    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Congress]
    [117th Congress]
    [House Document 116-177]
    [Rules of the House of Representatives]
    [Pages 809-839]
    [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 810]]

      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    That authority was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H. Res.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    Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140), repealed in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4),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 811]]

    a Member to insert remarks about a point of order to follow the ruling
    thereon (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.17).

      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 812]]

    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 813]]

    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 814]]

    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 815]]

    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 816]]

    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 817]]

    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 818]]

    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, pp. 5861-63), 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 819]]

    is not recognized to commence debate under the five-minute rule during
    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

      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 820]]

    ment 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; 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 amend

    [[Page 821]]

    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.

    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

      (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 822]]

      (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 823]]

    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 824]]

    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), may be
    withdrawn by unanimous consent (June 12, 2019, p. _) 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 825]]

    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 826]]

          (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 827]]

    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 828]]

    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 829]]

    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 830]]

    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 (Precedents
    (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 24.15). 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 831]]

      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 832]]

    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 833]]

    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 834]]

    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 835]]

    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 836]]

    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 837]]

    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 838]]

    a chair 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); (17) to allow five
    minutes of controlled debate for an additional opponent where the time
    in opposition had already been claimed and then yielded back by another
    Member (July 16, 2019, p. _).

    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, pp.
    15999, 16000) 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

    [[Page 839]]

    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. 5318-20) 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)