    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 109th Congress]
    [109th Congress]
    [House Document 108-241]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 751-779]
    [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

    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 752]]

      This provision (formerly 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    but that authority was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H.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. 47).

    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). The Chairman recognizes for debate (V, 5003). Like the Speaker,
    the Chairman is forbidden to recognize for requests to suspend the rule
    of admission to the floor (V, 7285).

      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). For example, the
    Chairman does not respond to a parliamentary inquiry relating to
    possible proceedings in the House on a motion to recommit (Feb. 27,
    2002, p. ----). 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. 29537).

      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. 9954). An appeal is debatable in the Committee
    of the Whole under the five-minute rule (June 24, 2003, p. ----). A
    majority vote sustains the ruling (Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17159).

      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). However, 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). 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).

    [[Page 753]]

      Although 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). 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. 14095).

    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 6 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 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.

      (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.

    [[Page 754]]

    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. 47). A conforming
    change to paragraph (a) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(f),
    H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, 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. 47).

    973. Subjects requiring consideration in Committee of the
    Whole.

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

      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. 47). A technical correction
    to this clause was effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 7, 2003, p. ----).

    [[Page 755]]

      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. 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 must
    bills ultimately authorizing officials in certain contingencies to part
    with property belonging to the United States (VIII, 2399). 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). 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).

      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). Although conference reports were formerly
    considered in Committee of the Whole, they may not be sent there as a
    result if a point of order that they contain matter ordinarily requiring
    consideration therein (V, 6559-6561).

      When a bill is granted a special order for its consideration in the
    House by special rule (IV, 3216-3224) or by unanimous consent (IV, 4823;
    VIII, 2393), the effect is to discharge the Committee of the Whole. If
    the special order so dictates, the bill is before the full House for
    consideration (IV, 3216; VII, 788). Otherwise, the bill is considered in
    the House as in the Committee of the Whole (VIII, 2393). For a
    discussion of the modern practice of the House, under which a special
    order reported from the Committee on Rules that makes in order no
    amendments, or only one amendment, normally provides for consideration
    of a measure on the Union Calendar in the House, see House Practice, ch.
    12, Sec. 3.

      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).

      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(j)(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 held in the
    Treasury in trust for a nongovernmental entity (IV, 4835, 4836, 4853;
    VIII, 2413), is not governed by the rule.

    [[Page 756]]

    Order of business
      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 a 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). Although 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).

    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.

      (b) Motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for
    consideration of bills and joint resolutions making general
    appropriations have precedence under this clause.

      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. 47). 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 the 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.

    [[Page 757]]

    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).

    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 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.

      (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 758]]

    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). 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. 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. 47). 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. 47).
      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

      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). Time unused by a
    minority manger in general debate will be considered as yielded back
    upon recognition of the majority manager to close general debate (Feb.
    27, 2002, p. ----). In the 104th Congress the Speaker announced his
    intention to strictly enforce time limitations on debate (Jan. 4, 1995,
    p. 457). The Chair manages the sequence in which committees use their
    time for general debate under a special rule as a matter of recognition
    and may recognize any member of the committee who is filling the role of
    chairman or ranking minority member under the governing special rule
    (Mar. 9, 2005, p. ----). For a further discussion of management of time
    for general debate and debate on amendments in the Committee of the
    Whole, see Sec. 959, supra.

    [[Page 759]]

    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.
    8200).
      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. 12522; Sept. 4, 2003, p. ----, p. ----, p. --
    --). However, a Member may not, in time yielded to him for general

    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 (formerly 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, pp. 13437, 13442).-

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

      The  second reading was originally instituted by the rule of 1789 and
    has continued, although the rule was eliminated, undoubtedly by
    inadvertence, in the codification of 1880 (V, 5221). The recodification
    of the 106th Congress conformed paragraph (a) to reflect the modern
    practice of first and second readings (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

      Revenue, general appropriation, lighthouse, and river and harbor bills
    are generally read by paragraphs. Other bills are read by sections (IV,
    4738, 4740). Absent an order of the House to the contrary, 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 Senate
    amendment, however, is read in its entirety, and not by either
    paragraphs or sections (V, 6194). An amendment in the nature of a
    substitute offered from the floor also must be read in its entirety and
    is then open to amendment at any point. Where a special order of
    business provides that an amendment inserting a provision in a bill be
    considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole,
    the text thereby inserted in the bill is not read for amendment in the
    Committee of the Whole (May 23, 2002, p. ----).

    [[Page 760]]

    the floor be read by sections for amendment is not in order (Mar. 25,
    1975, p. 8490). The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole normally
    looks to the manager of a general appropriation bill for any request to
    accelerate the reading by paragraph, although the Chair may recognize a
    Member seeking unanimous consent to offer an amendment to a portion of a
    bill not yet read (July 26, 2001, p. ----).
      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 unanimous-consent request in Committee of the
    Whole that an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered from

      To a bill read by paragraph, a motion to strike an entire title,
    encompassing multiple paragraphs, is not in order (Aug. 5, 1998, p.
    18928). 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). Where a bill is considered by title, the
    offering of an amendment inserting a new title precludes subsequent
    amendment to the pending title (Sept. 14, 2005, p. ----; see also
    Deschler-Brown, ch. 27, Sec. 10.13).

      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, 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). By unanimous consent,
    the Committee of the Whole permitted a Member to withdraw an amendment
    and to reserve her right to reoffer it at a later time, even though that
    portion of the bill would have been passed in the reading (June 28,
    2001, p. ----). 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 (or other portion of the bill then
    open to amendment) should be made before the next paragraph (or portion
    of the bill) is read or before an amendment is offered thereto (V, 6931;
    VIII, 2351; June 16, 2004, p. ----). 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 the amendment (IV, 4751).

      The Member recognized during five-minute debate 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. 11976); 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). For a further discussion of management of time for debate on
    amendments in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 959, supra.

    [[Page 761]]

    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. 15735). Recognition of Members to offer
    amendments in the Committee of the Whole under the five-minute rule is
    within the discretion of the Chair and cannot be challenged on a point
    of order (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 9.6). The Chair does not
    anticipate the order in which amendments may be offered nor does he
    declare in advance the order in which he will recognize Members
    proposing amendments (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 21.3).

      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). 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). An amendment that has
    been disposed of in the Committee of the Whole may not be withdrawn
    (June 17, 2004, p. ----).-

    [[Page 762]]

    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).

    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. 15298; May 23, 2002, 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

    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.

    [[Page 763]]

    rule and the Chairman has put the pending proposition to a vote.
      (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

      (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.

      (c) When ordering a quorum call in the Committee of the Whole House on
    the state of the 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.

      (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.

    [[Page 764]]

    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. 47).
      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 (formerly 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

      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
    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 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 765]]

    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 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

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

      Under  clause 6(d), the presence of a quorum is not necessary for
    adoption of a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise (IV, 2975,
    2976, 4914; Mar. 5, 1980, p. 4801; Oct. 3, 1985, p. 26096; May 21, 1992,
    p. 12394; July 21, 2004, p. ----).

    [[Page 766]]

      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. 8203). 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. For a point of
    order against the motion to rise and report an appropriation bill to the
    House where the bill, as proposed to be amended, exceeds an applicable
    allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and setting forth procedures in the
    Committee of the Whole in the event that the point of order is
    sustained, see Sec. 1044b, infra.

      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 recorded 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.

    -  (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, this provision was found in former clause 2(b) of rule XXIII
    (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).

    [[Page 767]]

    tronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15
    minutes.

      (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 intervening business, provided that the minimum
    time for elec

      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. 47). A vote by division is not such intervening
    business as would preclude a five-minute vote under this paragraph (July
    22, 1994, p. 17609).

      Paragraph (g) was added in the 107th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
    2001, p. 25). 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 before adoption of paragraph (g) commonly
    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 (e.g., Aug.
    5, 1998, p. 18950); (2) an amendment pending as unfinished business
    where proceedings 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. 4037; July 19, 2005, 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. 7994); (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. 9954); (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. 11526); 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. 13615).

    [[Page 768]]

    by the voice vote thereon (e.g., Sept. 17, 1998, p. ----, June 25, 2004,
    p. ----) unless the request proposes that the Chair put the question de
    novo (Sept. 22, 2004, p. ----).
      Pursuant to this clause, where the Speaker has announced that he will
    postpone a request for a recorded vote that was made pending a point of
    order of no quorum, the point of order is considered as withdrawn
    because the question is no longer pending after the Speaker's
    announcement (see Sec. 1026, infra). 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. 12087; June 27, 2000, p. 12586). A request for a record vote
    under this paragraph may be withdrawn by unanimous consent before
    proceedings resume on the request as unfinished business, in which case
    the amendment stands disposed of

    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).

    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 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.

    [[Page 769]]

    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. 47).

    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.

      (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 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.

    [[Page 770]]

    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.

      (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

      This clause (formerly 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.
    121). 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. 47). A clerical correction was
    effected to paragraph (c) in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26).

    [[Page 771]]

    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 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

      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 (formerly clause 7) 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. 15304), 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. 8348). The motion may be ruled out when
    dilatory (V, 5734).

    [[Page 772]]

    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 by
    motion: (1) 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) 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 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

      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. 7515). 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
    (e.g., July 16, 1981, p. 16044; Feb. 28, 1995, pp. 6306-08). 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) a manager of the bill controlling time in opposition to
    an amendment, and not the proponent of the pending amendment, has the
    right to close debate on the amendment (July 16, 1981, p. 16043), even
    where he is the proponent of a pending amendment to the amendment (Mar.
    16, 1983, p. 5792).

    [[Page 773]]

    ever 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.

    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. When

      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 (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. 47). 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).

    [[Page 774]]

    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).

    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

      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). However, 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 and not on the bill, itself, as well (June 20,
    1975, p. 19966). For more concerning debate on the motion, see Deschler,
    ch. 19, Sec. 13.

      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 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).

    [[Page 775]]

    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).
      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

    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).

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

      (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

    [[Page 776]]

          (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.

      (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 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. 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. 47).

    [[Page 777]]

    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.

    991. Unfunded mandates.

      11. (a)  In the Committee of the
    Whole House on the state of the Union, an amendment proposing only to
    strike

      (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.

    Applicability of Rules of the House
      This provision (formerly 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. 121). 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. 47). An amendment has been
    admitted under this clause to a bill being considered under a modified-
    closed rule that did not specifically preclude such amendment (Apr. 21,
    2005, p. ----).

    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. 47).

    [[Page 778]]

    ing 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. 19218; Oct. 21, 1999, p.
    26492); (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, pp. 13437, 13442; Feb. 9, 2005, p. ---- (Chair corrected himself))
    of general debate specified by the House, including a ``wrap up'' debate
    following the amendment process (Mar. 25, 2004, p. ----); (6) 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);
    (7) to postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (June 8,
    2000, p. 9954); (8) 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); (9) 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. 11914; July 29, 1999, p. ----); (10) 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
    special order (July 28, 1988, p. 19491; Speaker Wright, Aug. 11, 1988,
    p. 22105; June 10, 1998, p. 11914; June 24, 2005, p. ----); (11) to
    permit another to offer an amendment vested in a specified Member (May
    1, 1990, p. 9030); (12) to permit a division of the question on an
    amendment rendered indivisible by a special order (July 16, 1996, p.
    17318); (13) to preclude procedural votes (where the order of the House
    refrained from precluding any form of motion to rise) (July 26, 2001, p.
    ----); (14) to preclude further amendment except as specified (Apr. 3,
    2003, p. ----); (15) to permit the offering of a pro forma amendment to
    an amendment when the special order governing consideration occupied the
    field by permitting pro forma amendments to the bill only (July 7, 2004,
    p. ----).

    Sec. 993.
    Modification of special orders.

      The Chair may not entertain a unanimous-consent  request in the Committee of the Whole
    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 requir

    [[Page 779]]

    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; Mar. 25, 2004, p. ----); (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. 3980); 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. 10546; July 10,
    2002, p. ----).
      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 (e.g., Sept. 1, 1976, p. 28877; Nov. 19,
    1993, p. 30472; July 24, 1996, p. 18906; Mar. 29, 2000, p. 4017; Mar.
    13, 2002, p. ----), including as unfinished business where proceedings
    on a request for a recorded vote have been postponed (Mar. 30, 2000, p.
    4037); (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

      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.
    15751). For a description of the authority under clause 6(g) for the
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone and cluster requests
    for recorded votes on amendments (which, before the adoption of that
    clause, was commonly provided by special orders of the House), and the
    Chair's interpretation thereof, see Sec. 984, supra.