[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 116th Congress]
[116th Congress]
[House Document 115-177]
[Rules of the House of Representatives]
[Pages 795-825]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 
                                 Rule XVIII


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




970. Selection of 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, Delegate, or the 
Resident Commissioner 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.



[[Page 796]]

  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That authority was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H. Res. 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Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140), repealed in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4), 
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and reinstated in the 115th Congress 
(sec. 2(t), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, 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. 7). 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 (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.6). 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).


  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 parliamentary 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).

  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; 
Sept. 6, 2017, p. _), but debate must be confined to the question of 
sustaining the Chair's ruling and may not address the merits of an 
underlying matter (Sept. 6, 2017, p. _). 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). 
However, if the Committee is sitting at the hour fixed for the meeting 
of the House on a new legislative day, the Committee and not the Chair 
determines 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).


[[Page 797]]

a Member to insert remarks about a point of order to follow the ruling 
thereon (July 13, 2000, p. 14095).

  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



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

  2. (a)  Except as provided in paragraph (b) 
and in clause 6 of rule XV, the House resolves into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union by motion. When such a motion is 
entertained, the Speaker shall put the question without debate: ``Shall 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for consideration of this matter?'', naming it.



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



[[Page 798]]

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).




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, or releasing 
any liability to the United States for money or property, shall be first 
considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union. A bill, resolution, or Senate amendment that fails to comply with 
this clause is subject to a point of order against its consideration.


  The first form of this rule was adopted in 1794 and was perfected by 
amendments in 1874 and 1896 (IV, 4792). Before the House recodified its 
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3 
of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A technical correction 
was effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, 
p. 7). It was amended in the 115th Congress to exclude measures 
referring a claim to the Court of Claims (sec. 2(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2017, p. _).


[[Page 799]]

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).
  To require consideration in the 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 the 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,

  The House may consider in the 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 the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to special orders (H. Res. 988, Committee Reform Amendments of 
1974, considered pursuant to H. Res. 1395, Sept. 30, 1974, p. 32953; 
H.R. 17654, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, considered pursuant 
to H. Res. 1093, July 13, 1970, p. 23901). Although conference reports 
were formerly considered in the 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).

  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 consideration of a measure on the Union Calendar in the 
House (see, e.g., Apr. 26, 2001, p. 6299).

  When a bill once considered in the 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 the 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.


[[Page 800]]

within the rule as affecting revenues (IV, 4861), a bill relating to 
taxes on bank circulation have not been so considered (IV, 4854, 4855).

Order of business
  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 the 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



977. Order of business in Committee of the 
Whole.

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



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

  The early practice left the order of taking up bills to be determined 
entirely by the Committee, but in 1844 the House began by rule to 
regulate the order, and in 1880 adopted the present rule (IV, 4729). 
When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this 
provision was transferred from former clause 4 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). At that time references in this provision to 
revenue bills and rivers and harbors bills were deleted to conform 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.



[[Page 801]]

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 the Committee of the Whole, it is 
usually first in order (IV, 4735; VIII, 2334). An amendment pending when 
the Committee rises remains pending when the Committee next considers 
that measure (July 27, 2011, p. 12252).



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

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



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


[[Page 802]]

has disappeared, the practice continues in the Committee of the Whole 
but not in the House. Originally there was unlimited debate in the 
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 the Committee of the Whole by permitting the 
House by majority vote to order the discharge of the Committee of the 
Whole from the consideration of a bill after acting, without debate, on 
pending amendments and any other amendments that might be offered. The 
effect of this was to empower the House to close general debate at any 
time after it had actually begun in the Committee and thereby require 
amendments to be voted on without debate. In 1847 a rule provided that 
any Member proposing an amendment should have five minutes in which to 
explain it, and in 1850 an amendment to the rule also permitted five 
minutes in opposition and guarded against abuse by forbidding the 
withdrawal of an amendment once offered (V, 5221). Paragraph (b), 
placing the responsibility for providing copies of amendments on the 
Clerk, was part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (sec. 124; 
84 Stat. 1140) and was added to the rule in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Before the House recodified its rules in the 
106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(a) of rule 
XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The recodification also 
conformed paragraph (a) to the recodified clause 8 of rule XVI to 
reflect the modern practice of first and second readings (H. Res. 5, 
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
  A rule of 1789 provided that bills should be read and debated in the 
Committee of the Whole and in the House by clauses. Although that rule

  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 the 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.


[[Page 803]]

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).
  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,



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

  The motion  to close general debate in the 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) are not 
allowed (VIII, 2555, 2690). General debate must have already begun in 
the 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 
the 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).


[[Page 804]]

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).
  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 the 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.

  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; Apr. 29, 2015, p. _), but amendments striking each paragraph of 
the title could be considered en bloc by unanimous consent (May 18, 
2016, p. _). 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).

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

  Points of order against a paragraph (or other portion of the bill then 
open to amendment) should be made before the next paragraph (or portion 
of the bill) is read or before an amendment is offered thereto (V, 6931; 
VIII, 2351; June 16, 2004, p. 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) 
and a motion to amend the amendment may not be offered while the 
proponent is under recognition (May 18, 2016, p. _).


[[Page 805]]

the pendency of a point of order against it (July 6, 2011, p. 10476). 
For a further discussion of management of time for debate on amendments 
in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 959, supra.
  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 or otherwise retaining the floor (June 10, 1998, p. 
11976); must confine remarks to the subject (V, 5240-5256; VIII, 2591); 
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). 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 may extend beyond five 
minutes by unanimous consent (Feb. 1, 2012, p. 734). The offeror of an 
amendment is not recognized to commence debate under the five-minute 
rule during

  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) (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.3). 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).

  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; June 1, 2011, p. 
8521). An amendment that has been disposed of in the Committee of the 
Whole (June 17, 2004, pp. 12944, 12945) or ruled out of order (May 18, 
2016, p. _; May 25, 2016, p. _) may not be withdrawn. Debate may 
continue, and the Chair puts the question, on an amendment 
notwithstanding the manager's ``acceptance'' of it (July 31, 2007, p. 
21953; June 14, 2011, p. 9179).-


[[Page 806]]

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; Oct. 11, 2011, p. 15133); 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 be recognized 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 (Precedents 
(Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.4). A pro forma amendment may not be offered 
while a point of order is pending (Feb. 16, 2011, p. 2174).

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 special rule that precludes amendments to an amendment also 
precludes pro forma amendments thereto (Aug. 1, 2001, p. 15559; July 21, 
2011, p. 11751). 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.



[[Page 807]]

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.


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, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner. 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,


  (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 not less than two minutes.


[[Page 808]]

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


  (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), which time was reduced to not less 
than two minutes in the 113th Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 
2013, p. 25). 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. 7). In the 116th Congress, paragraph 
(a) was amended to include Delegates and the Resident Commissioner as 
part of a quorum (sec. 102(y)(1), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, 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 809]]

not such intervening business as would preclude a reduced-time vote 
under a previous version of 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 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

  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 
the Committee of the Whole, see July 13, 1983, p. 18858).


[[Page 810]]

an ``automatic'' roll call (under clause 6(a) of rule XX) is not in 
order in the 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 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 the 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



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). A demand for a record vote on the 
motion is untimely after the Committee rises (May 19, 2016, p. _). For a 
further discussion of the motion to rise, see Sec. 334, supra.

  A point of order of no quorum may not be entertained, on a day on 
which a quorum has been established, during the period after the 
Committee of the Whole has risen after completing its consideration of a 
bill or resolution and before the Chair has reported the bill or 
resolution back to the House. The Chair having announced the absence of 
a quorum in the 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 House to transact certain 
administrative business (see Sec. 330, supra).



[[Page 811]]




Sec. 983a. Recorded votes in Committee of the Whole.

  (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, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.



-  (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 on any or all pending amendments after a record vote 
has been taken on the first pending amendment, if in the discretion of 
the Chair Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner would be 
afforded an adequate opportunity to vote.
  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. 7). In the 116th 
Congress, this provision was amended to include Delegates and the 
Resident Commissioner (sec. 102(y)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, 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; May 28, 2014, p. 9125) 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), but not when a Member is seeking 
recognition for that purpose when the Chair announces the result of the 
voice vote (June 27, 2012, pp. 10175, 10176; Sept. 20, 2012, p. 14571). 
The Committee may vacate a pending vote by electronic device by 
unanimous consent (see Sec. 993b, infra) but not by motion (May 8, 2008, 
p. 8148).

  (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--


[[Page 812]]

      (1) on any postponed question that follows another electronic 
vote, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first 
in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes; or


      (2) on any postponed question taken after the Committee of the 
Whole resumes its sitting if in the discretion of the Chair Members, 
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner would be afforded an adequate 
opportunity to vote.

  Paragraph (f) was added in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, 
p. 39). Paragraph (g)(1) 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. 7). 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 five 
minutes) (sec. 2(e)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Such two-minute 
voting had previously been granted ad hoc by unanimous consent in the 
House (e.g., Mar. 16, 2006, p. 3767). Paragraph (g)(2) was added in the 
113th Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 25), and was 
amended in the 116th Congress to include Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner (sec. 102(y)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Paragraphs 
(f) and (g) were amended in the 116th Congress to expand the 
availability of two-minute voting (sec. 102(z), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, 
p. _). 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 a previous version 
of 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. 7740; July 30, 
2013, p. 12566).


[[Page 813]]

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).
  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). 
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,

  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).

  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). Under a previous form of this 
paragraph, the offering of a pro forma amendment to discuss the 
legislative program or an extended one-minute speech by a Member to 
express gratitute to the Members on a personal matter constituted 
intervening business that precluded a reduced-time vote 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-
75) unless the request proposes that the Chair put the question de novo 
(e.g., Sept. 22, 2004, pp. 18957, 18958, 18962; July 18, 2013, p. 
11838).




Sec. 985. De novo vote where Delegates 
decisive.

  (h)  Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided by 
a margin within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner have been decisive, the Committee of the Whole shall rise 
and the Speaker shall put such question de novo without intervening 
motion. Upon the announcement of the vote on that question, the 
Committee of the Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening 
motion.


   This paragraph (former clause 2(d) of rule XXIII) was added in the 
103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), 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), repealed in the 
112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and 
reinstated in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(b)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 
2019, p. _).


[[Page 814]]

if their votes are not counted (May 19, 1993, p. 10409; Feb. 8, 2007, p. 
3550). The Chair's count in such matter is not subject to appeal (Feb. 
8, 2007, p. 3550). The Chair does 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 does 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). This paragraph is applicable only to votes 
taken in the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3740). In 
response to a parliamentary inquiry in the House after automatic rising 
under this paragraph, the Chair has clarified that the vote is on the 
same amendment just voted on in the Committee of the Whole (June 18, 
2009, p. 15625).

Dispensing with the reading of an amendment
  Whether the votes cast by the delegates are decisive is determined by 
a ``but for'' test, the question being whether the result would be 
different




986. Motion to dispense with reading.

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



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).


[[Page 815]]

tion, 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.


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 resolu


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


[[Page 816]]

for printing in that portion of the Record shall be numbered in the 
order printed.

  (c) Material submitted for printing in the Congressional Record under 
this clause shall indicate the full text of the proposed amendment, the 
name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner proposing it, the 
number of the bill or resolution to which it will be offered, and 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

  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 817]]

  The Speaker announced that amendments to be printed in the Record 
pursuant to this clause must be deposited in a separate box at the 
Rostrum or with the Official Reporters of Debates within 15 minutes 
following adjournment, and must bear the Member's original signature 
(Nov. 25, 1974, p. 37270). Although ordinarily the expiration of time 
for debate on a bill and all amendments thereto precludes debate on 
amendments offered thereafter (July 18, 1968, p. 22110), debate on an 
amendment printed in the Record may nevertheless proceed for 10 minutes 
under this clause (Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27715). Printing an amendment in the 
Record under this clause permits debate notwithstanding a limitation of 
debate only if the amendment has been properly offered, and does not 
permit the offering of an amendment not otherwise in order under the 
rules (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11491); and the guaranteed five minutes may be 
claimed only if the offeror of the amendment is the Member who caused it 
to be printed under the rule (June 1, 1976, p. 16044; June 29, 1989, p. 
13928; June 19, 1991, p. 15473). The guaranteed time applies to an 
amendment offered as a substitute for another amendment, rather than as 
a primary amendment, if offered in the precise form printed (June 26, 
1979, p. 16682), but where such a substitute amendment has not been 
printed in the Record it may 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 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 818]]

and on all amendments thereto to a time certain; and then (2) separately 
limit debate on each perfecting amendment as it is offered (Mar. 16, 
1983, p. 5794).
  The closing of debate on the last section of a bill does not preclude 
debate on a substitute for the whole text (V, 5228). Where there is a 
time limitation on debate on a pending amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and all amendments thereto, but not on the underlying 
original text, debate on perfecting amendments to the original text 
proceeds under the five-minute rule absent another time limitation (Apr. 
13, 1983, p. 8402). Where the time for debate on a pending amendment in 
the form of a motion to strike (and all amendments thereto) has been 
limited, a subsequently offered perfecting amendment considered as 
preferential to (rather than as an amendment to) the motion to strike 
remains separately debatable outside the limitation (July 20, 1995, p. 
19788). Where five-minute debate has been limited to a certain number of 
minutes without reference to a time certain, the time consumed by 
reading of amendments, quorum calls, points of order and votes does not 
reduce the amount of time remaining for debate (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28459; 
Nov. 9, 1971, p. 40060). However, where debate has been limited to a 
time certain, such activities as reading and voting consume time 
otherwise available for debate (May 6, 1970, p. 14452; Aug. 2, 1984, 
22180). 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). 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)

  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 (June 14, 1977, p. 
18833; 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 seeking recognition 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).


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


[[Page 819]]

stand recommitted to the Committee of the Whole without further action 
by the House. Before the question of concurrence is submitted, it shall 
be in order to move that the House refer the bill or resolution to a 
committee, with or without instructions. If a bill or resolution is so 
referred, then when it is again reported to the House it shall be 
referred to the Committee of the Whole without debate.



988. The motion to strike 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


  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 the 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 the Committee of the Whole (V, 5326, 5332). Before the House 
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, at which time the rule was 
also expanded to include resolutions and resolving clauses, it was found 
in former clause 7 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The 
motion must be in writing and in the proper form (July 24, 1986, p. 
17641; Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22071; Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178).


[[Page 820]]

motion is in order even after disposition of the specified amendments 
(Nov. 30, 2011, p. 18465).


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 the Committee of the Whole, the motion is in order (VII, 
787); contra (IV, 3215), but after the stage of amendment has been 
passed the motion 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, the motion is not in order if no 
committee amendments are in fact offered (Apr. 16, 1970, p. 12092). 
Where a bill is being considered under a special order that permits only 
specified amendments to an amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
in order as original text, the


  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.

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


[[Page 821]]

ation 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
  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 consider



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.


[[Page 822]]

ment thereto, that proposes to change the amount of the appropriate 
level of the public debt set forth in the concurrent resolution, as 
reported.
  (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 amend


  (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.

  Paragraph (a) (first sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was 
added on January 4, 1977 (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., pp. 53-70). Paragraph 
(b) (second sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was adopted in 
the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16). In the 96th 
Congress paragraph (b) was amended further and paragraph (c) (third 
sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was added by Public Law 96-78 
(93 Stat. 589) and was originally intended to apply to concurrent 
resolutions on the budget for fiscal years beginning on or after October 
1, 1980. However, in the 96th Congress the provisions of that public law 
amending the Rules of the House were made applicable to the third 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1980 as well as the 
first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1981 (H. Res. 
642, Apr. 23, 1980, p. 8789). Before the House recodified its rules in 
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 8 of rule 
XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).



[[Page 823]]

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. 80). 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. 80).

  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.


[[Page 824]]

or ranking minority member inures to all members of the committee (Nov. 
5, 2009, p. 26948); (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; Feb. 28, 2012, p. 2379; July 23, 2014, p. 12745); (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. 993a. 
Material alteration of a special order.

  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; June 21, 1989, p. 12744); (5) to change the scheme for control 
(other than among committees controlling time) (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29984; 
Sept. 29, 2005, p. 21797; Jan. 26, 2011, p. 910; Oct. 9, 2015, 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. 5318-20) but the allotment of time to a chair



[[Page 825]]

p. 8769; June 27, 1995, p. 17329; Nov. 2, 1995, p. 31376; Mar. 25, 2004, 
pp. 5318-20) 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. 9686); (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; July 6, 2016, p. _; Nov. 17, 2016, p. _; July 17, 2018, 
p. _) (and the House may delegate to the Committee the authority to 
consider by unanimous consent non-sequential amendments out of sequence 
(Aug. 11, 1986, p. 20633); (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 (or opponent) of an amendment to yield control of 
time in support (or in opposition) to another (Mar. 9, 2006, p. 3144; 
Mar. 28, 2012, p. 4444); (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; June 24, 2009. p. 16124; May 29, 
2014, p. 8913, p. 8913) or that had been read when offered, including a 
second-degree amendment (June 20, 1991, pp. 15610, 15611; May 31, 2012, 
p. 8086; May 25, 2016, p. _); (12) to permit a request for a recorded 
vote even though untimely (June 24, 2005, p. 14182; Mar. 28, 2007, p. 
8168; July 18, 2012, p. 11637); (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. 8148) or to vacate a prior 
recorded vote to the end that the request for a recorded vote remain 
pending as unfinished business, such that it could be added to the end 
of a current vote ``stack'' (where it was alleged that Members were 
improperly prevented from being recorded) (June 6, 2012, p. 8473).




Sec. 993b. 
Minor deviation in a special order.

  Unanimous-consent requests have been entertained  in the 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 corrected in a designated 
amendment made in order as printed where the printed amendment included 
an erroneous reference (Aug. 3, 1977, pp. 26450, 26451); (3) to permit a 
supporter of an amendment to claim debate time allocated by special 
order to an opponent, where no opponent seeks recognition (May 23, 1990, 
p. 11988); (4) to shorten the time set by special order for debate on a 
particular amendment (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21510; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9742); 
(5) to lengthen the time set by special order for debate on a particular 
amendment under terms of control congruent with those set by the order 
of the House (May 11, 1988, p. 10495; May 21, 1991, p. 11646; Mar. 22, 
1995,