[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but that authority was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H. 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.