[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[C. Motion to Recommend Striking Enacting Clause]
[Â§ 14. Renewal of Motion]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3386-3391]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
            C. MOTION TO RECOMMEND STRIKING ENACTING CLAUSE
 
Sec. 14. Renewal of Motion

Generally

Sec. 14.1 Only one motion recommending that the Committee of the Whole 
    rise and report a bill back to the House with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken is in order on the same 
    legislative day unless the text of the bill is changed.

    On Mar. 16, 1948,(19) during consideration of S. 2182, 
extending rent controls, Chairman Walter C. Ploeser, of Missouri, made 
reference to the general rule against permitting a second motion to 
strike the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 2956, 80th Cong. 2d Sess. See, for example, 99 Cong. 
        Rec. 9563, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1953; 97 Cong. Rec. 
        8970, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1951; and 95 Cong. Rec. 
        4414, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1949, for other 
        illustrations of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Celler moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        S. 2182 back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken therefrom. . . .

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Jackson] has expired.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Celler].
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: As I understand, only one motion of this kind can 
    be offered to a bill.
        The Chairman: Unless the text of the bill is changed.

Sec. 14.2 A second motion to strike out the enacting clause is not 
    entertained in the absence of any material modification of the 
    bill.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(20) during consideration of H. R. 
2362, the elementary and secondary education bill of 1965, one motion 
to strike the enacting clause having been defeated, Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, indicated the circumstances under which a second 
motion to strike out the enacting clause would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 6101, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 108 Cong. Rec. 11369, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        21, 1962; and 96 Cong. Rec. 2235, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 
        1950 (Calendar Wednesday).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. George W. Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all

[[Page 3387]]

    debate on this section close in 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: Will the chairman suspend for a minute?
        Mr. George W. Andrews: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential 
    motion.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman state his preferential motion?
        Mr. George W. Andrews: That the Committee rise and strike out 
    the enacting clause.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to advise the gentleman from 
    Alabama that that motion will not be in order again until 
    substantial change is made in the bill.

Sec. 14.3 A second motion to strike out the enacting clause is in order 
    on a bill if a substantial change has been made in the bill since 
    the disposal of the first motion.

    On Apr. 6, 1935,(21) during consideration of H.R. 5529, 
to prevent war profiteering, Chairman Lindsay C. Warren, of North 
Carolina, overruled a point of order against the renewal on the same 
day of a motion to strike the enacting clause, noting that a 
substantial change had been made in the bill since disposition of the 
previous motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 79 Cong. Rec. 5181, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. See 79 Cong. Rec. 12430, 
        74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 3, 1935, for another example of this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the enacting clause.
        Mr. [Lister] Hill of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi will send to the 
    Clerk's desk his motion.
        Mr. Hill of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the motion is dilatory. That motion was voted down yesterday. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order, believing 
    that there has been a substantial change made in the bill since the 
    motion to strike was made. The gentleman from Mississippi 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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion can be renewed on the following 
legislative day regardless of modification of the bill. See Sec. 14.8, 
infra.

After Amendment

Sec. 14.4 A second 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 in order if the bill has been 
    amended since disposition of the first motion.

    On June 18, 1970(22) during consideration of H.R. 17070, 
the Post
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 116 Cong. Rec. 20481, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See 86 Cong. Rec. 1899, 
        76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940; 84 Cong. Rec. 7382, 76th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1939; and 82 Cong. Rec. 1119, 75th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 8, 1937, for other examples of this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3388]]

al Reform Act of 1970, Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, stated 
that a second 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 is in order if business [the adoption of amendments] has 
transpired since the first such motion.

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wright 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.

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order. Has not such a motion already been introduced and 
    defeated?
        The Chairman. It has been, but other business has transpired 
    since the first motion to rise and strike the enacting clause. The 
    motion is in order, and the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
    5 minutes.

After Rejection of Amendment

Sec. 14.5 A second motion to strike out the enacting clause is not in 
    order if the only action of the Committee of the Whole in the 
    interim has been the rejection of a proposed amendment to the bill.

    On June 21, 1962,(1) during consideration of H.R. 11222, 
the food and agricultural bill of 1962, Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, refused to entertain a second motion to strike out the 
enacting clause because the only action in the interim had been 
rejection of a proposed amendment to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 11359, 11360, 11369, 11370, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time for debate on title IV has expired.
        Mr. [Ancher] Nelsen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Nelsen moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        H.R. 11222 back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Minnesota.
        The motion was rejected.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        The Chairman:  . . . The Clerk will report the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Stratton].

[[Page 3389]]

        The amendment was rejected. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
    the Clerk's desk which I offer at this time.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The motion is not in order because no action has 
    been taken since the last identical motion.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa.
        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dole: We just voted on the amendment of the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Stratton] and it was defeated.
        The Chairman: The amendment was defeated and did not prevail.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa [Mr. Smith].

After Amendment of Bill

Sec. 14.6 Where a bill has been amended subsequent to the rejection of 
    a motion to strike out the enacting clause, a second motion is in 
    order and is debatable notwithstanding a limitation of debate on 
    the bill.

    On May 9, 1947,(2) during consideration of H.R. 2616, 
providing assistance to Greece and Turkey, Chairman Francis H. Case, of 
South Dakota, held that a motion to strike the enacting clause was in 
order and debatable, several amendments having been adopted since 
disposition of the previous motion to strike the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 4974, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark 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 and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken.

        Mr. [Pete] Jarman [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order 
    against the motion.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jarman: Mr. Chairman, that motion has already been made and 
    was voted down once.
        The Chairman: There have been several amendments adopted on the 
    bill, it has been changed since that motion was previously acted 
    on. The Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, debate is limited on the bill by 
    action of the committee.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan has offered a 
    preferential motion which is in order in spite of the agreement on 
    closing debate.

[[Page 3390]]

Effect of Withdrawal of Prior Motion

Sec. 14.7 After withdrawal by unanimous consent of the first such 
    motion, a second 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 held in order and not dilatory.

    On May 3, 1949,(3) during consideration of H.R. 2032, 
the National Labor Relations Act of 1949, Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, indicated that a second motion to strike the enacting clause 
is in order and not dilatory where the first such motion had been 
withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 5521, 5522, 5531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Eugene] Worley [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the motion of the gentleman 
    from Texas.
        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. . . .
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that that motion has just been voted down.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is mistaken. The previous motion 
    was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order it is dilatory. Is the gentleman going to 
    press his motion?
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

On Another Day

Sec. 14.8 Parliamentarian's Note: A second motion to ``strike the 
    enacting clause'' is in order on a subsequent legislative day, 
    notwithstanding the fact that there has been no modification of the 
    bill since the first preferential motion was rejected.

[[Page 3391]]

    On May 6, 1950,(4) during consideration of H.R. 7786, 
the general appropriation bill of 1951, Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, ruled that a second motion to strike out the enacting clause 
was in order, the first having been made on a previous day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96Cong. Rec. 6571, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. 
    All time on this amendment has expired.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boggs of Louisiana 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.

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the motion on the ground that it is a 
    dilatory motion.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    further point of order against the motion that no amendment has 
    been adopted since the last such motion was disposed of.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that while it is true that 
    no amendment has been adopted and there has been no alteration in 
    the bill since the last motion to strike out the enacting clause 
    was disposed of, nevertheless this is a different day.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York would not lie against the motion.