[106th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 106-320]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
[DOCID:hrulest-75]

[Page 728-755]

                               Rule XVIII
       the committee of the whole house on the state of the union

Resolving into the Committee of the Whole
  1. <> Whenever the House resolves into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Speaker
shall leave the chair after appointing a Chairman to preside. In case of
disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries or lobby, the
Chairman may cause the same to be cleared.

  This provision (former clause 1(a) of rule XXIII), adopted in 1880,
was made from two older rules dating from 1789 and modified in 1794 to
provide for the appointment of the Chairman instead of the inconvenient
method of election by the committee (IV, 4704). It was amended in the
103d Congress to permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to
preside in the Committee of the Whole (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49),
but that authority was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Delegates presided in two instances
during the 103d Congress (Oct. 6, 1994, p. 28533; Oct. 7, 1994, p.
29167). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 1(a) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

[[Page 729]]

  The <> Sergeant-at-Arms attends the sittings of the Committee of
the Whole and, under direction of the Chairman, maintains order (I,
257). Decisions of the Chairman on questions of order may be appealed.
In stating the appeal the question is put as in the House: ``Shall the
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?'' The
Committee of the Whole may not postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling
of the Chair (even by unanimous consent); and an appeal of a ruling of
the Chair may be withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole as a matter of
right (June 8, 2000, p. ----). A majority vote sustains the ruling (Aug.
1, 1989, p. 17159). In rare cases wherein the Chairman has been defied
or insulted, he has directed the Committee to rise, left the chair and,
on the chair being taken by the Speaker, has reported the facts to the
House (II, 1350, 1651, 1653). While the Committee of the Whole does not
control the Congressional Record, the Chairman may direct the exclusion
of disorderly words spoken by a Member after he has been called to order
(V, 6987), but may not determine the privileges of a Member under
general ``leave to print'' (V, 6988). The Chairman decides questions of
order arising in the Committee independently of the Speaker (V, 6927,
6928), but has declined to consider a question that had arisen in the
House just before the Committee began to sit (IV, 4725, 4726) or a
question that may arise in the House in the future (June 21, 1995, p.
16682). The Chairman does not take cognizance of a ``point of order''
against the legislative schedule, its announcement being the prerogative
of the Leadership (Nov. 10, 1999, p. ----). He recognizes for debate (V,
5003); but like the Speaker is forbidden to recognize for requests to
suspend the rule of admission to the floor (V, 7285). He may direct the
Committee to rise when the hour previously fixed for adjournment of the
House arrives, or when the hour previously fixed by the House for
consideration of other business arrives, in which case he reports in the
regular way (IV, 4785; VIII, 2376; Aug. 22, 1974, p. 30077); but if the
Committee happens to be in session at the hour fixed for the meeting of
the House on a new legislative day, it rests with the Committee and not
with the Chairman to determine whether or not the Committee shall rise
(V, 6736, 6737). Although arguments on a point of order may not be
revised, extended, or inserted, the Committee of the Whole by unanimous
consent has allowed a Member to insert remarks about a point of order to
follow the ruling thereon (July 13, 2000, p. ----).

  2. (a) <> Except as provided in paragraph (b)
and in clause 7 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

[[Page 730]]

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.

  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. ----). 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.
----).

Measures requiring initial consideration in the Committee of the Whole
  3. <> All bills, resolutions, or Senate amendments (as provided in
clause 3 of rule XXII) involving a tax or charge on the people, raising
revenue, directly or indirectly making appropriations of money or
property or requiring such appropriations to be made, authorizing
payments out of appropriations already made, releasing any liability to
the United States for money or property, or referring a claim to the
Court of Claims, shall be first considered in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union. A bill,

[[Page 731]]

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. ----).
  To require <> consideration in Committee of
the Whole, a bill must show on its face that it falls within the
requirements of the rule (IV, 4811-4817; VIII, 2391). Where the
expenditure is a mere matter of speculation (IV, 4818-4821; VIII, 2388),
or where the bill might involve a charge but does not necessarily do so
(IV, 4809, 4810), the rule does not apply. 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). 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(i)(1) of
rule X'') of the House are considered in the House (VIII, 2415, 2416).
Authorizations of expenditures from the contingent fund, under the later
ruling (IV, 4862-4867) do not fall within the specifications of the rule
(IV, 4868). A bill providing for an expenditure which is to be borne
otherwise than by the Government (IV, 4831; VIII, 2400), or relating to
money in the Treasury in trust (IV, 4835, 4836, 4853; VIII, 2413), is
not governed by the rule. However, where a bill sets in motion a train
of circumstances destined ultimately to involve certain expenditures, it
must be considered in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4827; VIII, 2399), as
well as bills ultimately authorizing officials in certain contingencies
to part with property belonging to the United States (VIII, 2399). The
requirements of the rule apply to amendments as well as to bills (IV,
4793, 4794; VIII, 2331), and also to any portion of a bill requiring an
appropriation, even though it be merely incidental to the bill's main
purpose (IV, 4825). Under the later practice general (as well as private
and special) bills providing for the adjudication and payment of claims
are held to be within the requirements of the rule (IV, 4856-4859).
  The <> House may consider in Committee of the Whole
subjects not specified in the rule (IV, 4822); for example, major
amendments to the Rules of the House have been considered in Committee
of the Whole pursuant to special orders (H. Res. 988, Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, considered in Committee of the Whole pursuant to H.
Res. 1395, Sept. 30, 1974, p. 32953; H.R. 17654, Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970, considered in Committee of the Whole
pursuant to H. Res. 1093, July 13, 1970, p. 23901). While conference
reports were formerly considered

[[Page 732]]

in Committee of the Whole, they may not be sent there on the suggestion
of the point of order that they contain matter ordinarily requiring
consideration therein (V, 6559-6561). When a bill is made a special
order (IV, 3216-3224), or when unanimous consent is given for its
consideration (IV, 4823; VIII, 2393), the effect is to discharge the
Committee of the Whole and bring the bill before the House itself for
its consideration (IV, 3216; VII, 788), and in such event the bill is
considered either in the House pursuant to a special order or ``in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole'' (VIII, 2393). When a bill once
considered in Committee of the Whole is recommitted, it is not, when
again reported, necessarily subject to the point of order that it must
be considered in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4828, 4829; V, 5545, 5546,
5591).
  Provisions <> placing liability jointly on the United States
and the District of Columbia (IV, 4833), granting an easement on public
lands or in streets belonging to the United States (IV, 4840-4842),
dedicating public land to be forever used as a public park (IV, 4837,
4838), providing site for statue (VIII, 2405), confirming grants of
public lands (IV, 4843) and creating new offices (IV, 4824, 4846), have
been held to require consideration in Committee of the Whole. Indian
lands have not been considered property of the Government within the
meaning of the rule (IV, 4844, 4845; VIII, 2413). While a bill removing
the rate of postage has been held to be within the rule as affecting
revenues (IV, 4861), a bill relating to taxes on bank circulation have
not been so considered (IV, 4854, 4855).
  The mere making of a unanimous-consent request to dispense with the
reading of an amendment and to revise and extend remarks thereon is not
such intervening business as would render a point of order untimely
under this clause, where the Member making the point of order is on his
feet seeking recognition (July 16, 1991, p. 18391; see Procedure, ch.
31, sec. 5.7).

Order of business
  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 res

[[Page 733]]

olutions 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. ----). At that time references in this provision to
revenue bills and rivers and harbors bills were deleted to conform it to
changes made to the Rules of House by the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), which revoked the
privilege to report such bills at any time.
  The power of the Committee to determine the order of considering bills
on its calendar is construed to authorize a motion to establish an order
(IV, 4730) or a motion to take up a specified bill out of its order (IV,
4731, 4732; VIII, 2333). Except in cases wherein the rules make specific
provisions therefor a motion is not in order in the House to fix the
order in which business on the calendars of the Committee of the Whole
shall be taken up (IV, 4733). The Committee of the Whole having voted to
consider a particular bill, and consideration having begun, a motion to
reconsider or change that vote is not in order (IV, 4765). When there is
unfinished business in Committee of the Whole, it is usually first in
order (IV, 4735; VIII, 2334).

Reading for amendment-
  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

[[Page 734]]

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.

  A rule of 1789 provided that bills should be read and debated in
Committee of the Whole and in the House by clauses. Although that rule
has disappeared, the practice continues in Committee of the Whole but
not in the House. Originally there was unlimited debate in Committee of
the Whole both as to the bill generally and also as to any amendment.
However, in 1841 the rule that no Member should speak more than an hour
was applied both to the Committee of the Whole and the House. At the
same time another rule was adopted to prevent indefinite prolongation of
debate in Committee of the Whole by permitting the House by majority
vote to order the discharge of the Committee of the Whole from the
consideration of a bill after acting, without debate, on pending
amendments and any other amendments that might be offered. The effect of
this was to empower the House to close general debate at any time after
it had actually begun in the Committee and thereby require amendments to
be voted on without debate. In 1847 a rule provided that any Member
proposing an amendment should have five minutes in which to explain it,
and in 1850 an amendment to the rule also permitted five minutes in
opposition and guarded against abuse by forbidding the withdrawal of an
amendment once offered (V, 5221). In the 104th Congress the Speaker
announced his intention to strictly enforce time limitations on debate
(Jan. 4, 1995, p. 457). 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.

[[Page 735]]

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. ----). 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. ----). 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).
  The motion <> to close general debate in Committee of the
Whole, successor in the practice to the motion to discharge provided by
the rule of 1841, is made in the House pending the motion that the House
resolve itself into Committee, and not after the House has voted to go
into Committee (V, 5208). Though the motion is not debatable, the
previous question is sometimes ordered on it to prevent amendment (V,
5203). Where the previous question is ordered, the 40 minutes debate
under clause 1(a) of rule XIX (former clause 2 of rule XXVII) is not
allowed (VIII, 2555, 2690). General debate must have already begun in
Committee of the Whole before the motion to limit debate it is in order
in the House (V, 5204-5206). The motion may not apply to a series of
bills (V, 5209) and must be offered to apply to the whole and not to a
part of a bill (V, 5207). A proposition for a division of time may not
be made as a part of it (V, 5210, 5211). The motion may not be made in
Committee of the Whole (V, 5217; VIII, 2548); but, in absence of an
order by the House, the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous consent
determine as to general debate (V, 5232; VIII, 2553). Where the House
has fixed the time, the Committee may not, even by unanimous consent,
extend it (V, 5212-5216; VIII, 2321, 2550; Mar. 27, 1984, p. 6599; June
17, 1999, p. ----). General debate must close before amendments, or
motions for disposition of the bill, may be offered (IV, 4744, 4778; V,
5221). General debate is closed by the fact that no Member desires to
participate further (IV, 4745). Where no member of a committee
designated to control time is present at the appropriate time during
general debate in Committee of the Whole, the Chair may presume the time
to have been yielded back (June 11, 1984, p. 15744).
  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. ----). However, a Member may not, in time
yielded to him for general debate, move that the Committee rise (May 25,
1967, p. 14121) or yield to another for such motion (Feb. 22, 1950, p.
2178; May 17, 2000, p. ----).-
  The reading <> of the bill for amendment is not specifically
required by the present form of the rule; but is done under a practice
which was originally instituted by the rule of 1789 and has continued,
although the rule was eliminated, undoubtedly by inadvertence, in the
codification of 1880

[[Page 736]]

(V, 5221). Revenue, general appropriation, lighthouse, and river and
harbor bills are generally read by paragraphs. Other bills are read by
sections (IV, 4738, 4740). The matter is in the discretion of the Chair
(VIII, 2341, 2344, 2346), although the Committee of the Whole has
overruled his decision (VIII, 2347). A 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 Senate amendment,
however, is read in entirety, and not by either paragraphs or sections
(V, 6194) and an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered from
the floor must also be read in its entirety and is then open to
amendment at any point, and a unanimous-consent request in Committee of
the Whole that it be read by sections for amendment is not in order
(Mar. 25, 1975, p. 8490). To a bill read by paragraph, a motion to
strike an entire title, encompassing multiple paragraphs, is not in
order (Aug. 5, 1998, p. ----). 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). 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's Precedents, vol. 8, 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). Where a bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any
point, adoption of an amendment adding a new section at the end of the
bill does not preclude subsequent amendments to previous sections of the
bill (Apr. 17, 1986, p. 7861). However, the chairman may direct a return
to a section whereon, by error, no action was had on a pending amendment
(IV, 4750). Points of order against a paragraph should be made before
the next paragraph is read (V, 6931; VIII, 2351). 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 it (IV,
4751). In this debate recognitions are governed by the conditions of the
pending question rather than by the general relations of majority and
minority (V, 5223). The Member recognized may not yield time (V, 5035-
5037; May 8, 1987, p. 11832; Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34686) unless he remains
on his feet (June 10, 1998, p. ----); and he must confine himself to the
subject (V, 5240-5256; VIII, 2591). Where debate on an amendment is
limited or allocated by special order to a proponent and an opponent,
the Members controlling the debate may yield and reserve time; whereas
debate time on amendments under the five-minute rule cannot be reserved
(Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21425). A Member recognized under the five-minute rule
may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment (Dec. 12, 14,
1973, pp. 41171, 41716; Sept. 8, 1976, p. 29243; Mar. 7, 1995, p. 7107).
  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

[[Page 737]]

under a reservation of objection against the proponent's time for debate
on the amendment (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1978; May 27, 1993, p. 11931).
  The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer amendments
between majority and minority Members (giving priority to committee
members) (July 20, 2000, p. ----).-
  The pro <> forma amendment to ``strike out the last word'' has long been
used for purposes of debate or explanation where an actual amendment is
not contemplated (V, 5778; VIII, 2591). Unless a special rule precludes
any amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate, a
pro forma amendment may be voted on unless withdrawn (VIII, 2874). A
Member who has occupied five minutes on a pro forma amendment to debate
a pending substantive amendment may not lengthen this time by making
another pro forma amendment (V, 5222; VIII, 2560), may not offer another
pro forma amendment after intervening debate on a pending amendment,
even on a subsequent day (July 14, 1998, p. ----), and may not extend
debate time by offering a substantive amendment while other Members are
seeking recognition (July 28, 1965, p. 18631). A Member recognized to
offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule may not during
that time offer a substantive amendment but must be separately
recognized for that purpose by the Chair (Nov. 19, 1987, p. 32880). A
Member may speak in opposition to a pending amendment and subsequently
offer a pro forma amendment and debate that (June 30, 1955, p. 9614); a
Member may offer a second degree amendment and then offer a pro forma
amendment to debate the underlying first degree amendment (June 28,
1995, p. 17633); and a Member who has debated a substantive amendment
may thereafter rise in opposition to a pro forma amendment thereto (July
20, 1951, p. 8566). A Member who has offered a substantive amendment and
then debated it for five minutes may not extend his time by offering a
pro forma amendment, as it is not in order for the offeror of an
amendment to amend his own amendment except by unanimous consent (Oct.
14, 1987, p. 27898). A pro forma amendment may be offered after a
substitute has been adopted and before the vote on the amendment, as
amended, by unanimous consent only, since the amendment has been amended
in its entirety and no further amendments, including pro forma
amendments, are in order (Oct. 18, 1983, p. 28185; June 28, 1995, p.
17633). A Member recognized on a pro forma amendment may not allocate or
reserve time, though he may in yielding indicate to the Chair when he
intends to reclaim his time (May 19, 1987, p. 12811; July 13, 1994, p.
16438). The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer pro forma
amendments between majority and minority Members (giving priority to
committee members) rather than between sides of the question (Mar. 21,
1994, p. 5730).

[[Page 738]]

Quorum and voting
  6. (a) <> A quorum of a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union is 100 Members. The first time that a Committee of the Whole finds
itself without a quorum during a day, the Chairman shall invoke the
procedure for a quorum call set forth in clause 2 of rule XX, unless he
elects to invoke an alternate procedure set forth in clause 3 or clause
4(a) of rule XX. If a quorum appears, the Committee of the Whole shall
continue its business. If a quorum does not appear, the Committee of the
Whole shall rise, and the Chairman shall report the names of absentees
to the House.
  (b)(1) The Chairman may refuse to entertain a point of order that a
quorum is not present during general debate.
  (2) After a quorum has once been established on a day, the Chairman
may entertain a point of order that a quorum is not present only when
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is operating
under the five-minute rule and the Chairman has put the pending
proposition to a vote.
  (3) Upon sustaining a point of order that a quorum is not present, the
Chairman may announce that, following a regular quorum call under
paragraph (a), the minimum time for electronic voting on the pending
question shall be five minutes.
  (c) When ordering a quorum call in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the

[[Page 739]]

Union, the Chairman may announce an intention to declare that a quorum
is constituted at any time during the quorum call when he determines
that a quorum has appeared. If the Chairman interrupts the quorum call
by declaring that a quorum is constituted, proceedings under the quorum
call shall be considered as vacated, and the Committee of the Whole
shall continue its sitting and resume its business.
  (d) A quorum is not required in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for adoption of a motion that the Committee rise.

  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 (former clause 2(a) of rule XXIII) was adopted. The rule was
amended in 1880, again in 1890 (which included the concept that a quorum
in the Committee should be one hundred rather than a quorum of the House
(IV, 2966)), and in 1971 (Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). On October 13, 1972
(H. Res. 1123, p. 36012) the rule was amended to reflect the
installation of the electronic voting system in the House Chamber. The
clause was amended in the 93d Congress to permit the Chair to vacate
proceedings under the call in his discretion when a quorum appears (H.
Res. 998, Apr. 9, 1974, pp. 10195-99). In the 95th Congress the clause
was substantially changed to allow quorum calls only under the five-
minute rule where the Chairman has put the question on a pending
proposition, after a quorum of the Committee of the Whole has been once
established on that day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). The clause
was amended again in the 96th Congress to permit the Committee to
continue its business following the appearance of a quorum so that the
Speaker need not take the chair to receive the Committee's report of
absentees as in previous practice, and to enable the Chairman to reduce
to five minutes the period for a recorded vote immediately following a
regular quorum call (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16). In the 97th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) the clause was amended to
allow the Chairman the discretion whether or not to entertain a point of
order of no quorum during general debate only. Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 2(a) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole must entertain a point of
order of no quorum during the five-minute rule if a quorum has not yet
been established in the Committee on the bill then pending (and the fact
that a quorum of the Committee has previously been established on

[[Page 740]]

another bill on that day is irrelevant during consideration (Sept. 19,
1984, p. 26082)). Where a recorded vote on a prior amendment or motion
during the five-minute rule on that bill on that day has established a
quorum, a subsequent point of no quorum during debate is precluded (June
3, 1992, p. 13336), although a subsequent call of the Committee may be
ordered by unanimous consent (May 10, 1984, p. 11869; Dec. 17, 1985, p.
37469; June 25, 1986, p. 15551). A vote by division is not such
intervening business as would preclude a five-minute vote under clause
6(b)(3) (July 22, 1994, p. 17609).
  The Speaker interpreted clause 6(c) to permit the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole to announce in advance, at the time that the
absence of a quorum is ascertained, that he will vacate proceedings when
a quorum appears, and to convert to a regular quorum call if a quorum
does not appear at any time during the call (May 13, 1974, p. 14148).
The Chair need not convert to a regular quorum call precisely at the
expiration of 15 minutes if 100 Members have not responded on a
``notice'' quorum call but may continue to exercise his discretion to
vacate proceedings at any time during the entire period permitted for
the conduct of the call by clause 2 of rule XX (July 17, 1974, p.
23673).
  Before the installation of the electronic system, a quorum in the
Committee was established by a call of the roll. At one time the roll
was called but once (IV, 2967); but in the later practice it was called
twice as on other roll calls (VI, 668). Under the modern practice the
Chairman normally directs that Members record their presence by
electronic device. The Chair may however, in his discretion, order that
Members respond by the alternative procedures in clause 3 of rule XX
(alphabetical call of the roll) or clause 4(a) of rule XX (clerk
tellers) (for the use of clerk tellers for a ``notice'' quorum call in
Committee of the Whole, see July 13, 1983, p. 18858).
  Where the Committee has risen to report the absence of a quorum, it
resumes its session by direction of the Speaker on the appearance of a
quorum (IV, 2968; VI, 674). The quorum which must appear to permit the
Committee to continue its business is a quorum of the Committee and not
of the House (IV, 2970, 2971). However, if such quorum fails to appear,
a quorum of the House is required for the Committee to resume its
sitting (VI, 674). It was formerly held that after the Committee has
risen and reported its roll call, a motion to adjourn was in order
before direction as to resumption of the session (IV, 2969); but under
the later practice the Committee immediately resumed its session without
intervening motion or unanimous-consent requests (VI, 672, 673; VIII,
2377, 2379, 2436). The failure of a quorum of the House to answer on
this roll call does not interfere with the authority of the Speaker to
direct the Committee to resume its session (IV, 2969). The Chairman's
count of a quorum is not subject to verification by tellers (VIII, 2369,
2436), may not be challenged by an appeal (July 24, 1974, p. 25012), and
may include those present and not voting (VI, 641). On a division vote
totaling less than 100, the

[[Page 741]]

Chair has relied on his immediately prior count on a point of no quorum
and on his observation of several Members present but not voting on the
division vote in finding the presence of a quorum of the Committee of
the Whole (June 29, 1988, p. 16504). No quorum being present when a vote
is taken in Committee of the Whole, and the Committee having risen
before a quorum appeared, such vote is invalid, and the question is put
de novo when the Committee resumes its business (VI, 676, 677). While an
``automatic'' roll call (under clause 6(a) of rule XX) is not in order
in Committee of the Whole, a point of order of no quorum may intervene
between the announcement of a division vote result and the transaction
of further business, and a demand for a recorded vote following the
quorum call is not thereby precluded (Oct. 9, 1975, p. 32598). Where a
recorded vote is refused but the Chair has not announced the result of a
voice vote on an amendment, and the demand for a division vote remains
possible, the question remains pending and the Chair is obligated to
entertain a point of order of no quorum under this provision (June 6,
1979, p. 13648).
  The presence <> of a quorum is not necessary for adoption of a motion that the
Committee of the Whole rise (IV, 2975, 2976, 4914; clause 6(d) of rule
XVIII; Mar. 5, 1980, p. 4801; Oct. 3, 1985, p. 26096; May 21, 1992, p.
12394).
  A simple motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is privileged
(VIII, 2369), takes precedence over a motion to amend (May 21, 1992, p.
12394), and is not debatable (May 17, 2000, p. ----). However, the
motion cannot interrupt a Member who has the floor (VIII, 2370, 2371)
and may be ruled out when dilatory (VIII, 2800). For a further
discussion of the motion to rise, see Sec. 334, supra.
  A point of order of no quorum may not be entertained, on a day on
which a quorum has been established, during the period after the
Committee of the Whole has risen after completing its consideration of a
bill or resolution and before the Chairman of the Committee has reported
the bill or resolution back to the House. The Chairman having announced
the absence of a quorum in Committee of the Whole, a motion to rise is
in order and if a quorum develops on the vote by which the motion is
rejected the roll is not called and the Committee proceeds with its
business (VIII, 2369). The passage of a bill by the House is not
invalidated by the fact that the Committee of the Whole reported it on
an erroneous supposition that a record vote had disclosed a quorum (IV,
2972).

  (e) In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the
Chairman shall order a recorded vote on a request supported by at least
25 Members.

  This provision was adopted in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15,
1979, pp. 7-16). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress,

[[Page 742]]

this provision was found in former clause 2(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

-  (f) <> In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
the Chairman may reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting without any intervening business or debate on any or all pending
amendments after a record vote has been taken on the first pending
amendment.
  (g) The Chairman may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment. The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at
any time. The Chairman may reduce to five minutes the minimum time for
electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another
electronic vote without interviewing business, provided that the minimum
time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall
be 15 minutes.

  Paragraph (f) was added in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
p. 39). 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. ----). A vote by division is not such intervening
business as would preclude a five-minute vote under this paragraph (July
22, 1994, p. 17609).
  Paragraph (g) was added in the 107th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2001, p. ----). Before the adoption of paragraph (g), the Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole could not entertain a unanimous-consent
request to reduce below 15 minutes the minimum time for recorded votes
(June 18, 1987, p. 16764) or to postpone and cluster votes on amendments
(July 13, 1995, p. 18871; Sept. 27, 1995, p. 26611; July 14, 1998, p. --
--). Special rules of the House prior to adoption of paragraph (g)
routinely provided the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole authority
to postpone and cluster requests for recorded votes. Where a special
rule provided such authority: (1) use of that authority, and the order
of clustering, was entirely within the discretion of the Chair (Aug. 5,
1998, p. ----; Mar. 29, 2000, p. ----); (2) an amendment pending as
unfinished business where pro

[[Page 743]]

ceedings on a request for a recorded vote had been postponed could be
modified by unanimous consent on the initiative of its proponent (Mar.
30, 2000, p. ----); (3) a request for a recorded vote on an amendment on
which proceedings had been postponed could be withdrawn by unanimous
consent before proceedings resumed on the request as unfinished
business, in which case the amendment stood disposed of by the voice
vote thereon (May 16, 2000, p. ----); (4) it did not permit the Chair to
postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (even by unanimous
consent) (June 8, 2000, p. ----); (5) the Committee of the Whole by
unanimous consent could vacate postponed proceedings, thereby permitting
the Chair to put the question de novo (June 20, 2000, p. ----); and (6)
the Committee of the Whole could resume proceedings on unfinished
business consisting of a ``stack'' of amendments even while another
amendment was pending (July 10, 2000, p. ----). The offering of a pro
forma amendment to discuss the legislative program, or an extended one-
minute speech by a Member to express gratitude to the Members on a
personal matter, is considered intervening business such as to preclude
a five-minute vote under this authority except by unanimous consent
(June 22, 2000, p. ----; June 27, 2000, p. ----).
   <> When the 103d Congress enabled voting by the Delegates and
the Resident Commissioner in the Committee of the Whole, it also added a
paragraph (d) to former clause 2 of rule XXIII to provide for immediate
reconsideration in the House of questions resolved in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union by a margin within which the
votes of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner have been decisive (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). When the 104th Congress repealed the
authority for the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote in the
Committee of the Whole, it also repealed former clause 2(d) (sec.
212(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468).
  Under the former paragraph (d), whether the votes cast by the
delegates were decisive was determined by a ``but for'' test, the
question being whether the result would have been different if their
votes were not counted (May 19, 1993, p. 10409). An amendment adopted by
immediate proceedings de novo in the House under the former paragraph
(d) did not disturb the sequence of a ``king-of-the-hill'' procedure
established by a special rule waiving all points of order against
subsequent amendments (Mar. 17, 1994, p. 5388).

Dispensing with the reading of an amendment
  7. <> It shall be in
order in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to
move that the Committee

[[Page 744]]

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.

  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. ----).

Closing debate-
  8. (a) <> Subject to paragraph (b) at any time after the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union has begun five-minute debate on
amendments to any portion of a bill or resolution, it shall be in order
to move that the Committee of the Whole close all debate on that portion
of the bill or resolution or on the pending amendments only. Such a
motion shall be decided without debate. The adoption of such a motion
does not preclude further amendment, to be decided without debate.
  (b) If the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
closes debate on any portion of a bill or resolution before there has
been debate on an amendment that a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner has caused to be printed in the Congressional Record at
least one day before its consideration, the Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner who caused the

[[Page 745]]

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

  This clause (former 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. ----). 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. ----). A clerical correction was effected to
paragraph (c) in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001,
p. ----).
  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

[[Page 746]]

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 (former clause 7) of this rule is preferential to
the motion to close debate (June 28, 1995, p. 17647; July 13, 1995, p.
18872). Although any Member may move, or request unanimous consent, to
limit debate under the five-minute rule, the manager of the bill has
priority in recognition for such purpose (June 19, 1984, p. 17055). The
House, as well as the Committee of the Whole, may close five-minute
debate after it has begun (V, 5229, 5231), but rarely exercises this
right. The motion to close debate, while not debatable (Apr. 23, 1975,
p. 11534; June 5, 1975, p. 17187, July 14, 1998, p. ----), may be
amended (V, 5227; VIII, 2578). A time limitation imposed by the
Committee of the Whole under this clause may be rescinded or modified
only by unanimous consent (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28904). While the
Committee of the Whole may limit debate on amendments, it may not
restrict the offering of amendments in contravention of a special order
adopted by the House (June 25, 1985, p. 17201). The Committee of the
Whole by unanimous consent may limit and allocate control of time for
debate on amendments not yet offered (May 6, 1998, p. ----). The motion
may be ruled out when dilatory (V, 5734).
  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

[[Page 747]]

on debate on a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute and all
amendments thereto, but not on the underlying original text, debate on
perfecting amendments to the original text proceeds under the five-
minute rule absent another time limitation (Apr. 13, 1983, p. 8402).
Where the time for debate on a pending amendment in the form of a motion
to strike and all amendments thereto has been limited, a subsequently
offered perfecting amendment considered as preferential to (rather than
as an amendment to) the motion to strike remains separately debatable
outside the limitation (July 20, 1995, p. 19788). Where five-minute
debate has been limited to a certain number of minutes without reference
to a time certain, the time consumed by reading of amendments, quorum
calls, points of order and votes does not reduce the amount of time
remaining for debate (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28459; Nov. 9, 1971, p. 40060).
However, where debate has been limited to a time certain, such
activities as reading and voting consume time otherwise available for
debate (May 6, 1970, p. 14452; Oct. 7, 1976, p. 26305). Unlike time
placed under a Member's control, five-minute debate (or time derived
therefrom under a limitation) may not be reserved or yielded in blocks
except by unanimous consent (Mar. 2, 1976, p. 4992; May 11, 1976, p.
13416; June 14, 1977, p. 18833). A motion to limit debate on a pending
amendment may neither allocate the time proposed to remain nor vary the
order of recognition to close debate, though the Committee of the Whole
may do either separately by unanimous consent (July 12, 1988, p. 17767).
The Committee of the Whole may: (1) by motion, limit debate on a pending
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (considered as read)
and on all amendments thereto to a time certain; and then (2) by
unanimous-consent request or motion, separately limit debate on each
perfecting amendment as it is offered (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5794).
  Under a limitation on debate the Chair may, in his discretion, choose
among the following: (1) permit continued debate under the five-minute
rule; (2) divide the remaining time among those desiring to speak; or
(3) divide the remaining time between a proponent and an opponent to be
yielded by them to other Members (May 25, 1982, p. 11672; May 10, 2000,
p. ----). The Chair also may, in his discretion, give priority in
recognition under a limitation to those Members seeking to offer
amendments, over other Members standing at the time the limitation was
agreed to (May 26, 1977, pp. 16950-52). Where time for debate has been
limited on a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain several
hours away, the Chair may, in his discretion, continue to proceed under
the five-minute rule until he desires to allocate remaining time on
possible amendments, and may then divide that time among proponents of
anticipated amendments and committee members opposing those amendments
(July 16, 1981, p. 16044; Feb. 28, 1995, pp. 6306-08; May 10, 2000, p.
----). The Chair has discretion to reallocate time to conform to the
limit set by unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 16,
1995, p. 8115).

[[Page 748]]

  As codified in clause 3(c) of rule XVII (and except as indicated in
Sec. 959, supra) the manager of the bill, and not the proponent of the
pending amendment, has the right to close controlled debate on an
amendment (July 16, 1981, p. 16043), even where he is also the proponent
of a pending amendment to the amendment (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5792).

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

  The practice of rejecting a bill by striking out the enacting words
dates from a time as early as 1812, but the first rule on the subject
was not adopted until 1822. By amendments in 1860, 1870, and 1880 the
rule has been brought into its present form (V, 5326). The rule before
1880 applied in the House as well as in Committee of the Whole. In the
revision of 1880, it was classified among the rules relating to the
Committee of the Whole, but there is nothing to indicate that this
change was intended to limit the scope of the motion. It was probably a
recognition merely of the fact that the motion was used most frequently
in Committee of the Whole

[[Page 749]]

(V, 5326, 5332). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 7 of rule XXIII (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----). The motion must be in writing and in the
proper form (July 24, 1986, p. 17641; Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22071; Sept. 12,
1986, p. 23178).
  The motion <> may not be made until the first
section of the bill has been read (V, 5327; VIII, 2619). Having
precedence of a motion to amend, it may be offered while an amendment is
pending (V, 5328-5331; VIII, 2622, 2624, 2627). The motion takes
precedence over the motion to amend and therefore over the motion to
rise and report at the end of the reading of a general appropriation
bill for amendment under clause 2(d) of rule XXI (July 24, 1986, p.
17641). The motion also takes precedence over a motion to limit debate
on pending amendments (June 28, 1995, p. 17647; July 13, 1995, p.
18874). Where a special order provides that a bill shall be open to
amendment in Committee of the Whole, a motion to strike out the enacting
words is in order (VII, 787); contra (IV, 3215), but after the stage of
amendment has been passed the motion to strike out the enacting words is
not in order (IV, 4782; VIII, 2368). Where a bill is being considered
under a special order which permits only committee amendments and no
amendments thereto, a motion that the Committee rise and report with the
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is not in order
where no committee amendments are in fact offered (Apr. 16, 1970, p.
12092).
  The motion is debatable as to the merits of the bill, but may not go
beyond its provisions (V, 5336). The debate on the motion is governed by
the five-minute rule (V, 5333-5335; VIII, 2618, 2628-2631); only two
five-minute speeches are in order (V, 5335; VIII, 2629), and time may
not be reserved (May 22, 1991, p. 11830); thus where a Member recognized
for five minutes in opposition to the motion yields back his time
another Member may not claim the unused portion thereof (Mar. 3, 1988,
p. 3241). Members of the committee managing the bill have priority in
recognition for debate in opposition to the motion (May 5, 1988, p.
9955; June 26, 1991, p. 16436). The Chair will not announce in advance
the Member to be recognized in opposition to the motion (July 17, 1996,
p. 17543). The motion is not debatable after the expiration of time for
debate on the pending bill and all amendments thereto (July 9, 1965, p.
16280; July 19, 1973, p. 24961; June 19, 1975, p. 19785), but 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 (June 20, 1975, p. 19966). For more concerning
debate on the motion, see Deschler's Precedents, vol. 5, ch. 19, sec.
12.
  A second motion to strike out the enacting clause is not entertained
on the same legislative day in the absence of any material modification
of the bill (VIII, 2636), but the motion may be repeated on a subsequent
legislative day without change in the bill (May 6, 1950, p. 6571). The
rejection of a proposed amendment to the bill does not qualify as a
modification

[[Page 750]]

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).
  A point of order against the motion should be made before debate
thereon has begun (V, 6902; VIII, 3442; May 6, 1950, p. 6571), and when
challenged the Member offering the motion must qualify as being opposed
to the bill (Mar. 13, 1942, p. 2439; May 6, 1950, p. 6571; June 14,
1979, p. 14995; Jan. 26, 1995, p. 2521). When a bill is reported from
the Committee of the Whole with the recommendation that the enacting
words be stricken out, the motion to strike out is debatable (V, 5337-
5340), but a motion to lay on the table is not in order (V, 5337). The
previous question may be moved on the motion to concur without applying
to further action on the bill (V, 5342). When the House disagrees to the
action of the Committee in striking out the enacting words and does not
refer it under the provisions of the rule, it goes back to the Committee
of the Whole, where it becomes unfinished business (V, 5326, 5345, 5346;
VIII, 2633). Notwithstanding that consideration of the pending bill was
governed by a ``modified-closed'' rule permitting only specified
amendments, pending the concurrence of the House with a recommendation
of the Committee of the Whole that the enacting clause be stricken, the
House could by instructions in a motion to refer under this clause
direct the Committee of the Whole to consider additional germane
amendments (Apr. 14, 1994, p. 7452). When the enacting words of a bill
are stricken out, the bill is rejected (V, 5326). When the enacting
clause of a Senate measure is stricken, the bill is rejected (V, 5326);
and the Senate is so informed (IV, 3423; VIII, 2638; June 20, 1946, p.
7211; Oct. 4, 1972, p. 33787).
  When, on Calendar Wednesday, the House disagrees to the recommendation
of the Committee of the Whole that the enacting words be stricken out,
the House automatically resolves itself into Committee of the Whole for
its further consideration (VII, 943). When the bill is thus again taken
up in Committee of the Whole it is taken up as unfinished business and
is open to amendment, and the motion to strike out the enacting words
may be again offered (VIII, 2633).

Concurrent resolution on the budget
  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

[[Page 751]]

under section 305(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for amendment.
  (b) It shall not be in order in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union to consider an amendment to a
concurrent resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, unless the
concurrent resolution, as amended by such amendment or amendments--
      (1) would be mathematically consistent except as limited by
paragraph (c); and
      (2) would contain all the matter set forth in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  (c)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph (2), it shall not be in
order in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union to consider an amendment to a concurrent resolution on the
budget, or an amendment thereto, that proposes to change the amount of
the appropriate level of the public debt set forth in the concurrent
resolution, as reported.
  (2) Amendments to achieve mathematical consistency under section
305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if offered by
direction of the Committee on the Budget, may propose to adjust the
amount of the appropriate level of the public debt set forth in the
concurrent resolution, as reported, to reflect changes made in other
figures contained in the concurrent resolution.

[[Page 752]]

  Paragraph (a) (first sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was
added to the rules 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 (fiscal 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. ----).

Unfunded mandates
  11. (a) <> In the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, an amendment proposing only to
strike an unfunded mandate from the portion of the bill then open to
amendment, if otherwise in order, may be precluded from consideration
only by specific terms of a special order of the House.
  (b) In this clause the term ``unfunded mandate'' means a Federal
intergovernmental mandate the direct costs of which exceed the threshold
otherwise specified for a reported bill or joint resolution in section
424(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  This provision (former clause 5(c) of rule XXIII) was added by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (sec. 107(a), P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat.
63). It was amended later in the 104th Congress to effect a technical
correction (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077), and in the 105th
Congress to clarify that it applies to intergovernmental mandates (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. ----). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(c) of
rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

[[Page 753]]

Applicability of Rules of the House
  12. <> The Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union so far as applicable.

  This clause was adopted in 1789 (IV, 4737). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 9 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).
  A unanimous-consent <> request may not be entertained in the Committee of the Whole
by the Chair 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. ----; Oct. 21, 1999, p. ----); (4) to restrict ``en
blocking'' authority granted in a special order (Sept. 11, 1986, p.
22871; June 21, 1989, p. 12744); (5) to change the scheme for control
(Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29984) or duration (Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17143; Mar. 12,
1991, p. 5799; Mar. 17, 1993, p. 5385; June 17, 1999, p. ---- (Chair
corrected himself)) of general debate specified by the House; (6) to
reduce below 15 minutes the minimum time for recorded votes in the
Committee of the Whole (June 18, 1987, p. 16764); (7) to postpone and
cluster votes on amendments (July 13, 1995, p. 18872; Sept. 27, 1995, p.
26611; July 14, 1998, p. ----); (8) 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; Aug. 2, 1999, p. ----
); (9) to postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (June 8,
2000, p. ----); (10) 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); (11) 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. ----); (12) to permit consideration of an additional amendment or to
authorize a supplemental report from the Committee on Rules in lieu of
the original report referred to in the

[[Page 754]]

special order (July 28, 1988, p. 19491; Speaker Wright, Aug. 11, 1988,
p. 22105; June 10, 1998, p. ----; July 29, 1999, p. ----); (13) to
permit another to offer an amendment vested in a specified Member (May
1, 1990, p. 9030); or (14) to permit a division of the question on an
amendment rendered indivisible by a special order (July 16, 1996, p.
17318).
  Unanimous-consent requests have been entertained in Committee of the
Whole: (1) to permit the modification of a designated amendment made in
order by a special rule, once offered, if the request is propounded by
the proponent of the amendment (Sept. 1, 1976, p. 28877; Nov. 19, 1993,
p. 30472; July 24, 1996, p. 18906; Mar. 29, 2000, p. ----), including as
unfinished business where proceedings on a request for a recorded vote
have been postponed (Mar. 30, 2000, p. ----); (2) to permit a page
reference to be included in a designated amendment made in order as
printed where the printed amendment did not include that reference (Apr.
1, 1976, p. 9091); (3) to permit a supporter of an amendment to claim
debate time allocated by special order to an opponent, where no opponent
seeks recognition (May 23, 1990, p. 11988); (4) to shorten the time set
by special order for debate on a particular amendment (Aug. 1, 1990, p.
21510; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9742); (5) to lengthen the time set by special
order for debate on a particular amendment under terms of control
congruent with those set by the order of the House (May 11, 1988, p.
10495; May 21, 1991, p. 11646; Mar. 22, 1995, p. 8769; June 27, 1995, p.
17329; Nov. 2, 1995, p. 31376); (6) to permit en bloc consideration of
several amendments under a ``modified-closed'' special order providing
for the sequential consideration of designated separate amendments (Aug.
10, 1994, p. 20768); (7) to permit one of two committees controlling
time for general debate pursuant to a special order to yield control of
its time to the other (Aug. 18, 1994, p. 23118); (8) to permit the
offering of pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate under a
``modified-closed'' special order limiting both amendments and debate
thereon (July 17, 1996, p. 17563; July 24, 1996, p. 18896); (9) to reach
ahead in the reading of a general appropriation bill to consider one
amendment without prejudice to others earlier in the bill under a
special order of the House contemplating that each remaining amendment
be offered only at the ``appropriate point in the reading of the bill''
(Mar. 29, 2000, p. ----); and (10) to permit the reading of an amendment
that already was considered as read under the special order of the House
(June 13, 2000, p. ----).
  By unanimous consent the House may delegate to the Committee of the
Whole authority to entertain unanimous-consent requests to change
procedures contained in an adopted special order (Aug. 11, 1986, p.
20633). The Member offering an amendment in the Committee of the Whole
pursuant to a special order of the House has the burden of proving that
it meets the description of the amendment made in order (July 17, 1996,
p. 17553). The Chair advised the Committee that an amendment made in
order was described by subject matter rather than by prescribed text and
that the pending amendment fit such description (July 20, 2000, p. ----
). For a

[[Page 755]]

description of the authority under clause 6(g) of this rule for the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone and cluster requests
for recorded votes on amendments (which, prior to the adoption of that
clause, was routinely provided by special orders of the House), and the
Chair's interpretation thereof, see Sec. 984, infra.