[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[F. Rising of the Committee of the Whole]
[Â§ 23. When in Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3461-3473]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                F. RISING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 23.--When in Order

    The motion to rise is preferential (5) and is in order 
pending a count of a quorum (6) or pending a decision on a 
point of order.(7) It is also in order after tellers have 
been ordered and appointed, though not after the count has 
begun.(8) However, the motion will not lie during a division 
(9) or while another Member has the floor in 
debate.(10) A decision by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sec. 23.1, infra.
 6. Sec. 23.5, infra.
 7. Sec. Sec. 23.7, 23.8, infra.
 8. Sec. 23.9, infra; compare 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6001 and 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4773, which indicate that, tellers 
        having been ordered and appointed, the motion to rise is not in 
        order pending the taking of the vote.
 9. Sec. 23.11, infra.
10. Sec. 23.6, infra; 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4769; and 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3462]]

The Chairman that a motion to rise was in order after a Member had been 
recognized for debate but before he had begun to speak was overruled by 
the Committee.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The point of order that the motion is dilatory may be raised in the 
Committee of the Whole.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When provision is made by special order for the automatic rising of 
the Committee of the Whole at a designated time, a motion is required 
to rise before that time, and is in order.(13) However, when 
the hour previously fixed for adjournment of the House arrives while 
the Committee of the Whole is still in session, The Chairman may direct 
the Committee to rise and make his report as though the Committee had 
risen on motion in the regular way.(14) And when the House 
has limited general debate to a time certain and provided for the 
Committee of the Whole to rise at the conclusion of that time, the 
Committee then rises without a motion or vote.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 793.
14. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4785.
15. See Sec. 21.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to rise and report has precedence over the motion to 
take up another bill.(16) The motion to amend has precedence 
over the motion to rise and report a bill with recommendations 
(17) but not over the simple motion to rise.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4766.
17. Sec. 23.14, infra.
18. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to rise and report with the recommendation that the bill 
be recommitted takes precedence over the motion to rise and report with 
the recommendation that the bill pass,(19) when the 
Committee of the Whole is operating under the general rules of the 
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2329.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privileged Nature

Sec. 23.1 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is 
    privileged.

    On July 23, 1970,(20) during consideration of H.R. 
18515, providing appropriations for the Departments of Labor and 
Health, Education, and Welfare for fiscal year 1971, Chairman Chet 
Holifield, of California, referred to the privileged nature of the 
motion that the Committee of the Whole rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 25628, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3463]]

        Is it in order for me to move that the Committee do now rise?
        The Chairman: It is a privileged motion.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois.
        The question was taken; and The Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and The Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Yates and Mr. Flood.
        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 8, noes 93.
        So the motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise is privileged, it cannot be made while another Member has 
the floor, but can be offered any time when the proponent thereof can 
secure the floor in his own right.

Sec. 23.2 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is of high 
    privilege, and may be offered by a Member who holds the floor by 
    virtue of having offered an amendment.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(1) during consideration of S. 2388, 
Economic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1967, Chairman John J. Rooney, 
of New York, made reference to the right of a Member who holds the 
floor by virtue of having offered an amendment to offer the privileged 
motion that the Committee rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 32694, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Missouri: On page 219 
        strike out all of line 17 through line 24.

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make a parliamentary 
    inquiry at this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Would I be in order to make a motion 
    that the Committee do now rise so that if we could get back into 
    the House I could make a motion to adjourn?
        The Chairman: A motion that the Committee do now rise is a 
    privileged motion.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
    do now rise.

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri.
        The motion was rejected.

Sec. 23.3 A motion that the Committee rise is privileged during 
    consideration of a bill under the five-minute rule and takes 
    precedence over pending amendments.

[[Page 3464]]

    On Apr. 30, 1970,(2) during consideration of H.R. 17123, 
the military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1971, Chairman 
Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, indicated that the motion that the 
Committee rise was privileged and would take precedence over certain 
pending amendments.
    Parliamentarian's Note: During consideration of this measure under 
the five-minute rule, amendments were offered with respect to use of 
funds to support ground combat troops in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand. 
When it became apparent during lengthy debate on these amendments that 
many Members wished to defer action on the amendment until the 
President had concluded a policy statement on Southeast Asia which had 
been scheduled for delivery on nationwide television that evening, 
several Members approached the manager of the bill, L. Mendel Rivers, 
of South Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, to urge 
the Committee's rising without completing action on the bill. When the 
Chairman declined to make the motion, Mr. Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, who was not on the Committee on Armed Services, sought 
recognition to make the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 13784, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman. a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman, is it in order to move that the 
    Committee do now rise?
        The Chairman: Yes; it is in order.
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Boland and Mr. Rivers.
        The Committee divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 131, noes 100.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Rostenkowski, 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. 17123) to authorize 
    appropriations during the fiscal year 1971 for procurement of 
    aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and tracked combat vehicles, and 
    other weapons, and research development, test, and evaluation for 
    the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the authorized personnel 
    strength of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the 
    Armed Forces, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
    thereon.

Sec. 23.4 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is privileged 
    and in order notwithstanding the announcement of an ``informal

[[Page 3465]]

    agreement'' among floor managers of a bill with respect to 
    concluding consideration of the bill on that day at a different 
    time.

    On Oct. 28, 1971,(3) during consideration of H.R. 7248, 
to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts 
dealing with higher education, Chairman James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, 
refused to entertain a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the motion 
that the Committee of the Whole rise would be in order notwithstanding 
an informal agreement to conclude consideration of a bill on that day 
at a different time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 38078, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, that title VIII be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
    do now rise. . . .
        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Pucinski: It was my impression that earlier today the Chair 
    stated the agreement we had was that we were going to go through 
    title VIII or until 6 o'clock, whichever came later. I was under 
    the impression that that was the agreement, so a number of members 
    of the Veterans' Affairs Committee have remained since we have an 
    amendment to title VIII. I just wonder what happened to that 
    agreement.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon has made a motion that the Committee do now 
    rise. That is a privileged motion, that the Chair must put the 
    motion.
        Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Pucinski: It is correct, then, to assume that the motion 
    does somewhat contravene and contradict the agreement that was 
    made?
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot entertain that as a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The question is on the motion that the Committee do now rise.
        The motion was agreed to.

Pending Count of Quorum

Sec. 23.5 Pending the (Chair's count of a quorum, a motion that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise is in order; that motion does not 
    require a quorum for its adoption.

    On June 4, 1948,(4) during consideration of H.R. 6801, 
the for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 7178, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
            Parliamentarian's Note: This principle is now expressly 
        provided under Rule XV clause 6(b), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 774(c) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3466]]

eign aid appropriations bill, Chairman W. Sterling Cole, of New York, 
stated that the motion to rise is in order pending the Chair's count of 
a quorum.

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand tellers.
        Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cooley: Is the motion of the gentleman from New York in 
    order pending the determination as regards the presence of a 
    quorum?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's motion is in order. A quorum is 
    not necessary upon a motion that the Committee rise.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Taber and Mr. Cannon.
        The Committee divided; and the tellers reported that there 
    were-aye 1, noes 64.
        So the motion was rejected.

While Another Member Has Floor

Sec. 23.6 In the Committee of the Whole a Member may not move to rise 
    while another has the floor.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(5) during consideration of H.R. 8986, 
the pay bill for federal employees, Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, indicated that a Member may not move, while another Member 
has the floor, that the Committee of the Whole rise, unless time is 
yielded to him for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 5101, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: I was going to try 
    to explain the amendment a little bit, but the gentleman is using 
    up all my time. Go ahead.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Corbett: I yield to the gentleman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Would a motion that the 
    Committee rise be in order at this time?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Pennsylvania yields for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I cannot yield further. I probably 
    only have 3 minutes left.

[[Page 3467]]

Pending Decision on Point of Order

Sec. 23.7 In the Committee of the Whole a motion that the Committee 
    rise may be entertained pending a decision of the Chair on a point 
    of order.

    On June 4, 1957,(6) during consideration of H.R. 6974, 
extending the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
1954, Chairman Brooks Hays, of Arkansas, stated that a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise was made pending the Chair's decision on a 
point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 8298, 8318, 8319, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. See 105 Cong. 
        Rec. 9027, 9028, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1959, for 
        another illustration of this principle.
 7. See Sec. 23.8, infra, for the proceedings of this date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.8 A point of order having been raised in the Committee of the 
    Whole against a bill reported by a committee without jurisdiction 
    to propose an appropriation under Rule XXI, the Committee rose 
    pending decision by the Chair on the point of order.

    On June 4, 1957,(8) during consideration of H.R. 6974, 
extending the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
1954, the Committee of the Whole rose pending a decision by the 
Chairman on a point of order that the bill which proposed an 
appropriation had been reported by a committee contrary to Rule XXI 
clause 4.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 8298, 8318, 8319, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9.  See Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rodney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order against the entire bill, H.R.6974, on the ground 
    that it is a bill from a committee not having authority to report 
    an appropriation. . . .

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: . . . I am a little 
    bit apprehensive that the point of order may be sustained, if the 
    Chair is called upon to rule on it. But, I think it would be very 
    unfortunate for us to delay final action on the bill, and in the 
    circumstances we have no other alternative other than to move that 
    the Committee do now rise, and so, Mr. Chairman, I make that 
    motion.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order, but the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina that the Committee do now rise is in order, and the 
    Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Hays of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on

[[Page 3468]]

    the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 6974) to extend the Agricultural 
    Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and for other 
    purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this case the language of the bill was 
in violation of the provisions of then Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 
5). The Member in charge of the bill moved that the Committee rise to 
permit application to the Committee on Rules for a resolution waiving 
points of order against the bill. The rule granted was House Resolution 
274.

Before Tellers Begin Count

Sec. 23.9 A vote by tellers having been ordered and appointed in the 
    Committee of the Whole, a motion that the committee rise is in 
    order if the tellers have not taken their places and the count has 
    not begun.

    On Mar. 12, 1942,(11) during consideration of H.R. 6709, 
the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1943, Chairman 
Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, indicated that a motion that the Committee 
of the Whole rise is in order after a vote by tellers has been ordered 
and tellers have been appointed if the tellers have not taken their 
places and begun the count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 2374, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. See 88 Cong. Rec. 5169, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1942, for another illustration of 
        this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Case] offers 
    a substitute for the Dirksen amendment.
        The Clerk will report the substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Dirksen: Page 80, 
        line 21, strike out ``$45,000,000'' and insert ``$25,000,000.''

        The Chairman: The question is on the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from South Dakota.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 84, noes 88.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Case of South Dakota and Mr. Tarver.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: The gentleman cannot interrupt a 
    vote.
        The Chairman: The vote has not started.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: We had already started to vote on 
    the substitute and the Chair had announced the vote as 84 to 88.

[[Page 3469]]

        The Chairman: The tellers had not taken their places.
        The point of order is overruled.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, we had started the 
    vote when the first voice vote was taken.
        The Chairman: The point of order is overruled.
        The gentleman from Georgia moves that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The question is on the motion.

During Time for Debate

Sec. 23.10 The motion to rise is in order after agreement to a motion 
    to limit debate on an amendment.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(12) during consideration of H.R. 2945, 
to adjust postal rates, Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, 
indicated that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise was in 
order after agreement to a time limit on debate on an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 1690, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the committee substitute and all amendments thereto 
    close in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion,
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Sutton) there were--ayes 99, noes 76.
        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Murray of Tennessee and Mr. Corbett.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 133, noes 72.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Fulton: Is a motion that the Committee do now rise in order 
    at this time?
        The Chairman: Such a motion would be in order.
        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Fulton) there were--ayes 76, noes 125.
        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman. I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were refused.
        So the motion was rejected.

During Division Vote

Sec. 23.11 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not 
    preferential while the Committee is dividing on a question.

    On Dec. 8, 1944,(13) during a division vote on a motion 
to close debate on H.R. 5587, the first supplemental appropriations 
bill, 1944, Chairman Herbert C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 9066, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3470]]

Bonner, of North Carolina, refused to recognize a Member for a motion 
that the Committee of the Whole rise.

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on this amendment do now close.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I trust 
    the gentleman will not press that motion.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].
        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    had it.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    division.
        The Chairman: Those in favor of the motion will rise and be 
    counted.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that we are in the middle of a vote.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am offering a preferential motion. 
    I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair will ask the gentleman to reconsider, 
    because we are in the midst of taking a vote on a motion at this 
    time.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I am offering a preferential motion 
    now.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman at this 
    time for that purpose.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Taber].

During Consideration of Bill Under Special Rule

Sec. 23.12 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 
    the bill is being considered under a special rule which provides 
    that, after consideration and upon the automatic rising of the 
    Committee of the Whole, the previous question shall be considered 
    as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage.

    On Aug. 10, 1950,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9176, the Defense Production Act of 1950, under a 
special rule which provided as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
15. See H. Res. 740, 96 Cong. Rec. 11606, 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 . . . 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

[[Page 3471]]

    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-
    minute rule. 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 
    bid] 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.

    During the proceedings, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a 
motion that the Committee rise and report the bill back to the House 
with the recommendation that it be recommitted. The Chairman, Howard W. 
Smith, of Virginia, in ruling on a point of order against the motion, 
indicated that the motion was precluded under the terms of the special 
rule. The motion and ruling were as follows:

        Mr. Rankin: 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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An earlier precedent (see 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2375) indicated a contrary view. The Chair in that 
instance held that a special rule, whose provisions were not materially 
different from those of House Resolution 740, above, did not de

[[Page 3472]]

prive the Committee of the Whole of the right to report with a 
recommendation to recommit the bill under consideration at the end of 
reading for amendment. The Chair on that occasion, however, incorrectly 
overruled a point of order made by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
who argued that at the conclusion of the amendment process the 
Committee of the Whole rises automatically under the terms of such a 
special rule and reports the bill to the House with adopted amendments, 
and that a motion to that end is not necessary. The modern practice, as 
shown in the ruling of Chairman Smith, above, is to disallow motions in 
Committee of the Whole that, if adopted, would effectively contravene 
the terms of the special rule that order the previous question on the 
bill and amendments thereto, to final passage at the conclusion of the 
amendment process under the five-minute rule, and that protect the 
motion to recommit, as guaranteed by clause 4 Rule XVI, only after 
amendments are disposed of in the House and pending final passage.

Precedence Over Motion to Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 23.13 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,(1) during consideration of H.R. 7819, 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1967, Chairman 
Charles M. Price, of Illinois, addressed the question whether 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 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].
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committe do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Perkins].

[[Page 3473]]

        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 Amend Over Motion to Rise and Report

Sec. 23.14 A motion to amend in the Committee of the Whole takes 
    precedence over a motion to rise and report a bill with 
    recommendations.

    On July 27, 1937,(2) during consideration of H.R. 7730, 
to authorize the President to appoint administrative assistants, 
Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, ruled on the precedence of a motion 
to amend over a motion to rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 7699, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Robinson of Utah and Mr. Collins rose.
        Mr. [J. W.] Robinson of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with 
    the recommendation that the bill do pass.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the motion that it is not in order at this stage 
    of the proceedings.
        The Chairman: The Chair may state that motions to amend take 
    precedence over a motion that the Committee rise.