[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[C. Motion to Recommend Striking Enacting Clause]
[Â§ 11. When in Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3348-3361]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
            C. MOTION TO RECOMMEND STRIKING ENACTING CLAUSE
 
Sec. 11. When in Order

    The motion to strike out the enacting words of a bill has prece

[[Page 3349]]

dence over a motion to amend.(3) And it may be offered while 
an amendment is pending.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1979).
 4. See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 5329, 5330, and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents 
        Sec. 2624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time to Offer Motion

Sec. 11.1 Because a motion to strike out the enacting clause of a bill 
    is in order only during the stage of amendment, the Chair has 
    indicated that the motion would not be in order after the adoption 
    of an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(5) during consideration of H.R. 11377, 
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Chairman Albert Rains, of 
Alabama, made reference to the time during which the motion to strike 
out the enacting clause would be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 18608, 18609, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: My inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman, is this: After the substitute is voted on and if it is 
    adopted would it be in order for someone or anyone, any Member, to 
    offer a motion to strike out the enacting clause?
        The Chairman: The Chair replies that it would not be because 
    the stage of amending the bill would have passed.

Sec. 11.2 A motion in the Committee of the Whole that the Committee 
    rise and report a bill back to the House with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken out is not in order during 
    debate on the measure but is properly offered when the bill is 
    being read for amendment.

    On July 5, 1939,(6) during general debate on H.R. 5031, 
regarding relief for sufferers from the earthquake in Chile, Chairman 
Orville Zimmerman, of Missouri, stated that a motion to strike the 
enacting clause was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 8624, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has control of the 
    time.
        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Carter: Would a motion that the Committee do now rise and 
    report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken out be in order at this time, or must 
    we wait until debate closes?
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that the motion is not in order 
    at this time.

[[Page 3350]]

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 
    minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Stefan].

Sec. 11.3 A motion to strike out the enacting clause is a preferential 
    motion and in order at any time recognition is secured to offer it 
    during the reading of the bill for amendment by a Member who, if 
    challenged, qualifies as being opposed to the bill, even though 
    that may have the effect of extending the time for debate.

    On May 26, 1945,(7) during consideration of H.R. 3240, 
regarding foreign trade agreements, Chairman Clifton A. Woodrum, of 
Virginia, overruled a point of order that a motion to strike the 
enacting clause should not be entertained because it had been offered 
merely to gain additional time for debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 5149, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See 86 Cong. Rec. 1883, 
        76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940, for another illustration of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York offers a preferential 
    motion which the Clerk will report.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Reed 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.

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Cooper: Of course, this is a motion of the highest 
    privilege, under the rules of the House, but I submit to the Chair 
    that when it is offered obviously for the purpose of gaining a 
    specific object--to extend debate after the time has been fixed and 
    the debate closed--that such a motion should not be entertained.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman that the 
    effect of the motion may be to extend the time of debate, but the 
    purpose of the motion is a vehicle by which the bill may be killed. 
    If the gentleman from New York [Mr. Reed] is opposed to the bill, 
    this is one way to do it.
        Mr. Reed of New York: I am opposed to the bill, sir, as I have 
    been consistently.
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

Under Rule Permitting Only Committee Amendments

Sec. 11.4 Where a bill is being considered under a rule permitting only 
    committee amendments and no amendments thereto, a motion that the 
    Committee rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause

[[Page 3351]]

    be stricken out is in order until the stage of amendment is passed.

    On Jan. 30, 1957,(8) during consideration under a closed 
rule of House Joint Resolution 117, to authorize the President to 
cooperate with nations of the Middle East, Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, stated that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report the resolution back to the House with the recommendation 
that its enacting clause be stricken was preferential and in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 1307-09, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. See 106 Cong. Rec. 
        10577-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 1960, for another 
        illustration of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in support of the amendment and the resolution.
        The Chairman: Under the rules adopted by the House all debate 
    on the pending amendment is exhausted.
        The question is on the committee amendment.
        The committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Vorys: It is my understanding that under the rule this 
    motion is not in order.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I want to 
    be heard on that point of order, if I may.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        This is a preferential motion. It is not an amendment which is 
    prohibited under the rule adopted by the House, but a preferential 
    motion. It is in order. The point of order is overruled and the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his preferential motion.

    Following debate and rejection of the preferential motion, the 
Chairman put the question on the committee amendment. After the 
committee amendment was agreed to, the Chairman directed the Clerk to 
read the next committee amendment. The proceedings were as follows:

        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Iowa.
        The motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment.
        The committee amendment was agreed to.

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the next committee 
    amendment as it appears in the printed copy of the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

Sec. 11.5 A preferential motion that the Committee rise and

[[Page 3352]]

    report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken is not in order where the stage of 
    amendment is passed; and the stage of amendment is passed in 
    Committee of the Whole where a bill is being considered under a 
    rule permitting only committee amendments and where no committee 
    amendments are offered at the conclusion of general debate.

    On Apr. 16, 1970,(9) during consideration of H.R. 16311, 
the Family Assistance Act of 1970, Chairman John D. Dingell, of 
Michigan, ruled out of order a motion that the Committee of the Whole 
rise and report a bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken. He did so on the ground that the stage of 
amendment had passed, no committee amendments having been offered at 
the conclusion of general debate. The bill was being considered under a 
closed rule permitting only committee amendments and no amendments 
thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendments are in order to the bill 
    except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        Are there any committee amendments?
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, there are no 
    committee amendments.
        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential 
    motion. Is it in order to offer a preferential motion at this time?
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman advise the Chair what sort of 
    preferential motion he has in mind?
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: To strike the enacting clause.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that that motion is not in order unless amendments are in order, 
    and are offered. There being no committee amendments, that motion 
    will not be in order at this time.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, if there 
    are no committee amendments to be offered, if the bill is 
    perfected?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman 
    from Arkansas (Mr. Mills), has just advised the Chair that there 
    are no committee amendments. That being so, the motion is not in 
    order at this time.
        Under the rule, the Committee rises.

[[Page 3353]]

Effect of Adoption of Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

Sec. 11.6 After the stage of amendment is passed, the motion that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is not in 
    order; and the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute may foreclose the opportunity to offer such a motion.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(10) during consideration of H.R. 11377, 
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Chairman Albert Rains, of 
Alabama, stated that the motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report a bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken would not be in order after the adoption of an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 18608, 18609, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: As I remember the unanimous-consent request it was 
    that debate on the pending amendment, which is the Landrum 
    substitute, and all amendments and substitutes thereto, close at 
    6:30. I did not take it that that would foreclose the consideration 
    of a motion to strike out the enacting clause after the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute had been disposed of.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the Landrum 
    amendment is adopted it will foreclose the opportunity to offer a 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause because the stage for 
    amendment would then be passed.

Sec. 11.7 Where the Committee of the Whole adopts an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for an entire bill it is not subject to 
    further amendment; and a subsequent motion that the Committee rise 
    and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that 
    the enacting clause be stricken is not then in order because the 
    stage of amendment has passed.

    On Apr. 1, 1949,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2023, 
regarding regulation of oleomargarine, Chairman William M. Whittington, 
of Mississippi, stated that a motion that the Committee rise and report 
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken out is not in order after the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 3727, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3354]]

adoption of a substitute for an entire bill.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment to the original 
    bill, in the nature of a substitute, offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Poage].
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 152, noes 140.
        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Poage and Mr. August H. Andresen.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 162, noes 141.
        So the substitute amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential 
    motion.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman state what he proposes to 
    offer as a preferential motion?
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I move 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 is out of order. That is not a 
    preferential motion at this time.

After Ordering of Previous Question

Sec. 11.8 A motion in the House to strike out the enacting clause of a 
    bill is not in order after the previous question has been ordered 
    on the bill to final passage.

    On Apr. 16, 1970,(12) during consideration of H.R. 
16311, the Family Assistance Act of 1970, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that a motion to strike out the enacting clause 
was not in order where the previous question had been ordered on the 
bill to final passage. This bill was considered under a closed rule 
which permitted only committee amendments and no amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
    bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson of Texas: Mr. Speaker a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Speaker I have a preferential motion 
    which was not permitted to be made in the Committee of the Whole. 
    The preferential motion is to strike the enacting clause. Is it in 
    order in the House at this time?
        The Speaker: Due to the fact that the previous question has 
    been ordered

[[Page 3355]]

    on the bill to final passage, the motion is not in order at this 
    time.

After Defeat of Motion to Rise and Recommend Passage

Sec. 11.9 After defeat of a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
    and report a bill to the House with the recommendation that it 
    pass, a motion that the Committee rise and report the bill with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is in 
    order.

    On May 12, 1941,(13) during consideration of H.R. 3490, 
fixing the amount of annual payment by the United States toward 
defraying expenses of the District of Columbia government, Chairman 
William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, stated that it would be in 
order to move that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill 
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out after 
defeat of a motion that the Committee rise and report the bill 
favorably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917, 3938, 3939, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jennings] Randolph [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 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. 
    3490) to fix the amount of the annual payment by the United States 
    toward defraying the expenses of the government of the District of 
    Columbia; and pending that, I ask unanimous consent that debate be 
    limited to 2 hours.

    After completion of general debate and reading of the bill for 
amendment under the five-minute rule, the manager of the bill, Mr. 
Randolph, moved as follows:

        Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report 
    the bill back to the House with an amendment with the 
    recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill as 
    amended do pass. . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tarver: If this motion to report the bill favorably does 
    not carry, it would then be in order to offer a motion to report 
    the bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken out.
        The Chairman: The bill would still be in the Committee, and 
    such a motion would be in order.

Effect of Pendency of Motion to Limit Debate

Sec. 11.10 A preferential motion under Rule XXIII clause 7 that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise with the recommendation that the 
    resolving clause be stricken out is applicable to a simple resolu

[[Page 3356]]

    tion and may be offered while a motion to limit debate is pending.

    On Oct. 7, 1974,(14) during consideration of a 
resolution (H. Res. 988) to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and 
procedures of House committees, the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all 
    amendments thereto, conclude in 5 hours.
        The Chairman: [William H. Natcher, of Kentucky]: The question 
    is on the motion.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

    A series of parliamentary inquiries ensued. Then a preferential 
motion was made, as follows:

        Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Martin of Nebraska moves that the Committee rise and 
        report the resolution H. Res. 988 to the House with the 
        recommendation that the resolving clause be stricken out.

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    Nebraska, is the gentleman opposed to this resolution?
        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: I am, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies to make the motion.
        The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his motion.

Sec. 11.11 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
    be stricken out (Rule XXIII clause 7) (15) takes 
    precedence over a motion to limit debate under Rule XXIII clause 
    6.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1979).
16. Id. at Sec. 874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(17) during consideration of H.R. 
11450, the Energy Emergency Act, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
indicated that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
be stricken out took precedence over a motion to limit debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 41711-14, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 3357]]

        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Is 
    a motion now in order to say that the House will vote on the bill 
    and all amendments thereto by a time certain?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that a motion to limit 
    debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) and all amendments 
    thereto, to a time certain, would be in order.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, I therefore will make that motion.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from West Virginia 
    (Mr. Staggers) and all amendments thereto, close at 5:30 p.m. 
    today. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary 
    inquiry is this: Must that motion be in writing?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the motion must be in 
    writing if the gentleman insists upon it.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I do so insist.
        Mr. [Phillip M.] Landrum [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Landrum 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: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Landrum) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . . 
    .
        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Landrum).
        The preferential motion was rejected.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio will state it.
        Mr. Devine: At the time the gentleman from Georgia made his 
    preferential motion, I had already made a motion before the House, 
    and it was requested that that be put in writing. That was done, 
    and it is currently at the Clerk's desk. I wonder what the status 
    of that motion is that was pending at the time the preferential 
    motion was made.
        The Chairman: The preferential motion takes precedence. The 
    preferential motion was rejected.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Devine moves that all debate on the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute, H.R. 11882, and all amendments thereto 
        be concluded by 6:30 p.m.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 7, 1974 (see Sec. 11.10, supra), 
the Chair entertained as preferential a motion that the Committee rise 
with the recommendation that the resolving clause of a simple 
resolution be stricken out while there was pending a motion to limit 
debate. The motion is more preferential since, if adopted, it is a 
final disposition of the bill in Committee.

Duration of Debate

Sec. 11.12 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and

[[Page 3358]]

    report a bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken is debatable for 10 minutes.

    On Oct. 17, 1945,(18) during consideration of H.R. 3615, 
the airport bill, Chairman Graham A. Barden, of North Carolina, stated 
the time for debate on a motion to strike out the enacting clause of 
the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 91 Cong. Rec. 9751, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 89 Cong. Rec. 
        654, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1943; and 79 Cong. Rec. 
        13013, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 13, 1935. See Rule XXIII 
        clause 7 and comment thereto, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 875, 876 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: My understanding is that on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Michigan there may be 10 minutes of debate, 5 
    minutes for and 5 minutes against, and that if the motion is 
    defeated the 10 minutes of debate on the amendment still remain to 
    be used. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Precedence of Motion to Rise

Sec. 11.13 A motion that the Committee of the Whole do now rise takes 
    precedence over a pending motion to rise and report with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

    On May 24, 1967,(19) during consideration of H.R. 7819, 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1967, Chairman 
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, stated that the motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise takes precedence over a pending motion to 
rise and report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 1113 Cong. Rec. 13876, 13877, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. See 82 Cong. 
        Rec. 1600, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 15, 1937, for another 
        illustration of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Hays 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 preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays].

[[Page 3359]]

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Perkins].
        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Does not a preferential motion require a 
    vote before the Chair can accept another motion?
        The Chairman: No. A motion to rise takes precedence over any 
    other motion.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Kentucky [Mr. Perkins].
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, on that I 
    demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Perkins and Mr. Goodell.
        The Committee divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 127, noes 186.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers 
    were refused.
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion.
        The preferential motion was rejected.

Precedence of Motion to Recommit

Sec. 11.14 When a bill is reported to the House by the Committee of the 
    Whole with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out, pending the question of concurrence, a motion to recommit the 
    bill to a committee is in order under Rule XXIII clause 
    7,(20) and is voted on before the recommendation to 
    strike out the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 22, 1949,(21) during consideration of H.R. 2681, 
to provide pensions for veterans of World Wars I and II, and after the 
Committee of the Whole rose with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken out, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that 
pending the question of concurrence on the motion to strike the 
enacting clause a motion to recommit the bill to committee was in 
order. The House voted on the motion to recommit before the 
recommendation to strike the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 95 Cong. Rec. 2962-65, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proceedings were as follows:

            Mr. [John A.] Carroll [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
        a preferential motion.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Carroll moves that the Com mittee do now rise and 
        report the

[[Page 3360]]

         bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

        The Chairman: (1) The question is on the 
    preferential motion of the gentleman from Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 154, noes 139.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Carroll and Mr. Rankin.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 163, noes 154.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Gore, Chairman of the Committee . . . reported that 
    the Committee . . . had directed him to report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out.
        The Speaker: 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.

            Mr. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Carroll moves that the bill H.R. 2681 be recommitted to 
        the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I demand a vote on the motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause.
        The Speaker: The Chair holds that this motion [to recommit] 
    offered by the gentleman from Colorado at this time is in order.
        Mr. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The question was taken on the motion to recommit [which was 
    rejected]. . . .
        The Speaker: 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. Those in favor of voting to strike 
    out the enacting clause of the bill will, when their names are 
    called, vote ``aye''; those opposed vote ``nay.''. . .
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 120, nays 291, not 
    voting 22, as follows: . . .
        So the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole was 
    rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: The House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    further consideration of the bill H.R. 2681.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 2681, with Mr. Gore in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose, there was an amendment 
    pending offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Kearney].
        Mr.  [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the amendment be reread for the 
    information of the Committee.

[[Page 3361]]

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.

    When the Committee of the Whole agreed to a motion to rise that 
day, the Chairman reported that the Committee had come to no resolution 
on H.R. 2681. The Committee of the Whole considered the measure again 
on the following day. On Mar. 24, 1949, the House again resolved into 
the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of H.R. 
2681.(2) Subsequently, Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, moved 
that the Committee rise and report back to the House with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, creating a 
parliamentary situation that Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, 
suggested was similar to that prevailing on Mar. 22, 1949. This time, 
however, the House voted to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs for further study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  95 Cong. Rec. 3110-15, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------