[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That authority was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H. Res. 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Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140), and repealed in the 112th Congress (sec. 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.