[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[D. Jurisdiction of Committees]
[Â§ 28. Motions to Rerefer]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2775-2781]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         C. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
 
Sec.  28. Motions to Rerefer

Debate on Motion

Sec.  28.1 A motion to rerefer a bill is not debatable except by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Jan. 13, 1941,(22) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on 
Military Affairs [now the Committee on Armed Services], who requested 
unanimous consent to address the House for 10 minutes. The Members were 
aware that Mr. May intended to offer a motion to rerefer H.R. 1776, the 
so-called ``LendLease'' or ``Aid to Britain'' bill from the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs to the Committee on Military Affairs. There were 
several reservations of objection, and a brief colloquy which included 
the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 87 Cong. Rec. 126, 127, 77th Cong. 1st sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [R. Ewing] Thomason [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, it is very 
    apparent that this is all a debate on the question of the 
    jurisdiction of this bill. I make the parliamentary inquiry as to 
    whether or not this question is debatable? I am opposed to my 
    chairman in his effort to re-refer the bill and so voted in the 
    Committee on Military Affairs, as did several others. The action of 
    the committee was not unanimous. I think the Speaker should be 
    sustained in the exercise of his sound discretion.
        The Speaker: It can only be debated by unanimous consent.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I admit that the motion to re-refer the 
    bill which I expect to make is not subject to debate. The only 
    purpose I had in propounding the unanimous-consent request was to 
    say something to the House about it.

Sec. 28.2 While a motion to rerefer may not be debated under the rules, 
    where a Member obtained unanimous

[[Page 2776]]

    consent to address the House for one minute and proceeded to 
    discuss reasons for a bill's rereferral, the Chair held, in 
    response to a point of order, that such action would not bar the 
    subsequent submission of the motion to rerefer.

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Samuel Dickstein, of New York, Chairman of the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization (since incorporated into the Committee 
on the Judiciary), who obtained unanimous consent to address the House 
for one minute. Mr. Dickstein then outlined several reasons why a bill 
(H.R. 6915), previously referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
should be referred to the committee he chaired. Immediately thereafter, 
by direction of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, he so 
moved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 3570, 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this juncture, three points of order were raised--one of which 
prompted the following exchange:

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order against the motion that it is made in violation of the rule 
    (2) under which it is supposed to be presented, in that 
    there was debate by the distinguished gentleman from New York for 1 
    minute immediately preceding the submission of the motion, whereas 
    the opposition is denied that right by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979) 
        which states, in pertinent part, that ``correction in case of 
        error of reference may be made by the House, without debate, in 
        accordance with Rule X [which sets out committee jurisdiction], 
        on any day after the reading of the Journal, by unanimous 
        consent, or on motion of a committee claiming jurisdiction, or 
        on the report of the committee to which the bill has been 
        erroneously referred [emphasis supplied]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair did not know what the gentleman from New 
    York was going to talk about. The Chair cannot look into the mind 
    of a Member when he asks unanimous consent to address the House for 
    1 minute and see what he intends to talk about.

    The other points of order having also been overruled, the motion to 
rerefer was considered by the House.

Speaker's Explanation of Referral

Sec. 28.3 The House having under consideration a [nondebatable] motion 
    to rerefer a bill from one standing committee to another, the 
    Speaker declined to respond to a parliamentary inquiry requesting 
    an explanation of his re

[[Page 2777]]

    ferral where objection was heard and unanimous consent to respond 
    unconditionally was not forthcoming.

    On Jan. 13, 1941,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, Chairman of the Committee on 
Military Affairs [now the Committee on Armed Services], who 
subsequently (4) moved that the Chair rerefer H.R. 1776, the 
so-called ``LendLease'' or ``Aid to Britain'' bill from the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs to the Committee on Military Affairs. Immediately 
thereafter, Mr. May obtained unanimous consent to have the Clerk read a 
resolution passed by his committee with respect to his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 126, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Id. at pp. 127, 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then raised a 
parliamentary inquiry to which the Chair responded, leading to the 
following discussion:

        Mr. McCormack: Pursuing my parliamentary inquiry further, may I 
    ask the Chair if the Chair will state to the House the compelling 
    reasons which prompted him to refer this bill to the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs?
        The Speaker: The Chair will be very glad to make a statement as 
    to why this bill was referred as it was.
        Mr. [Albert J.] Engel [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts has propounded a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Engel: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that what the 
    gentleman has propounded is not a parliamentary inquiry. If we are 
    going to debate (5) one side of this question, I want 
    both sides debated. I do not know what I am going to do on this 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Motions to rerefer are not debatable except by unanimous consent; 
        see Sec. 28.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair holds that that relates to the 
    proceedings of the House. The Chair thought that a unanimous-
    consent request might be granted or a parliamentary inquiry made of 
    him, so the Chair has prepared a statement he will make with 
    reference to this matter.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    Chair permit an inquiry?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Michener: If the Speaker pursues that course, then in 
    effect he has opened this matter up to debate and the Speaker 
    himself has made a speech against the motion. That can be done by 
    unanimous consent, but it does seem to me we should do these things 
    according to the rules. If we are going to have debate, let us have 
    debate; if we are not, let us not have one side only.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman maintain that it is not the 
    business of the Chair to answer a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Michener: My point is that it was not a proper 
    parliamentary inquiry. It was a unanimous-consent re

[[Page 2778]]

    quest that the Speaker be permitted to state his reasons for doing 
    a certain thing.
        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House; yes.
        Mr. [Edward E. ] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I think 
    unquestionably the Chair has the right to state reasons for action 
    taken; but in order to avoid even the suspicion of undertaking to 
    influence the judgment of the Members on the subject, I hope the 
    Chair will forego the exercise of this right which he clearly has.
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I concur 
    with the gentleman from Georgia. Although I am in sympathy with the 
    viewpoint of the Speaker--and he is well within his rights in 
    saying anything he wants to the House--I hope he will forego those 
    rights in the interest of harmony and justice at the present time.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, may I make the additional statement that 
    I have no complaint against the Speaker for anything he has done 
    about this matter? I am just trying to pursue what I regard as the 
    proper course. This motion not being subject to debate, it is a 
    question in my mind whether or not in ruling on it the Speaker is 
    confined to the mere position of saying that it is overruled and 
    not sustained; but, in order to be perfectly fair about it, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Speaker may be permitted to make his 
    statement.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: I object to that, Mr. 
    Speaker. Either the Speaker has the right or he has not. I contend 
    that he has the right. I object.
        Mr. May: It will not hurt to have unanimous consent.
        The Speaker: The Chair believes that the questions raised here 
    are very fundamental and certainly go to the rights and the 
    prerogatives of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
    Therefore, the Chair had hoped that a time would come in these 
    proceedings when he might be able to say to the House what the 
    compelling reasons were for referring this bill to the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs. However, the Chair is not going to do that unless 
    by unanimous consent. The Chair will make a statement if unanimous 
    consent is granted. Is there objection?
        Mr. Engel: Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    that unanimous consent he granted to discuss the matter 20 minutes.
        The Speaker: The Chair will accept no time from the House on 
    any conditions; therefore, as the Chair interprets it, objection is 
    heard.

Authorization for Motion to Rerefer

Sec. 28.4 The motion for rereference of a bill by direction of a 
    committee claiming jurisdiction is a privileged matter, in order 
    after approval of the Journal, and the Chair may inquire if the 
    appropriate committee has authorized the motion. A motion to 
    rerefer a bill is not in order if the committee of original 
    reference has reported, and the Chair may examine the Journal to de

[[Page 2779]]

    termine if the bill has been reported.

    On May 4, 1939,(6) following the reading of the Journal 
and several unanimous-consent requests, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, recognized Mr. William T. Schulte, of Indiana, who, by 
direction of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization (since 
incorporated into the Committee on the Judiciary), submitted a motion 
to the House that a bill (H.R. 5138), to make unlawful attempts to 
overthrow the Government of the United States; to require licensing of 
civilian military organizations, to make unlawful attempts to interfere 
with the discipline of the Army and Navy, to require registration and 
fingerprinting of aliens, to enlarge the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals in certain cases, and for other purposes, be 
rereferred from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 5119, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker put the question on the motion 
whereupon Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, rose to a point of order, 
stating, in part:

        Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House a motion of this kind 
    must have been authorized by formal action of the committee from 
    which the motion comes. As I understand this motion, it is a motion 
    of the Immigration Committee to take from the Judiciary Committee a 
    bill which has previously been referred to the Judiciary Committee 
    by the Speaker. It does not appear from the motion that there was 
    any formal action taken by the Committee on Immigration. . . .
        I make the further point of order, Mr. Speaker, that nothing 
    appears in this motion to show what is the present status of that 
    bill as far as the Committee on the Judiciary is concerned. Under 
    the precedents of the House--and the Chair had occasion to rule on 
    this point just a couple of days ago--when a bill has been reported 
    from a committee it is too late to make that point. For aught that 
    appears to the Speaker or to the House this morning, the Committee 
    on the Judiciary may have already acted upon the bill, in which 
    event this motion would come too late. . . . At this late hour the 
    gentleman without any reason being assigned for a reference of this 
    bill makes this motion to refer the matter to another committee 
    which has never had and which it does not appear from the motion 
    could possibly have any jurisdiction of the subject matter.

    Mr. Schulte, in response, noted:

        . . . [W]e are within our rights and we are within our bounds 
    when we protest the reference of the bill now in question in view 
    of the fact that this bill has not been reported to the House. The 
    so-called Smith bill is strictly an immigration bill and is so 
    interpreted by every one who has read it. Titles I and II pertain 
    to citizens and aliens alike. Titles III, IV, and V

[[Page 2780]]

    of the bill are immigration matters absolutely 100 percent.

    Shortly thereafter, the Chair announced he was ready to rule, and 
the following exchange took place: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 5119, 5120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:  . . . In reference to the first point of order, 
    made by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith], challenging the 
    fact that the motion made by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
    Schulte] was made by authority of the Committee on Immigration and 
    Naturalization, the Chair asks the gentleman from Indiana if such 
    was the case?
        Mr. Schulte: It was, Mr. Speaker. I was instructed by the 
    Committee on Immigration and Naturalization to move that this bill 
    be rereferred.
        The Speaker: By a vote of the committee?
        Mr. Schulte: By a unanimous vote of the Committee on 
    Immigration and Naturalization.
        The Speaker: The Chair accepts that statement and overrules the 
    first point of order made by the gentleman from Virginia.
        On the second point of order the Chair thinks it might be 
    proper to have read into the Record the rule governing propositions 
    of this character. Clause 3 of rule XXII (8) provides as 
    follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            All other bills, memorials, and resolutions may, in like 
        manner, be delivered, endorsed with the names of Members 
        introducing them, to the Speaker, to be by him referred, and 
        the titles and references thereof and of all bills, 
        resolutions, and documents referred under the rules shall be 
        entered on the Journal and printed in the Record of the next 
        day, and correction in case of error of reference may be made 
        by the House, without debate, in accordance with rule XI, on 
        any day immediately after the reading of the Journal, by 
        unanimous consent, or on motion of a committee claiming 
        jurisdiction, or on the report of the committee to which the 
        bill has been erroneously referred.

        Under any fair construction of that rule, the Chair is 
    compelled to hold that the gentleman from Indiana is clearly within 
    his rights and the rights of the committee for which he is acting 
    in making this motion to rerefer this bill from the Committee on 
    the Judiciary to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.
        In reference to the suggestion made by the gentleman from 
    Virginia that for aught appearing the committee had made a report 
    on this bill, of course, the Journal of the House itself shows that 
    no such report has been made to the House by the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.
        The Chair, therefore overrules the points of order made by the 
    gentleman from Virginia.

Tabling Motion to Rerefer

Sec. 28.5 A motion to rerefer a bill to a committee claiming 
    jurisdiction may be laid on the table (and does not carry the bill 
    to the table).

[[Page 2781]]

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Samuel Dickstein, of New York, Chairman of the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization (since incorporated into the Committee 
on the Judiciary), who, by direction of that committee, moved that a 
bill (H.R. 6915), pertaining to the detention of certain aliens be 
rereferred from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 3571, 3572, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair then dealt with several points of order (10) 
after which the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 28.2, supra
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to lay on the table the motion of the gentleman from New York.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Dickstein) there were--ayes 79, noes 25.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 238, nays 83, 
    answered ``present'' 2, not voting 108. . . .

    So the motion to table the motion to rerefer was agreed 
to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For a comparable instance, see 84 Cong. Rec. 5120, 76th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 4, 1939, where the House, by division vote, rejected 
        a motion to rerefer a bill (H.R. 5138), from the Committee on 
        the Judiciary to the Committee on Immigration and 
        Naturalization. As in the instant case, the Committee on 
        Immigration and Naturalization sought the rereference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------