[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[C. Motion to Recommend Striking Enacting Clause]
[Â§ 10. Generally]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3335-3348]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
            C. MOTION TO RECOMMEND STRIKING ENACTING CLAUSE
 
Sec. 10. Generally


    Although the Committee of the Whole does not have authority to 
consider a simple motion to strike the enacting clause of a 
bill,(13) it may agree to a motion that the Committee rise 
and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken out.(1~4) Agreement by the House 
to the recommendation is considered equivalent to rejection of the 
bill.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 10.1, infra. An older line of precedents took a different 
        view. See, for example, 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5332, stating 
        that the motion to strike out the enacting clause applied in 
        the Committee of the Whole. The Chair sometimes took the view 
        that the motion to strike the enacting clause was in the nature 
        of an amendment. (See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2618.) Since 
        the motion can be dispositive of a bill, however, present 
        practice is to allow it in the House and not in the Committee 
        of the Whole.
14. Sec. 10.2, infra.
            See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5326-5346 and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 2618-2638 for earlier precedents relating 
        to these motions.
15. See Sec. 10.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the House rejects a recommendation of the Committee of the Whole 
to strike the enacting clause, it automatically resolves itself into 
the Committee for further consideration of the bill(16) 
which, by operation of the rule, is returned to the Committee without 
further House action. The bill goes back to the Committee of the Whole 
as unfinished business and is subject to amendment. Before the question 
of concurrence by the House is raised, a motion to refer the bill to 
any committee with or without instructions is in order, the Member 
offering that motion to refer need not qualify as being opposed to the 
bill; (17) when the bill is again reported to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sec. 10.9, infra.
17. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3336]]

House, it is referred to the Committee of the Whole without 
debate.(18~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion that the Committee rise and report with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is not in order 
during general debate on a measure in the Committee; it is in order 
after the first section is read during the reading for 
amendment.(1~9~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 11.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against the motion that the Committee rise and 
report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out 
should be made before debate begins (20) on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6902; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3442.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form of Motion

Sec. 10.1 The simple motion to strike out the enacting clause is not in 
    order in the Committee of the Whole, not being in proper form.

    On May 18, 1960,(21) during consideration of H.R. 5, the 
Foreign Investment Incentive Act of 1960, Chairman William H. Natcher, 
of Kentucky, ruled out of order a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise and report the bill back to the House with its enacting 
clause stricken out. However, a motion that the Committee rise and 
report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken out was entertained and adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 106 Cong. Rec. 10577-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Pelly moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with its enacting clause stricken 
        out.

        The Chairman: The Chair desires to inform the gentleman that 
    his motion is not in order.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gross moves that the Committee now rise and report the 
        bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
        clause be stricken out. . . .

        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gross) there were--ayes 101, noes 93.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Boggs and Mr. Gross.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 107, noes 101.

[[Page 3337]]

        So the motion was agreed to.

Sec. 10.2 The motion to strike out the enacting clause of a bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole is not in proper form. The motion should 
    provide that the Committee do now rise and report the bill to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out.

    On June 21, 1944,(22) during consideration of H.R. 4219, 
providing for appointment of female pilots and aviation cadets in the 
air force, Chairman Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, ruled out of order a 
motion to strike out the enacting clause because of improper form and 
indicated the proper form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 90 Cong. Rec. 6414, 6415, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See also, for 
        example, 97 Cong Rec. 7498, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1951; 
        and 95 Cong. Rec. 2962-65, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 22, 1949, 
        for other illustrations of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edouard V. M.] Izac [of California]: I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the motion of the gentleman 
    from California.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Izac moves to strike out the enacting clause. . . .

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: I reserve the point of order 
    against the motion on the ground that it is not in proper form and 
    does not comply with the rules of the House. The motion should 
    read: I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill 
    back with instructions that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky is correct.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 10.3 Where the form of a motion to strike out the enacting clause 
    of a bill in the Committee of the Whole is deficient, the Chair may 
    rule it out of order.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(23) during consideration of H.R. 7248, 
to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts 
dealing with higher education, Chairman pro tempore Edward P. Boland, 
of Massachusetts, refused to entertain as privileged a motion that the 
Committee strike the enacting clause and report the bill back to the 
House because the motion was not in writing and not in proper form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 117 Cong. Rec. 39321, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Wolff).
        Mr. [Lester L.] Wolff: Mr. Chairman, I take my time to send to 
    the desk a privileged motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 3338]]

            Mr. Wolff of New York moves to strike all after the 
        enacting clause.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the motion 
    in the form offered is not in order in the Committee of the Whole 
    and it cannot be entertained.
        Mr. Wolff: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee strike the 
    enacting clause and report the bill back to the House.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman have his motion in 
    writing at the Clerk's desk?
        Mr. Wolff: I do not.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the motion 
    is not in order.

Privileged Nature

Sec. 10.4 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report back 
    to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken is of high privilege.

    On July 9, 1965,(1) during consideration of H.R. 6400, 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a motion that the Committee of the Whole 
rise and report back to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause of the bill be stricken was offered as a preferential 
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 16227, 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 115 
        Cong. Rec. 30099, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 15, 1969, for 
        another illustration of this principle during consideration of 
        H.R. 14127, the Coinage Act Amendments of 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Preferential motion offered by Mr. Watson:
            ``Mr. Watson, of South Carolina, moves that the Committee 
        now rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.''. . .

        Mr. [William T.] Cahill [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion.
        Mr. Chairman, I am very happy in a way that the gentleman from 
    South Carolina spoke, because by his speech he pointed out I think 
    more dramatically than anything I could say or anything anyone else 
    could say the courage that was demonstrated by another gentleman 
    from the South today, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Boggs]. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The 10 minutes used for debate on the 
preferential motion was not taken from the time remaining for debate on 
the bill under a limitation previously agreed upon. The limitation was 
contained in a unanimous consent request to which the Committee had 
previously agreed. The request provided: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 16038, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 8, 1965.
            For another instance in which the time for debate on a 
        motion to rise and report with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken was not taken from the time fixed 
        for debate on an amendment previously offered (where the time 
        was not fixed by the clock), see 99 Cong. Rec. 4125-28, 83d 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 28, 1953. See also Ch. 29 Sec. 79, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3339]]

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the so-called McCulloch 
    substitute and all amendments thereto be limited to 2 hours, and 
    that such time be equally divided and controlled by myself and the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch].
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

Divisibility

Sec. 10.5 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken out is not divisible.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(4) during consideration in Committee 
of S. 2475, the wages and hours bill, under Chairman John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, a question arose as to whether a motion relating to 
the enacting clause was divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 82 Cong. Rec. 1600, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
    directed to the enacting clause of the Senate bill.
        Mr. [Clarence E.] Hancock of New York: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hancock of New York: Is that motion divisible?
        The Chairman: The Chair, in answer to the gentleman's inquiry, 
    will say the motion is not divisible.

House Action on Committee Recommendation

Sec. 10.6 Where a bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole with 
    the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out, the 
    question before the House is on the recommendation of the Committee 
    of the Whole; if that recommendation is agreed to, it is equivalent 
    to a rejection of the bill.

    On Mar. 1, 1950,(5) the Committee of the Whole agreed to 
a motion to report H.R. 5963, authorizing contributions to the 
Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe, Inc., back to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 2590, 2591, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3340]]

House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. 
The proceedings were as follows:

        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Nebraska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Stefan) there were--ayes 92, noes 27.
        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Kee and Mr. Stefan.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 127, noes 46.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Price, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 5953) to authorize contributions 
    to Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe, Inc., had 
    directed him to report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Speaker: (7) The question is on the motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kee: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Javits: So that we may know what we are voting, is it a 
    fact that a vote ``yea'' means that the enacting clause will be 
    stricken, and a vote ``nay'' means that it will not be stricken and 
    the bill will pass?
        The Speaker: The question now is on the motion to strike out 
    the enactment clause.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 265, nays 102, not 
    voting 65. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that, under the rules, 
the motion to strike the enacting clause, if carried, is equivalent to 
the rejection of the bill. Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 875 (1979).

Resolving Clauses in Resolution of Disapproval and Applicability to 
    Simple Resolutions Generally

Sec. 10.7 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    resolution to disapprove a reorganization plan under the 
    Reorganization Act of 1949 back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the resolving clause be stricken out was held 
    not in order because that resolution is not amendable.

    On June 27, 1953,(8) during consideration of House 
Resolution

[[Page 3341]]

295, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 6, Chairman Leslie C. Arends 
of Illinois, held that the motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report the resolution back to the House with the recommendation 
that the resolving clause be stricken out was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 7482, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Cole of New York moves that the Committee do now rise 
        with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the motion is not in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is compelled to agree with the 
    gentleman from Michigan. The resolution is not amendable and, 
    therefore, the preferential motion is not in order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 5 USC Sec. 912(b) provides that an amendment to a resolution of 
        disapproval is not in order and the preferential motion is in 
        order only during the stage of amendment.
            Parliamentarian's Note: A preferential motion under the 
        provisions of Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 875 (1979), is applicable to a simple resolution being 
        considered under a special rule in the Committee of the Whole 
        under the five-minute rule. See 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 
        93d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 7, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chairman's Vote

Sec. 10.8 The Chairman of a Committee of the Whole cast his vote to 
    make a tie and thus defeated a motion to rise and report the bill 
    back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
    he stricken out.

    On Aug. 1, 1957,(10) during consideration of H.R. 6763, 
to amend the Act of Aug. 30, 1954, entitled ``an Act to authorize and 
direct the construction of bridges over the Potomac River,'' Chairman 
Richard Bolling, of Missouri, cast his negative vote to make a tie and 
thereby defeat a motion to rise and report a bill back to the House 
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 13377, 13378, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Taber moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee

[[Page 3342]]

    divided, and there were--ayes 54, noes 49.
        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Taber and Mr. Davis of Georgia.
        The Committee again divided.
        The Chairman: On this vote by tellers, the ayes are 63; noes, 
    62. The Chair votes ``no''.
        So the motion was rejected.

Effect of House Rejection of Recommendation to Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 10.9 When a recommendation of a Committee of the Whole that the 
    enacting clause be stricken is rejected by the House, the House, 
    without motion, resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    further consideration of the bill.

    On Aug. 21, 1958,(11) the Committee of the Whole resumed 
its sitting after the House rejected a Committee recommendation to 
strike the enacting clause of S. 4036, to stabilize production of 
copper, lead, zinc, acid-grade fluorspar, and tungsten. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 104 Cong. Rec. 18946-48, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 111 Cong. 
        Rec. 25424-26, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1965; and 94 
        Cong. Rec. 6423, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 25, 1948, for other 
        examples of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hays of Ohio moves that the Committee do now rise and 
        report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that 
        the enacting clause be stricken. . . .

        The Chairman: (12) The time of the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma has expired. All time on the preferential motion has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion to strike out the enacting 
    clause.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Hays 
    of Ohio) there were--ayes 77, noes 76.
        Mr. [Stewart L.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Rogers of Texas and Mr. Hays of Ohio.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 108, noes 98.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Evins, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (S. 4036) to stabilize production of 
    copper, lead, zinc, acid-grade fluorspar, and tungsten from 
    domestic mines, had directed him to report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out.

[[Page 3343]]

        The Speaker: (13) The question is on the 
    recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
    the Union that the enacting clause be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 171, nays 174, not 
    voting 84. . . .
        So the motion was rejected. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Committee resumed its sitting.

Motion to Rise (Strike the En- acting Clause) and Recommit Bill to 
    Committee

Sec. 10.10 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken and the bill be recommitted to a committee was 
    held not to be in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(14) during consideration of H.R. 6287, 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare, Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, held 
out of order a motion that the Committee of the VVhole rise and report 
a bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken and that the bill be recommitted to committee with 
instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 5013, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hoffman moves that the Committee do now rise, report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken, and that the bill be recommitted 
        to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions that it be 
        reported back to the House within 5 days with amendments which 
        will indicate the places and amounts in the budget where the 
        committee believes, in view of the statements made in the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, that 
        substantial reductions may best be made and will meet the views 
        of the House with the least curtailment of efficient 
        administration by the Departments affected.

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
        Mr. Hoffman: In the interest of saving time, I am perfectly 
    willing that the point of order should be ruled on now. Why wait 5 
    minutes or 10 minutes if it is out of order?

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Rhode Island care to be 
    heard on the point of order? The Chair is ready to rule.

[[Page 3344]]

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, as I remember the reading of the 
    motion, there is matter of wording contained therein that is not 
    permissible under the rules governing procedure in Committee of the 
    Whole, but would be allowed under the rules of procedure in the 
    House.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Hoffman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that there 
    is a precedent for the motion and the rules cite a precedent where 
    that motion has been held to be proper in the Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is not familiar with that precedent, 
    but the rules of the House provide that certain language contained 
    in the motion made by the gentleman from Michigan could be 
    entertained in Committee of the Whole, but the balance of the 
    motion would only be appropriate in the House. For that reason, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.(l5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Immediately after the ruling of the Chairman, Mr. Hoffman quoted 
        from 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329, in which Chairman Frank 
        D. Currier (N.H.) stated: ``The gentleman may move that the 
        Committee rise and report this bill to the House with the 
        recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce. A motion to recommit is in 
        order in the House. It is in order in Committee of the Whole 
        House to move that when the Committee rises it recommends to 
        the House a recommitment of the bill.''
            Note: A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and 
        report a bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
        bill be recommitted to the committee from which it was reported 
        is in order only when the bill is being considered under the 
        general rules of the House and then only at the completion of 
        the reading of the bill for amendment (4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 4761, 4762); it is not in order when the Committee of 
        the Whole considers the bill under a special rule requiring 
        reading for amendment under the five-minute rule. See 96 Cong. 
        Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1950. See also Ch. 
        23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.11 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
    recommitted to the committee from which reported is not in order if 
    that motion is not permitted under the resolution setting out the 
    conditions under which the bill is to be considered.

    On Aug. 10, 1950,(16) during consideration of H.R. 9176, 
the Defense Production Act of 1950, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, indicated that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report a bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
recommitted to the reporting committee was not in

[[Page 3345]]

order because such motion was not authorized by the special rule 
setting out the conditions under which the bill was being considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rankin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
        recommitted to the Committee on Banking and Currency for 
        further hearings and study.

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this 
    being a straight motion to recommit, without instructions, it is 
    not permissible under the rule under which we are considering the 
    bill in Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        That motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, it is in order to make a motion that 
    the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
    with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency for further study and hearing.
        The Chairman: In the consideration of this bill the Committee 
    of the Whole is operating under a special rule which lays down the 
    conditions under which the bill is to be considered. The motion of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi is not in order at this time.

    The special rule, House Resolution 740,(17) did not 
authorize the Committee of the Whole to rise and report the bill back 
to the House with recommendation that the bill be recommitted to the 
standing committee. One motion to recommit would have been in order in 
the House under the special rule, the terms of which are set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 11506, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 9176) to establish a system of 
    priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, authorize 
    the requisitioning thereof, provide financial assistance for 
    expansion of productive capacity and supply, strengthen controls 
    over credit, regulate speculation on commodity exchanges, and by 
    these measures facilitate the production of goods and services 
    necessary for the national security, and for other purposes, and 
    all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue 
    not to exceed 1 day, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-
    minute rule.

[[Page 3346]]

    It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any 
    point of order the substitute committee amendment recommended by 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency now in the bill, and such 
    substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under 
    the 5-minute rule as an original bill. At the conclusion of such 
    consideration the committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member 
    may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the amendments 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee 
    substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
    the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or without 
    instructions.

Sec. 10.12 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken out and the bill returned to a committee with 
    instructions to remove a provision was held not to be in proper 
    form.

    On May 5, 1949,(18) during consideration of H.R. 2989, 
to incorporate the Virgin Islands Corporation, Chairman Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, held that a motion that the Committee of the Whole 
rise and report a bill back to the House with the recommendation that 
the enacting clause be stricken out and the bill be returned to the 
legislative committee with instructions to remove a particular 
provision was not in proper form for a preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 5705, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rich moves that the Committee now rise and report the 
        bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken and the bill be returned to the 
        Committee on Public Lands with instructions to remove the 
        provision permitting the Government to manufacture rum.

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the motion as presented 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not in proper form for a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Yielding Time During Debate

Sec. 10.13 A Member offering a motion in the Committee of the Whole to 
    strike out the enacting clause of a bill may while holding the 
    floor yield part (but not all) of his five minutes of debate to 
    another to discuss the motion.

    On Sept. 27, 1945,(19) during consideration of H.R. 
2948, to

[[Page 3347]]

 amend the Civil Service Retirement Act to exempt certain annuity 
payments from taxation, Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, 
referred to the rule under which a Member offering a motion to strike 
out the enacting clause may yield time to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 9095, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. May moves that the Committee do now rise and report the 
        bill, H.R. 2948, back forthwith to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

        Mr. May: Mr. Chairman, I yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman 
    from North Carolina, if I may.
        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: The gentleman cannot do 
    that, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: He can yield time while he is holding the floor.
        Mr. May: I yield part of my time, then, to the gentleman from 
    North Carolina.
        Mr. [Robert L.] Doughton of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, for 
    the first time in a number of years we are now preparing to bring 
    in a tax-relief bill.

Striking Enacting Clause of Senate Bill

Sec. 10.14 The Speaker has directed the Clerk to notify the Senate of 
    agreement by the House to a recommendation of the Committee of the 
    Whole that the enacting clause of a Senate-passed bill be stricken 
    out.

    On Oct. 4, 1972,(20) during consideration of S. 1316, to 
amend the federal laws governing meat and poultry inspection, the House 
agreed to a recommendation of the Committee of the Whole relating to 
the enacting clause of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 33785, 33786, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 92 Cong. Rec. 7211, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., June 20, 
        1946, for another instance in which the House struck the 
        enacting clause of a Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hugh L.] Carey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Carey of New York moves that the Committee do now rise 
        and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation 
        that the enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

        The Chairman: (21) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Carey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. James W. Symington (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Carey of New York) there were--ayes 104, noes 97.
        Mr. [Wiley] Mayne [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered.
        Mr. Mayne: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers with clerks.
        Tellers with clerks were ordered. . . .

[[Page 3348]]

        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 172, noes 170, not voting 89. . . .
        So the preferential motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Symington, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
    having had under consideration the bill (S. 1316) . . . had 
    directed him to report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Speaker: (22) The question is on the 
    recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
    the Union that the enacting clause be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mayne: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 173, nays 169, not 
    voting 88. . . .
        So the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union that the enacting clause be stricken out was 
    agreed to. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of 
    the House.

Withdrawal of Motion

Sec. 10.15 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken out was withdrawn by unanimous consent.

    On May 3, 1949,(1~) during consideration of H.R. 2032, 
the National Labor Relations Act of 1949, a motion to strike the 
enacting clause was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 5521, 5522, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Eugene] Worley [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will report the motion 
    of the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Worley moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
    minutes on his motion.
        Mr. Worley: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
    withdraw my motion.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection.