatable as to the merits of the bill, but may not go
    beyond its provisions (V, 5336). The debate on the motion is governed by
    the five-minute rule (V, 5333-5335; VIII, 2618, 2628-2631); only two
    five-minute speeches are in order (V, 5335; VIII, 2629), and time may
    not be reserved (May 22, 1991, p. 11830); thus where a Member recognized
    for five minutes in opposition to the motion yields back his time
    another Member may not claim the unused portion thereof (Mar. 3, 1988,
    p. 3241). Members of the committee managing the bill have priority in
    recognition for debate in opposition to the motion (May 5, 1988, p.
    9955; June 26, 1991, p. 16436). The Chair will not announce in advance
    the Member to be recognized in opposition to the motion (July 17, 1996,
    p. 17543). The motion is not debatable after the expiration of time for
    debate on the pending bill and all amendments thereto (July 9, 1965, p.
    16280; July 19, 1973, p. 24961; June 19, 1975, p. 19785), but it is
    debatable where the limitation is only on an amendment in the nature of
    a substitute being read as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
    under a special order (June 20, 1975, p. 19966). For more concerning
    debate on the motion, see Deschler's Precedents, vol. 5, ch. 19, sec.
    12.

    [[Page 750]]

    of the bill (June 21, 1962, p. 11369), nor does the adoption of an
    amendment to a proposed amendment to the bill. However, adoption of an
    amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute read as an
    original bill pursuant to a special order does qualify as a modification
    of the bill (June 20, 1975, p. 19970). A motion that is withdrawn by
    unanimous consent rather than voted on by the Committee does not
    preclude the offering of another motion on the same day without a
    material modification of the bill (May 9, 1996, p. 10758).
      A second motion to strike out the enacting clause is not entertained
    on the same legislative day in the absence of any material modification
    of the bill (VIII, 2636), but the motion may be repeated on a subsequent
    legislative day without change in the bill (May 6, 1950, p. 6571). The
    rejection of a proposed amendment to the bill does not qualify as a
    modification

      A point of order against the motion should be made before debate
    thereon has begun (V, 6902; VIII, 3442; May 6, 1950, p. 6571), and when
    challenged the Member offering the motion must qualify as being opposed
    to the bill (Mar. 13, 1942, p. 2439; May 6, 1950, p. 6571; June 14,
    1979, p. 14995; Jan. 26, 1995, p. 2521). When a bill is reported from
    the Committee of the Whole with the recommendation that the enacting
    words be stricken out, the motion to strike out is debatable (V, 5337-
    5340), but a motion to lay on the table is not in order (V, 5337). The
    previous question may be moved on the motion to concur without applying
    to further action on the bill (V, 5342). When the House disagrees to the
    action of the Committee in striking out the enacting words and does not
    refer it under the provisions of the rule, it goes back to the Committee
    of the Whole, where it becomes unfinished business (V, 5326, 5345, 5346;
    VIII, 2633). Notwithstanding that consideration of the pending bill was
    governed by a ``modified-closed'' rule permitting only specified
    amendments, pending the concurrence of the House with a recommendation
    of the Committee of the Whole that the enacting clause be stricken, the
    House could by instructions in a motion to refer under this clause
    direct the Committee of the Whole to consider additional germane
    amendments (Apr. 14, 1994, p. 7452). When the enacting words of a bill
    are stricken out, the bill is rejected (V, 5326). When the enacting
    clause of a Senate measure is stricken, the bill is rejected (V, 5326);
    and the Senate is so informed (IV, 3423; VIII, 2638; June 20, 1946, p.
    7211; Oct. 4, 1972, p. 33787).

    Concurrent resolution on the budget
      When, on Calendar Wednesday, the House disagrees to the recommendation
    of the Committee of the Whole that the enacting words be stricken out,
    the House automatically resolves itself into Committee of the Whole for
    its further consideration (VII, 943). When the bill is thus again taken
    up in Committee of the Whole it is taken up as unfinished business and
    is open to amendment, and the motion to strike out the enacting words
    may be again offered (VIII, 2633).

    [[Page 751]]

    under section 305(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
    concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for amendment.

    Sec. 990. Reading concurrent resolution on budget for
    amendment.

      10. (a)  At the conclusion of general debate in the Committee of the
    Whole House on the state of the Union on a concurrent resolution on the
    budget

      (b) It shall not be in order in the House or in the Committee of the
    Whole House on the state of the Union to consider an amendment to a
    concurrent resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, unless the
    concurrent resolution, as amended by such amendment or amendments--

          (1) would be mathematically consistent except as limited by
    paragraph (c); and

          (2) would contain all the matter set forth in paragraphs (1)
    through (5) of section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

      (c)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph (2), it shall not be in
    order in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House on the state
    of the Union to consider an amendment to a concurrent resolution on the
    budget, or an amendment thereto, that proposes to change the amount of
    the appropriate level of the public debt set forth in the concurrent
    resolution, as reported.

    [[Page 752]]

      (2) Amendments to achieve mathematical consistency under section
    305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if offered by
    direction of the Committee on the Budget, may propose to adjust the
    amount of the appropriate level of the public debt set forth in the
    concurrent resolution, as reported, to reflect changes made in other
    figures contained in the concurrent resolution.

    Unfunded mandates
      Paragraph (a) (first sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was
    added to the rules on January 4, 1977 (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., pp. 53-
    70). Paragraph (b) (second sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII)
    was adopted in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16).
    In the 96th Congress paragraph (b) was amended further and paragraph (c)
    (third sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was added by Public
    Law 96-78 (93 Stat. 589) and was originally intended to apply to
    concurrent resolutions on the budget for fiscal years beginning on or
    after October 1, 1980 (fiscal 1980). However, in the 96th Congress the
    provisions of that public law amending the Rules of the House were made
    applicable to the third concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
    year 1980 as well as the first concurrent resolution on the budget for
    fiscal year 1981 (H. Res. 642, Apr. 23, 1980, p. 8789). Before the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
    former clause 8 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    Sec. 991. Unfunded mandates.

      11. (a)  In the Committee of the
    Whole House on the state of the Union, an amendment proposing only to
    strike an unfunded mandate from the portion of the bill then open to
    amendment, if otherwise in order, may be precluded from consideration
    only by specific terms of a special order of the House.

      (b) In this clause the term ``unfunded mandate'' means a Federal
    intergovernmental mandate the direct costs of which exceed the threshold
    otherwise specified for a reported bill or joint resolution in section
    424(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

    [[Page 753]]

    Applicability of Rules of the House
      This provision (former clause 5(c) of rule XXIII) was added by the
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (sec. 107(a), P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat.
    63). It was amended later in the 104th Congress to effect a technical
    correction (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077), and in the 105th
    Congress to clarify that it applies to intergovernmental mandates (H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. ----). Before the House recodified its rules in
    the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(c) of
    rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    Sec. 992. Application of Rules of House to the Committee of
    the Whole.

      12.  The Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee of
    the Whole House on the state of the Union so far as applicable.

      This clause was adopted in 1789 (IV, 4737). Before the House
    recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
    former clause 9 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

    [[Page 754]]

    special order (July 28, 1988, p. 19491; Speaker Wright, Aug. 11, 1988,
    p. 22105; June 10, 1998, p. ----; July 29, 1999, p. ----); (13) to
    permit another to offer an amendment vested in a specified Member (May
    1, 1990, p. 9030); or (14) to permit a division of the question on an
    amendment rendered indivisible by a special order (July 16, 1996, p.
    17318).

    Sec. 993. Modification of special
    orders.

      A unanimous-consent  request may not be entertained in the Committee of the Whole
    by the Chair if its effect is to materially modify procedures required
    by a special rule or order adopted by the House. For example, the
    following unanimous-consent requests may not be entertained in the
    Committee of the Whole: (1) to permit a perfecting amendment to be
    offered to the underlying bill where a special rule permitted its
    consideration only as a perfecting amendment to a committee amendment
    (Aug. 2, 1977, p. 26161); (2) to permit a substitute to be read by
    section for amendment where the special rule did not so provide (Dec.
    12, 1973, p. 41153); (3) to extend the time limitation for consideration
    of amendments beyond that set by a special order requiring the Chair to
    put the question on the pending amendments at the expiration of certain
    hours of consideration (Apr. 10, 1986, p. 7079; Oct. 30, 1991, p. 29213;
    Aug. 3, 1999, p. ----; Oct. 21, 1999, p. ----); (4) to restrict ``en
    blocking'' authority granted in a special order (Sept. 11, 1986, p.
    22871; June 21, 1989, p. 12744); (5) to change the scheme for control
    (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29984) or duration (Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17143; Mar. 12,
    1991, p. 5799; Mar. 17, 1993, p. 5385; June 17, 1999, p. ---- (Chair
    corrected himself)) of general debate specified by the House; (6) to
    reduce below 15 minutes the minimum time for recorded votes in the
    Committee of the Whole (June 18, 1987, p. 16764); (7) to postpone and
    cluster votes on amendments (July 13, 1995, p. 18872; Sept. 27, 1995, p.
    26611; July 14, 1998, p. ----); (8) to preempt the Chair's discretion
    (granted by a special order) to postpone and cluster votes or to
    schedule further consideration of a pending measure to a subsequent day
    (June 4, 1992, p. 13625; July 13, 1995, p. 18872; Aug. 2, 1999, p. ----
    ); (9) to postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (June 8,
    2000, p. ----); (10) to permit an amendment offered by another Member to
    an amendment rendered unamendable by a special order or to permit a
    subsequent amendment changing such unamendable amendment already adopted
    (Nov. 18, 1987, p. 32643; July 26, 1989, p. 16411; July 24, 1996, p.
    18907); (11) to permit consideration of an amendment out of the order
    specified in a special rule (May 25, 1988, p. 12275; Oct. 3, 1990, p.
    27354; Oct. 31, 1991, p. 29359; Nov. 19, 1993, p. 30472; June 10, 1998,
    p. ----); (12) to permit consideration of an additional amendment or to
    authorize a supplemental report from the Committee on Rules in lieu of
    the original report referred to in the

      Unanimous-consent requests have been entertained in Committee of the
    Whole: (1) to permit the modification of a designated amendment made in
    order by a special rule, once offered, if the request is propounded by
    the proponent of the amendment (Sept. 1, 1976, p. 28877; Nov. 19, 1993,
    p. 30472; July 24, 1996, p. 18906; Mar. 29, 2000, p. ----), including as
    unfinished business where proceedings on a request for a recorded vote
    have been postponed (Mar. 30, 2000, p. ----); (2) to permit a page
    reference to be included in a designated amendment made in order as
    printed where the printed amendment did not include that reference (Apr.
    1, 1976, p. 9091); (3) to permit a supporter of an amendment to claim
    debate time allocated by special order to an opponent, where no opponent
    seeks recognition (May 23, 1990, p. 11988); (4) to shorten the time set
    by special order for debate on a particular amendment (Aug. 1, 1990, p.
    21510; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9742); (5) to lengthen the time set by special
    order for debate on a particular amendment under terms of control
    congruent with those set by the order of the House (May 11, 1988, p.
    10495; May 21, 1991, p. 11646; Mar. 22, 1995, p. 8769; June 27, 1995, p.
    17329; Nov. 2, 1995, p. 31376); (6) to permit en bloc consideration of
    several amendments under a ``modified-closed'' special order providing
    for the sequential consideration of designated separate amendments (Aug.
    10, 1994, p. 20768); (7) to permit one of two committees controlling
    time for general debate pursuant to a special order to yield control of
    its time to the other (Aug. 18, 1994, p. 23118); (8) to permit the
    offering of pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate under a
    ``modified-closed'' special order limiting both amendments and debate
    thereon (July 17, 1996, p. 17563; July 24, 1996, p. 18896); (9) to reach
    ahead in the reading of a general appropriation bill to consider one
    amendment without prejudice to others earlier in the bill under a
    special order of the House contemplating that each remaining amendment
    be offered only at the ``appropriate point in the reading of the bill''
    (Mar. 29, 2000, p. ----); and (10) to permit the reading of an amendment
    that already was considered as read under the special order of the House
    (June 13, 2000, p. ----).

    [[Page 755]]

    description of the authority under clause 6(g) of this rule for the
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone and cluster requests
    for recorded votes on amendments (which, prior to the adoption of that
    clause, was routinely provided by special orders of the House), and the
    Chair's interpretation thereof, see Sec. 984, infra.

      By unanimous consent the House may delegate to the Committee of the
    Whole authority to entertain unanimous-consent requests to change
    procedures contained in an adopted special order (Aug. 11, 1986, p.
    20633). The Member offering an amendment in the Committee of the Whole
    pursuant to a special order of the House has the burden of proving that
    it meets the description of the amendment made in order (July 17, 1996,
    p. 17553). The Chair advised the Committee that an amendment made in
    order was described by subject matter rather than by prescribed text and
    that the pending amendment fit such description (July 20, 2000, p. ----
    ). For a