    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 112th Congress]
    [112nd Congress]
    [House Document 111-157]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 770-798]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 770]]

                                   Rule XVIII

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

    970. Selection of Chair of Committee of the Whole; and the
    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 Member as Chair to preside. In
    case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries or lobby, the
    Chair may cause the same to be cleared.

      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 Chair 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).
    That authority was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H. Res.
    6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), reinstated in the 110th Congress (H. Res. 78,
    Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140), and repealed in the 112th Congress (sec.
    2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _). A Delegate first presided under
    the former authority on October 6, 1994 (p. 28533). Gender-based
    references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 6, 2009, p. _). 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 chair of the Committee of the
    Whole.

      The  Sergeant-at-Arms attends the sittings of the Committee of the
    Whole and, under direction of the Chair, maintains order (I, 257). After
    repeated disturbances in the gallery, the Chair warned its occupants of
    possible prosecution (under 40 U.S.C. 5104) and, in response to a
    parliamentary inquiry, affirmed his authority to have the gallery
    cleared (Apr. 15, 2011, p. _). The Chair recognizes for debate (V,
    5003). Like the Speaker, the Chair is forbidden to recognize for
    requests to suspend the rule of admission to the floor (V, 7285).

    [[Page 771]]

    liamentary inquiry relating to
    possible proceedings in the House on a motion to recommit (Feb. 27,
    2002, p. 2079). The Chair 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).
      The Chair 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
    Chair does not respond to a par

      Decisions of the Chair 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, pp. 15854-56). A
    majority vote sustains the ruling (Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17159).

      The Chair 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 the Chair 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 Chair to determine whether
    or not the Committee shall rise (V, 6736, 6737). The Chair may declare
    an emergency recess under clause 12 of rule I. In rare cases wherein the
    Chair has been defied or insulted, the Chair 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).

      Although the Committee of the Whole does not control the Congressional
    Record, the Chair may direct the exclusion of disorderly words spoken by
    a Member after having 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).

    [[Page 772]]

    House on
    the state of the Union for consideration of this matter?'', naming it.

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

      2. (a)  Except as provided in paragraph (b)
    and in clause 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

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

    Measures requiring initial consideration in the Committee of the Whole
      Paragraph (a) was adopted when the House recodified its rules in the
    106th Congress to codify the form of the motion to resolve into the
    Committee of the Whole (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A conforming
    change to paragraph (a) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(f),
    H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). 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).

    [[Page 773]]

    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.

    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 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. 7).

      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). If the expenditure is a mere matter of speculation
    (IV, 4818-4821; VIII, 2388), or if the bill might involve a charge but
    does not necessarily do so (IV, 4809, 4810), the rule does not apply.
    However, if 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 of a point of order that they contain matter ordinarily requiring
    consideration therein (V, 6559-6561).

    [[Page 774]]

    ation of a measure on the Union Calendar in
    the House (see, e.g., Apr. 26, 2001, p. 6299).
      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). In the modern
    practice of the House, a special order reported from the Committee on
    Rules that makes in order no amendments, or only one amendment, normally
    provides for consider

      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(k)(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 that is to be borne other 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.

    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
    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.

    [[Page 775]]

      (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 to
    changes made to the rules by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H.
    Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), which revoked the
    privilege to report such bills at any time.

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

    [[Page 776]]

    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.

    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

      (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 777]]

    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 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 to 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

      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). If 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
    manager in general debate will be considered as yielded back upon
    recognition of the majority manager to close general debate (Feb. 27,
    2002, p. 2059). 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
    chair or ranking minority member under the governing special rule (Mar.
    9, 2005, pp. 3928, 3932). 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.

      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. 21155, p. 21157, p.
    21158). However, a Member may not, in time yielded for general debate,
    move that the Committee rise (May 25, 1967, p. 14121) or further yield
    to another for such motion (Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2178; May 17, 2000, p.
    8200).

    [[Page 778]]

    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 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). If the previous question is ordered, the 40 minutes of 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 the absence of an
    order by the House, the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous consent
    determine general debate (V, 5232; VIII, 2553). If 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 a decision (VIII, 2347). A Senate
    amendment, however, is read in its entirety, and not by 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. If 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, pp. 8923, 8924).

      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 the
    floor be read for amendment by sections is not in order (Mar. 25, 1975,
    p. 8490). The chair 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. 14733).

      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). If 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). If a bill is considered by title, the
    adoption of an amendment inserting a new title precludes subsequent
    amendment to the previous title (Sept. 14, 2005, p. 20220; see also
    Deschler-Brown, ch. 27, Sec. 10.13).

    [[Page 779]]

    Chair may direct a return to a section
    whereon, by error, no action was had on a pending amendment (IV, 4750).
      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. 12262). The

      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. 12565). 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
    remaining standing (June 10, 1998, p. 11976); and must confine remarks
    to the subject (V, 5240-5256; VIII, 2591). If 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)
    or yield blocks of time (June 14, 2006, p. 11199). For a further
    discussion of management of time for debate on amendments in the
    Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 959, supra.

      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 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).

      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 declare in
    advance the order in which Members proposing amendments will be
    recognized (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 21.3).

    [[Page 780]]

      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, pp. 12944, 12945).-

    [[Page 781]]

    Quorum and voting

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

      The pro  forma amendment to ``strike 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) but
    the Chair does not as a matter of course put the question on a pro forma
    amendment. 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 or proposition, even on a subsequent day (July 14,
    1998, p. 15298; May 23, 2002, p. 8913 (see May 22, 2002, p. 8707)), 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 (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); a Member who has debated a substantive amendment may
    thereafter rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment thereto (July 20,
    1951, p. 8566); and a Member may offer a pro forma amendment each to a
    pending amendment and a second-degree amendment thereto (June 12, 2007,
    p. 15525; July 31, 2007, pp. 21962, 21963), but not more than one (July
    31, 2007, p. 21967). A Member who has offered a substantive amendment
    and then debated it for five minutes may not extend that time by
    offering a pro forma amendment, because it is not in order for the
    offeror of an amendment to amend his or her own amendment except by
    unanimous consent (Oct. 14, 1987, p. 27898). A pro forma amendment may
    be offered after a substitute has been adopted and before the vote on
    the amendment, as amended, by unanimous consent only, because 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, but may in yielding indicate to the
    Chair when the Member intends to reclaim 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). A pro forma amendment may not be
    offered while a point of order is pending (Feb. 16, 2011, p. _).

    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 Chair shall invoke the
    procedure for a quorum call set forth in clause 2 of rule XX, unless the
    Chair 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 Chair shall report the names of
    absentees to the House.

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

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

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

    [[Page 782]]

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

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

      It was the early practice for the Committee of the Whole to rise on
    finding itself without a quorum (IV, 2977), and it was not until 1847
    that a rule (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 100 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 give the Chair discretion to
    vacate proceedings under the call 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 Chair has put the question on a pending proposition,
    after a quorum of the Committee of the Whole has been once established
    on that day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). The clause was amended
    again in the 96th Congress to permit the Committee to continue its
    business following the appearance of a quorum so that the Speaker need
    not take the chair to receive the Committee's report of absentees as in
    previous practice, and to enable the Chair 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 Chair the
    discretion whether or not to entertain a point of order of no quorum
    during general debate only. Gender-based references were eliminated in
    the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. _). 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).

    [[Page 783]]

    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)). If a recorded vote on a prior
    amendment or motion during consideration under 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 chair of the Committee of the Whole must entertain a point of
    order of no quorum during consideration under the five-minute rule if a
    quorum

      Clause 6(c) permits the chair of the Committee of the Whole to
    announce in advance, at the time that the absence of a quorum is
    ascertained, an intention to 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 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
    Chair normally directs that Members record their presence by electronic
    device. The Chair may however, in the Chair's 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 784]]

    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 an
    immediately prior count on a point of no quorum and on the Chair's
    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). Although 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 that must appear to permit the
    Committee to continue its business is a quorum of the Committee and not
    of the House (IV, 2970, 2971). However, if such quorum fails to appear,
    a quorum of the House is required for the Committee to resume its
    sitting (VI, 674). It was formerly held that after the Committee has
    risen and reported its roll call, a motion to adjourn was in order
    before direction as to resumption of the session (IV, 2969); but under
    the later practice the Committee immediately resumed its session without
    intervening motion or unanimous-consent requests (VI, 672, 673; VIII,
    2377, 2379, 2436). The failure of a quorum of the House to answer on
    this roll call does not interfere with the authority of the Speaker to
    direct the Committee to resume its session (IV, 2969). The Chair's count
    of a quorum is not subject to verification by tellers (VIII, 2369,
    2436), may not be challenged by an

    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. 16849).

      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; June 12, 2007, p. 15522), and is not debatable (May 17, 2000, p.
    8203). However, the motion cannot interrupt a Member who has the floor
    (VIII, 2370, 2371; June 12, 2007, p. 15527, pp. 15689, 15690) 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.

    [[Page 785]]

      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 Chair has reported the bill or
    resolution back to the House. The Chair 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).

      Under the modern practice, the Committee of the Whole may rise
    informally without motion to enable the Chair to lay an enrolled bill
    before the House (Jan. 28, 1980, p. 888; Apr. 30, 1980, p. 9505).

      (e) In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the
    Chair 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 Chair may reduce to not less than two 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). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
    Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. _). 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). A
    demand for a recorded vote on an amendment is untimely where the Chair
    has recognized for the next amendment (Dec. 15, 2005, p. 28739) or put
    the question on the next amendment pending on the tree (Procedure, ch.
    30, Sec. 12.5), or where considerable time has elapsed after the Chair's
    announcement of the voice vote (June 13, 2006, p. 11037). A motion to
    vacate a pending vote by electronic device is not in order (May 8, 2008,
    p. _).

    [[Page 786]]

      (g) The Chair may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any
    amendment. The Chair may resume proceedings on a postponed request at
    any time. The Chair may reduce to not less than two 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 electronic voting on the first in any series of
    questions shall be 15 minutes.

      Paragraph (f) was added in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
    1991, p. 39). Paragraph (g) was added in the 107th Congress (H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Gender-based references were eliminated from both
    in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. _). Both
    were amended in the 112th Congress to permit the Chair to reduce the
    minimum time for voting to not less than two minutes (instead of to five
    minutes) (sec. 2(3)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _). Such two-minute
    voting had previously been granted ad hoc by unanimous consent in the
    House (e.g., Mar. 16, 2006, p. 3767) 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 reduced-time vote
    under paragraph (f) (July 22, 1994, p. 17609). Pursuant to paragraph
    (g), the Chair may resume proceedings on a postponed question at any
    time, even while an amendment is pending (May 24, 2011, p. _).

      Before the adoption of paragraph (g), the chair of the Committee of
    the Whole could not entertain a unanimous-consent request to reduce to
    fewer than 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. 15305). An
    amendment pending as unfinished business where proceedings on a request
    for a recorded vote have been postponed can be modified by unanimous
    consent on the initiative of its proponent (July 19, 2005, pp. 16487,
    16488; see also Mar. 30, 2000, p. 4037). Special rules of the House
    before adoption of paragraph (g) commonly provided the chair 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) 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); (3) 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); (4) 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 (5) the Chair could resume
    proceedings on unfinished business consisting of a ``stack'' of
    amendments even while an amendment was pending (July 10, 2000, p.
    13615).

    [[Page 787]]

    express gratitude to the Members on a
    personal matter, is considered intervening business such as to preclude
    a reduced-time 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 by the voice vote thereon
    (e.g., Sept. 17, 1998, p. 20845; June 25, 2004, pp. 14173 0975) unless
    the request proposes that the Chair put the question de novo (Sept. 22,
    2004, pp. 18957, 18958, 18962).
      Pursuant to this clause, where the Chair has announced that the Chair
    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 Chair'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

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

      When  the 103d Congress enabled voting by the Delegates
    and Resident Commissioner in the Committee of the Whole (see Sec. 675,
    supra), it also added a new paragraph (h) to clause 6 (former clause
    2(d) of rule XXIII) to provide for immediate reconsideration in the
    House of questions resolved in the Committee of the Whole by a margin
    within which the votes of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner were
    decisive (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). Such voting and
    reconsideration thereof was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(c),
    H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), reinstated in the 110th Congress (H.
    Res. 78, Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140), and repealed in the 112th Congress
    (sec. 2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _).

    Dispensing with the reading of an amendment
      Under the former paragraph (h), whether the votes cast by the
    delegates were decisive was determined by a ``but for'' test, the
    question being whether the result would be different if their votes were
    not counted (May 19, 1993, p. 10409; Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3550). The Chair's
    count in such matter was not subject to appeal (Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3550).
    The Chair did not differentiate between Members and Delegates and the
    Resident Commissioner in announcing the result of a record vote in the
    Committee of the Whole (Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3579). An amendment adopted by
    immediate proceedings de novo in the House 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). Former paragraph (h) was applicable only to votes taken
    in the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 11, 2008, p. _).

    [[Page 788]]

    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.

    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

    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.

    [[Page 789]]

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

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

      This clause (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 790]]

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

      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, although 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). Although 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 791]]

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

      Under a limitation on debate the Chair may, in the Chair's 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 the Chair's 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 the Chair's discretion,
    continue to proceed under the five-minute rule until desiring 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).

    [[Page 792]]

    the manager is the proponent of a pending amendment to the
    amendment (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5792).

    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

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

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

    [[Page 793]]

    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).
      The practice of rejecting a bill by striking the enacting clause 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.

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

      The motion  may not be made until the first section of
    the bill has been read (V, 5327; VIII, 2619), and 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). If a special order provides that a bill shall be open to
    amendment in Committee of the Whole, a motion to strike the enacting
    words is in order (VII, 787); contra (IV, 3215), but after the stage of
    amendment has been passed the motion to strike the enacting words is not
    in order (IV, 4782; VIII, 2368). Where a bill is being considered under
    a special order that permits only committee amendments and no amendments
    thereto, a motion that the Committee rise and report with the
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is not in order if
    no committee amendments are in fact offered (Apr. 16, 1970, p. 12092).

      The motion is debatable as to the merits of the bill, but may not go
    beyond its provisions (V, 5336). The debate on the motion is governed by
    the five-minute rule (V, 5333-5335; VIII, 2618, 2628-2631); only two
    five-minute speeches are in order (V, 5335; VIII, 2629), and time may
    not be reserved (May 22, 1991, p. 11830); thus where a Member recognized
    for five minutes in opposition to the motion yields back the 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 (June 20, 1975, p.
    19966). For more concerning debate on the motion, see Deschler, ch. 19,
    Sec. 13.

    [[Page 794]]

    pursuant to a special order does qualify
    as a modification of the bill (June 20, 1975, p. 19970). A motion that
    is withdrawn by unanimous consent rather than voted on by the Committee
    does not preclude the offering of another motion on the same day without
    a material modification of the bill (May 9, 1996, p. 10758).
      A second motion to strike 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

      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, the motion to strike 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 the enacting words and does not
    refer it under the provisions of the rule, it goes back to the Committee
    of the Whole, where it becomes unfinished business (V, 5326, 5345, 5346;
    VIII, 2633). Notwithstanding that consideration of the pending bill was
    governed by a ``modified-closed'' rule permitting only specified
    amendments, pending the concurrence of the House with a recommendation
    of the Committee of the Whole that the enacting clause be stricken, the
    House could by instructions in a motion to refer under this clause
    direct the Committee of the Whole to consider additional germane
    amendments (Apr. 14, 1994, p. 7452). When the enacting words of a bill
    are stricken, the bill is rejected (V, 5326). When the enacting clause
    of a Senate measure is stricken, the bill is rejected (V, 5326); and the
    Senate is so informed (IV, 3423; VIII, 2638; June 20, 1946, p. 7211;
    Oct. 4, 1972, p. 33787).

    Concurrent resolution on the budget
      When, on Calendar Wednesday, the House disagrees to the recommendation
    of the Committee of the Whole that the enacting words be stricken, the
    House automatically resolves into Committee of the Whole for further
    consideration (VII, 943).

    [[Page 795]]

    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

          (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.

    [[Page 796]]

    graph (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).
      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 para

    Applicability of Rules of the House

    Sec. 991. Former amendment to strike an unfunded
    mandate.

      A  prior clause 11 (formerly clause 5(c) of rule XXIII) provided
    that an amendment in the Committee of the Whole proposing only to strike
    an unfunded mandate from a portion of the bill, could be precluded only
    by specific terms of a special order of business. It was repealed in the
    112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _). For the
    text of the former rule and its history, see Sec. 991 of the House Rules
    and Manual for the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).

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

      11.  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). It was
    redesignated as clause 11 when a prior clause 11 was repealed in the
    112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. _).

    [[Page 797]]

    June 21, 1989, p. 12744); (5) to change the scheme for
    control (other than among committees controlling time) (Oct. 9, 1986, p.
    29984; Jan. 26, 2011, p. _) 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, pp. 1923, 1925 (Chair corrected himself)) of
    general debate specified by the House, including a ``wrap up'' debate
    following the amendment process (Mar. 25, 2004, pp. 5318 0920) but the
    allotment of time to a chair or ranking minority member inurs to all
    members of the committee (Nov. 5, 2009, 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. 18735; May 3, 2007, p. 11198); (10) to
    permit consideration of an additional amendment (July 28, 1988, p.
    19491; June 10, 1998, p. 11914; June 24, 2005, p. 14215; Mar. 15, 2006,
    p. 3702); (11) to authorize a supplemental report from the Committee on
    Rules in lieu of the original report referred to in the special order
    (Speaker Wright, Aug. 11, 1988, p. 22105); (12) to permit another to
    offer an amendment vested in a specified Member (May 1, 1990, p. 9030);
    (13) to permit a division of the question on an amendment rendered
    indivisible by a special order (July 16, 1996, p. 17318); (14) to
    preclude procedural votes (where the order of the House refrained from
    precluding any form of motion to rise) (July 26, 2001, p. 14754); (15)
    to preclude further amendment except as specified (Apr. 3, 2003, p.
    8490); (16) 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,
    pp. 14678, 14692).

    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 requiring the Chair to put the question on
    the pending amendments at the expiration of certain hours of
    consideration (Apr. 10, 1986, p. 7079; Oct. 30, 1991, p. 29213; Aug. 3,
    1999, p. 19218; Oct. 21, 1999, p. 26492); (4) to restrict ``en
    blocking'' authority granted in a special order (Sept. 11, 1986, p.
    22871;

    [[Page 798]]

    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, pp. 5318 0920) but not for an unspecified amount, such as
    the ``time that the Speaker may claim to speak on her side of this
    issue'' (May 27, 2010, 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
    proponent of an amendment to yield control of time in support to another
    (Mar. 9, 2006, p. 3144); (9) 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); (10) 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); (11) 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. 12441); (12) to permit a request for a
    recorded vote even though untimely (June 24, 2005, p. 14182); Mar. 28,
    2007, p. 8168); (13) to vacate a pending recorded vote in favor of
    taking the question de novo (although a motion to that effect is not
    available) (May 8, 2008, 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 (see, e.g., June 10, 1993, p. 12486; July
    24, 1996, p. 18906; May 6, 1998, p. 8332; Mar. 29, 2000, p. 4017; Mar.
    13, 2002, p. 3127), 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 no opponent seeks recognition (May 23, 1990,
    p. 11988); (4)

      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
    chair 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.