[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[D. Types of Special Orders]
[Â§ 26. As to Voting and Motions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4299-4332]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS
 
Sec. 26. As to Voting and Motions

    One motion which a special order may affect in Committee of the 
Whole is the motion that the Committee rise and report the bill back to 
the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. 
As long as the stage of amendment is still pending, the motion is in 
order. But in the event a ``closed'' rule has been adopted, and no 
(committee) amendments are offered in Committee of the Whole, the stage 
of amendment has passed and the motion is not in order.(6) 
Motions to strike out a portion of a bill, which are in effect 
amendments, may also depend on the provisions of a special order, 
particularly if the resolution specifically makes in order such an 
amendment.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 26.1, 26.2, infra. For an occasion where the motion 
        that the Committee rise and report the bill back to the House 
        with the recommendation that it be recommitted was held out of 
        order, see Sec. 26.3, infra.
 7. Motions to strike out portions of a bill are sometimes made in 
        order in conjunction with a ``closed'' rule, allowing only 
        committee amendments or specified amendments to be offered. See 
        Sec. 22, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special orders usually provide that following the report of the 
Committee of the Whole to the House on a bill which has been debated 
and amended, 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). The effect of such a provision 
is to preclude further debate or amendments in the House on the bill, 
except on a motion to recommit with instructions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 26.4, infra. If a special order provides for consideration 
        of a measure in the House, and orders the previous question 
        after a certain amount of debate, further debate or amendments 
        are similarly precluded. See Sec. 26.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to recommit may not be denied by the provisions of a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules, pursuant to the provisions of 
Rule XI.(9) But a special order may alter the permissible 
form and scope of the motion to recommit. A resolution from the 
Committee on Rules may, for example, allow two motions to recommit on 
the same measure.(10) Usually, a ``closed'' rule specifies 
that during the consideration of a bill in Committee of the Whole, no 
amendments, or only certain amendments, may be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XI clause 4(b) in the House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) 1979. 
        See Sec. Sec. 26.8, 26.11, infra.
10. See Sec. Sec. 26.13, 26.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4300]]

Under the provisions of such a rule, a motion to recommit with 
instructions could be offered in the House to recommit with 
instructions to incorporate an amendment which would not have been in 
order in Committee of the Whole only because of the resolution. But the 
Committee on Rules may report and the House may adopt a resolution 
restricting amendments to a certain title of a bill both in the House 
and in the Committee of the Whole, thus prohibiting such a motion to 
recommit with instructions.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 26.11, 26.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a special order provides that a committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute may be offered, or may be read as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment, the resolution usually provides that 
there may be offered a motion to recommit ``with or without 
instructions.'' The purpose of that language is to allow a motion to 
recommit with instructions to report back with amendments, despite 
previous adoption by the House of a committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute reported from Committee of the Whole (it is not in 
order, without the provisions of such a resolution, to amend an 
amendment already adopted by the House).(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 26.10, infra; and House Rules and Manual Sec. 788 [note] 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may demand a separate vote in the House on an amendment to 
a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole, where the bill is being considered under a 
special rule permitting separate votes in the House on any of the 
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 
committee amendment. Special rules permitting such separate votes 
generally provide that at the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
in Committee of the Whole, ``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 amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
amendments in the nature of a substitute.'' (13) Thus, where 
a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is read as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment, or where a single-section 
bill with a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is under 
consideration, all amendments adopted to it in Committee of the Whole 
are subject to a demand for a separate vote in the House pursuant to a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 26. 15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4301]]

special order so providing, regardless of the consistency of such 
amendments.(14) Without a special order permitting such 
separate votes, the House would, upon the report of the Committee of 
the Whole, have only the choice between the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as perfected (since only one amendment in its 
perfected form is reported back from Committee of the Whole), and the 
original bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 26.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to motions in Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra.
As to motions generally, see Ch. 23, infra.
As to voting generally, see Ch. 30, infra.
As to motions to strike out portion of bill made in order, see Sec. 22, 
    supra.
As to voting on amendments between the Houses and conference reports 
    under special rules. see Sec. 27 
    infra.                          -------------------

Motion That Committee Rise and Report Bill to House With Recommendation 
    That Enacting Clause Be Stricken

Sec. 26.1 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 be stricken out is in order 
    until the stage of amendment has passed.

    On Sept. 3, 1959,(15) a preferential motion was offered 
in the Committee of the Whole while H.R. 8678 (Federal-Aid Highway Act) 
was under consideration for amendment under the five-minute rule (where 
only committee amendments were permitted under the special rule, and 
there remained other committee amendments besides the one pending):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 17988, 17989, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (l6) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman that only 5 minutes is permitted in support of the 
    amendment and 5 minutes in opposition. Five minutes has been 
    consumed in support of the amendment. Therefore, the Chair cannot 
    recognize the gentleman at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William Pat Jennings (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the 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.

[[Page 4302]]

    Mr. Hays was recognized for five minutes in favor of the motion, 
and another Member was recognized for five minutes in opposition.

    The bill was being considered under a special order providing as 
follows: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 372, 105 Cong. Rec. 17946, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill, and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Public Works, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to 
    said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Public Works. Amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Public Works may be offered to any section of the bill at the 
    conclusion of the general debate, but said amendments shall not be 
    subject to amendment.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 12720-25, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 
        1960; and 106 Cong. Rec. 10577-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.2 Where a bill is being considered under a ``closed'' 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 be stricken 
    out is not in order where no committee amendments are offered, 
    since the stage of amendment has been passed.

    On Apr. 6, 1970, the Committee of the Whole concluded general 
debate on H.R. 16311 (the Family Assistance Act of 1970) where the 
House had adopted a ``closed'' rule for the consideration of the bill, 
allowing only committee amendments to the bill, such amendments not to 
be subject to amendment (H. Res. 916). Chairman John D. Dingell, of 
Michigan, indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that since 
no committee amendments were offered, the stage of amendment was passed 
and a preferential motion was not in order: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have no 
    further requests for time. I had some time to reserve for myself, 
    but I yield back the balance of my time.
        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. Mills: Mr. Chairman, there are no committee amendments.

[[Page 4303]]

        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.

Motion That Committee of the Whole Rise and Report Bill to House With 
    Recommendation That It Be Recommitted

Sec. 26.3 A motion that the Committee of the Whole do now 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 
    where the Committee of the Whole is considering the bill under a 
    resolution setting out the conditions under which the bill is to be 
    considered.

    On Aug. 10, 1950, there was pending before the Committee of the 
Whole a bill being considered pursuant to a special order adopted on 
July 31: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 740, 96 Cong. Rec. 11432, 11433, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 continued 
    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

[[Page 4304]]

    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 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.

    In Committee of the Whole, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
ruled that it was not in order to move that the Committee rise and 
report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the bill 
be recommitted to the committee which had reported it: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at p. 12219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the earlier precedents indicate 
that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill to 
the House with the recommendation it be recommitted is privileged in 
Committee of the Whole (see, i.e., 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329), 
that motion is not in the current practice admissible when inconsistent 
with a

[[Page 4305]]

special rule providing for consideration (as opposed to consideration 
under the general rules of the House). Since a typical special rule 
provides for a motion to recommit pending the vote on passage in the 
House (the previous question having been ordered by the rule), 
recommittal should be in order only at that time (or after the 
Committee rises with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken, under Rule XXIII, clause 7).

Previous Question Considered as Ordered by Special Order

Sec. 26.4 When the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports a 
    bill back to the House pursuant to a resolution providing that the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered, further debate or 
    amendments in the House are thereby precluded; and the Speaker does 
    not entertain unanimous-consent requests that further amendments be 
    in order.

    On Aug. 31, 1960,(2) the Committee of the Whole reported 
a bill back to the House, where the special order under which the bill 
was being considered provided that the previous question be considered 
as ordered. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry on the possibility for further debate and amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 106 Cong. Rec. 18748, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule the previous question is ordered.
        The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
        The bill was read a third time.
        Mr. [H. Carl] Andersen of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Would it be possible by unanimous 
    consent to return to the amendment stage?
        The Speaker: It would not. The previous question has already 
    been ordered. All amendments and all debate are exhausted.
        The question is on the passage of the bill.

Sec. 26.5 The right to offer amendments does not exist where a special 
    rule, in providing for the consideration of a bill in the House, 
    orders the previous question after a fixed time for general debate.

    On Mar. 11, 1933, Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, offered an 
original resolution from the floor before committees were elected but 
after rules were adopted:

                            House Resolution 32

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House

[[Page 4306]]

    shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2820, a bill to maintain 
    the credit of the United States Government, and all points of order 
    against said bill shall be considered as waived; that, after 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
    continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Economy, the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill to final passage.

    Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry as to the right to offer amendments under the provisions of the 
resolution:

        Mr. [Gordon] Browning [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Browning: If this resolution is adopted, there will not be 
    any privilege of amendment given to the House, under any 
    consideration?
        The Speaker: There will not be.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 77 Cong. Rec. 198, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Record does not so indicate, 
the resolution was considered without objection; since not reported 
from the Committee on Rules, the resolution was not privileged for 
consideration.

Motion to Recommit

Sec. 26.6 Form of special rule providing that a certain bill shall be 
    considered as having been engrossed and read a third time, and that 
    the House shall immediately proceed to vote on the passage of the 
    bill without any intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 20, 1936: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 10611, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. The bill had been brought 
        up under a motion to suspend the rules on the same day, and had 
        been defeated both times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 559

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill H.R. 12455, entitled ``A bill to provide for the 
    administration and maintenance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the 
    States of Virginia and North Carolina, by the Secretary of the 
    Interior, and for other purposes'', shall be considered as having 
    been engrossed and read a third time, and the House shall 
    immediately proceed to vote upon the passage of said bill without 
    any intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
    without instructions

    Parliamentarian's Note: The form of this resolution predates the 
deletion in the 89th Congress of the provision in Rule XXI clause 1, 
which allowed a Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed 
copy of a bill.

Sec. 26.7 Form of resolution allowing a motion to recommit

[[Page 4307]]

    containing instructions germane to the bill or committee 
    substitute.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Aug. 22, 1950: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Res. 812, 96 Cong. Rec. 13039, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 (S. 2317) to authorize grants to the 
    States for surveying their need for elementary- and secondary-
    school facilities and for planning State-wide programs of school 
    construction; and to authorize grants for emergency school 
    construction to school districts overburdened with enrollments 
    resulting from defense and other Federal activities, 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 hour, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
    without intervention of any point of order the substitute committee 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor 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 the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the same to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted and any member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any 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, and such motion to recommit may 
    contain instructions germane to the bill or committee substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Motions to recommit with instructions 
normally must be germane to the bill in its perfected form, not to the 
introduced bill or committee substitute.

Sec. 26.8 Where a special order by its terms orders the previous 
    question at a certain time on a bill to final passage, it was held 
    that the right to offer a motion to recommit was reserved by the 
    rules notwithstanding the provisions of the special rule.

    On Mar. 11, 1933, before any committees were elected, Mr. Joseph W. 
Byrns, of Tennessee, offered (without objection) the following 
resolution:

                            House Resolution 32

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of

[[Page 4308]]

    H.R. 2820, a bill to maintain the credit of the United States 
    Government, and all points of order against said bill shall be 
    considered as waived; that, after general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Economy, the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage.

    Despite the provisions of the resolution, Speaker Henry T. Rainey, 
of Illinois, indicated that a motion to recommit would be in order:

        Mr. [Gordon] Browning [of Tennessee]: Would a motion to 
    recommit be in order following the third reading of the bill?
        The Speaker: It would; yes.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 77 Cong. Rec. 198, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.9 Where a special rule providing for the consideration of a 
    bill provides for ``one motion to recommit,'' it is interpreted to 
    mean ``one valid motion to recommit;'' and if a point of order is 
    sustained against a motion to recommit with instructions because it 
    is not germane to the bill, another motion to recommit may be 
    entertained by the Chair.

    On Mar. 2, 1967, H.R. 4515, supplemental military authorizations, 
was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time in the House and was 
read the third time. Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, offered a motion 
to recommit with instructions and Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South 
Carolina, made a point of order against the motion on the grounds that 
it was not germane to the bill. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, sustained the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then entertained another motion to recommit and 
answered an inquiry relative thereto (where the special order, H. Res. 
347, provided for one motion to recommit on the bill): (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 5166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E:.] Brown [Jr.] of California: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to recommit the bill H.R. 4515, to the Committee on Armed Services, 
    with instructions to report it back forthwith with an amendment 
    which is at the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask if the gentleman is opposed to 
    the bill?
        Mr. Brown of California: I am opposed to the bill in its 
    present form, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion to recommit.

[[Page 4309]]

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: I respectfully ask the Speaker if the rule which 
    made this bill in order provided for only one motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it applies to one valid 
    motion to recommit. The other motion was ruled out of order.
        The question is on the motion to recommit.

Sec. 26.10 Where the rule under which a bill is being considered 
    provides for ``a motion to recommit with or without instructions,'' 
    the motion to recommit may contain instructions to report back 
    forthwith amendments notwithstanding the fact that the House has 
    just agreed to the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported 
    from the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 29, 1965, the Committee of the Whole reported a bill back 
to the House, where the Committee had adopted an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for the original bill, and where the bill was 
being considered under a special order providing for a motion to 
recommit with or without instructions (H. Res. 515). Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated in response to parliamentary 
inquiries that in the event the amendment was agreed to by the House, a 
motion to recommit could still be offered instructing that the standing 
committee report the bill back with amendments: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 25438, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        The question is on the amendment.
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Multer: I am about to ask for the yeas and nays on the 
    Multer amendment, as amended by the Sisk amendment. If that 
    amendment is rejected on the rollcall vote, which I will ask for, 
    will the pending business before the House then be H.R. 4644?
        The Speaker: As introduced.
        Mr. Mutter: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If the Multer amendment as amended is 
    defeated, we then go back to H.R. 4644. Is there an opportunity 
    after that to amend or to further consider?
        The Speaker: The response to that would be in the negative, 
    because the previous question has been ordered.

[[Page 4310]]

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, just to get 
    this matter clarified, as I understand the rule, if the Sisk 
    amendment is defeated on the rollcall which is approaching, then we 
    go back to the original first Multer bill, the bill for which the 
    discharge petition was signed. That is the original first bill and 
    there cannot be any vote on any compromise bill. The original 
    Multer bill will then not be subject to further amendment or to any 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: It would not be because the previous question has 
    been ordered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I make this 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Albert: Is not what the distinguished gentleman from 
    Virginia said subject to the right of the minority to offer a 
    motion to recommit containing appropriate amendments with or 
    without instructions?
        The Speaker: The rule provides for one motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays: That one motion to recommit, depending on who decides 
    to offer it, may be a straight motion to recommit without any 
    instructions, may it not?
        The Speaker: It could be.

Motion to Recommit Under Closed Rule

Sec. 26.11 The Committee on Rules may not report any order or rule 
    which shall operate to prevent the offering of a motion to 
    recommit, but such restriction does not apply to a special rule 
    which may prevent a motion to recommit with instructions to 
    incorporate an amendment in a title where the special rule closes 
    that title to amendment both in the House and in the Committee of 
    the Whole. A special rule prohibiting the offering of amendments to 
    a certain title ``during consideration of'' the bill (in the House 
    and in Committee of the Whole), thus precluding a motion to 
    recommit with instructions insofar as such title was concerned, was 
    held not to violate the provisions of Rule XI clause 45 (Rule XI 
    clause 4(b) in the 1979 House Rules and Manual).

    On Jan. 11, 1934, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules the following special order:

                            House Resolution 217

        Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a bill 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1935,

[[Page 4311]]

    and for other purposes, all points of order against title II or any 
    provisions contained therein are hereby waived; and no amendments 
    or motions to strike out shall be in order to such title except 
    amendments or motions to strike out offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Appropriations, and said amendments or motions shall 
    be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. 
    Amendments shall not be in order to any other section of bill H.R. 
    6663 or to any section of any general appropriation bill of the 
    Seventy-third Congress which would be in conflict with the 
    provisions of title II of the bill H.R. 6663 as reported to the 
    House, except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
    Appropriations, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
            See Sec. 26.12, infra, for further discussion of the effect 
        of this special order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made a point of order against 
the resolution on the ground that the Committee on Rules had no right 
to report a rule denying the right to offer any motion to recommit:

        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    rule that it is not a privileged report from the Committee on 
    Rules, on the ground that it violates the general rules of the 
    House by denying the right to the minority to make the usual and 
    regular motion to recommit.

    After Mr. Snell delivered arguments in support of the point of 
order, and Mr. Bankhead delivered arguments in opposition to the point 
of order, Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled as follows and 
discussed the provisions of the special order:

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York makes the point of order that the Committee on Rules has 
    reported out a resolution which violates the provisions of clause 
    45, rule XI, which are as follows:

            The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order . 
        . . which shall operate to prevent the motion to recommit being 
        made as provided in clause 4, rule XVI.

        The pertinent language of clause 4, rule XVI is as follows:

            After the previous question shall have been ordered on the 
        passage of a bill or joint resolution one motion to recommit 
        shall be in order and the Speaker shall give preference in 
        recognition for such purpose to a Member who is opposed to the 
        bill or resolution.

        The special rule, House Resolution 217, now before the House, 
    does not mention the motion to recommit. Therefore, any motion to 
    recommit would be made under the general rules of the House. The 
    contention of the gentleman from New York that this special rule 
    deprives the minority of the right to make a motion to recommit is, 
    therefore, obviously not well taken. The right to offer a motion to 
    recommit is provided for in the general rules of the House, and 
    since no men

[[Page 4312]]

    tion is made in the special rule now before the House it naturally 
    follows that the motion would be in order.
        A question may present itself later when a motion to recommit 
    with instructions is made on the bill H.R. 6663 that the special 
    rule which is now before the House may prevent a motion to recommit 
    with instructions which would be in conflict with the provisions of 
    the special rule. It has been held on numerous occasions that a 
    motion to recommit with instructions may not propose as 
    instructions anything that might not be proposed directly as an 
    amendment. Of course, inasmuch as the special rule prohibits 
    amendments to title II of the bill H.R. 6663 it would not be in 
    order after the adoption of the special rule to move to recommit 
    the bill with instructions to incorporate an amendment to title II 
    of the bill. The Chair, therefore, holds that the motion to 
    recommit, as provided in clause 4, rule XVI, has been reserved to 
    the minority and that insofar as such rule is concerned the special 
    rule before the House does not deprive the minority of the right to 
    make a simple motion to recommit. The Chair thinks, however, that a 
    motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate a provision 
    which would be in violation of the special rule, House Resolution 
    217, would not be in order. For the reasons stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    The Speaker further stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
that a simple motion to recommit would be in order. Mr. Snell appealed 
from the decision of the Chair, and the Chair's decision was upheld, 
260 yeas to 112 nays.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 470-483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.12 A special order prohibiting the offering of amendments to a 
    certain title of a bill during its consideration (in both the House 
    and Committee of the Whole) was held to preclude the right of 
    offering a motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate an 
    amendment in the restricted title.

    On Jan. 11, 1934, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules the following special order:

                            House Resolution 217

        Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a bill 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, and for other purposes, all 
    points of order against title II or any provisions contained 
    therein are hereby waived; and no amendments or motions to strike 
    out shall be in order to such title except amendments or motions to 
    strike out offered by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, 
    and said amendments or motions shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments shall not be in 
    order to any other section of the bill H.R. 6663 or to any sec

[[Page 4313]]

    tion of any general appropriation bill of the Seventy-third 
    Congress which would be in conflict with the provisions of title II 
    of the bill H.R. 6663 as reported to the House, except amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, and said 
    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made a point of order against 
the resolution, on the grounds that it would deny the right to offer a 
motion to recommit with instructions, to include an amendment within 
the title of the bill closed to amendment. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, overruled the point of order, since the resolution did not 
deny the right to offer a motion to recommit. He indicated, however, 
that a certain motion to recommit with instructions would not be in 
order:

        The Speaker: . . . A question may present itself later when a 
    motion to recommit with instructions is made on the bill H.R. 6663 
    that the special rule which is now before the House may prevent a 
    motion to recommit with instructions which would be in conflict 
    with the provisions of the special rule. It has been held on 
    numerous occasions that a motion to recommit with instructions may 
    not propose as instructions anything that might not be proposed 
    directly as an amendment. Of course, inasmuch as the special rule 
    prohibits amendments to title II of the bill H.R. 6663 it would not 
    be in order after the adoption of the special rule to move to 
    recommit the bill with instructions to incorporate an amendment to 
    title II of the bill. The Chair, therefore, holds that the motion 
    to recommit, as provided in clause 4, rule XVI, has been reserved 
    to the minority and that insofar as such rule is concerned the 
    special rule before the House does not deprive the minority of the 
    right to make a simple motion to recommit. The Chair thinks, 
    however, that a motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate 
    a provision which would be in violation of the special rule, House 
    Resolution 217, would not be in order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule was then adopted and the bill considered in Committee of 
the Whole. On Jan. 12, the bill was reported back to the House and the 
previous question was ordered thereon. Mr. Richard B. Wigglesworth, of 
Massachusetts, offered a motion to recommit with instructions, to 
incorporate an amendment in title II of the bill, which had been closed 
to amendment. Speaker Rainey held that the motion to recommit was not 
in order under the provisions of House Resolution 217:

        Mr. Wigglesworth moves that the bill be recommitted to the 
    Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the same 
    back forthwith with an amendment as follows: ``Strike out all of 
    paragraph (d) on pages 32 and 33.''

[[Page 4314]]

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    motion is in violation of the rule adopted by the House prohibiting 
    amendments to title II of the bill.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Massachusetts desire to be 
    heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wigglesworth] offers a 
    motion to recommit with instructions to strike out a portion of 
    title II of the pending bill. The gentleman from Virginia makes the 
    point of order that the motion to recommit with instructions 
    violates the provisions of the special rule (H. Res. 217) under 
    which the House is considering this appropriation bill.
        The contention of the gentleman from Virginia is that since, 
    under the special rule it is not in order to offer an amendment by 
    a motion to strike out any part of title II it, therefore, is not 
    in order in a motion to recommit with instructions to effectuate 
    what may not be done directly in the House, to wit, move to strike 
    out any part of title II.
        It has been held on a number of occasions that it is not in 
    order to do indirectly by a motion to recommit with instructions 
    that which may not be done directly by way of amendment.

        Mr. Speaker Cannon, on March 24, 1910 (Cannon's Precedents, 
    sec. 9597), in deciding a question involving the right to recommit 
    with instructions to incorporate in a general appropriation bill an 
    amendment proposing legislation said:

            This is a motion to recommit with instructions. If the 
        motion had been made in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
        State of the Union as an amendment, or if it had been a 
        provision in the original bill reported by the Committee on 
        Appropriations, it would have been out of order under the rule 
        which has just been read, and which has been a rule of the 
        House for almost 50 years, if not more than 50 years; and under 
        the rules that cannot be done indirectly, by a motion to 
        recommit, which cannot be done directly.
            The Chair is not alone in this construction of the rule. 
        There is a uniform line of decisions by every Speaker since the 
        Chair has been a Member of this House, almost 40 years, 
        beginning with Mr. Speaker Blaine, followed by Mr. Speaker 
        Kerr, Mr. Speaker Randall, Mr. Speaker Keifer, Mr. Speaker 
        Carlisle, Mr. Speaker Reed, Mr. Speaker Crisp, Mr. Speaker Reed 
        again, Mr. Speaker Henderson, and the present Speaker. All, 
        without exception, have made the same ruling; so that the Chair 
        not only has the letter of the rule but an unbroken line of 
        decisions, and these precedents, as well as the letter of the 
        rule, compel the Chair to sustain the point of order. The point 
        of order is sustained. The motion is not in order.

        On May 11, 1911, during the consideration of a tariff bill, Mr. 
    James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to recommit the bill with 
    instructions to insert as a new section certain provisions. Mr. 
    Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made the point of order that the 
    amendment incorporated in the motion to recommit was not germane 
    and therefore not in order. Mr. Speaker Clark, in ruling on the 
    point of order, said:

[[Page 4315]]

            It is not necessary for the Chair to pass any opinion on 
        the wisdom of this new rule; it is his duty to decide according 
        to the rules. It is clear that the amendment offered by way of 
        matter contained in the motion to recommit under this rule 
        would not have been in order if offered as an amendment; and on 
        the high authority of Mr. Speaker Reed and Mr. Speaker Cannon, 
        I sustain the point of order made by the gentleman from 
        Alabama.

        The Chair could quote many other decisions similar to these he 
    has just read--made by Speaker Clark, Gillett, Longworth, and 
    Garner.
        The Chair believes that, inasmuch as the special rule, House 
    Resolution 217, did not permit amendments or motions to strike out 
    any part of title II of the bill either in the Committee of the 
    Whole or in the House during the consideration of this bill, that 
    it would not be in order to do indirectly by way of a motion to 
    recommit that which could not have been done directly in the House.
        The Chair on yesterday, in his decision on the point of order 
    raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell], intimated to the 
    House the construction which he placed on the special rule, insofar 
    as the motion to recommit with instructions is concerned. The Chair 
    on that occasion said:

            A question may present itself later when a motion to 
        recommit with instructions is made on the bill, H.R. 6663, that 
        the special rule which is now before the House may prevent a 
        motion to recommit with instructions, which would be in 
        conflict with the provisions of the special rule. It has been 
        held on numerous occasions that a motion to recommit with 
        instructions may not propose as instructions anything that 
        might not be proposed directly as an amendment. Of course, 
        inasmuch as the special rule prohibits amendments to title II 
        of the bill, H.R. 6663, it would not be in order, after the 
        adoption of the special rule, to move to recommit the bill with 
        instructions to incorporate an amendment in title II of the 
        bill.

        The Chair is particularly anxious to refer to the language used 
    by him yesterday, because the opinion expressed there was given 
    before the House took action upon the special rule. All Members 
    were, therefore, advised as to the construction that the Chair 
    would place upon any motion to recommit with instructions which 
    would be in conflict with title II of the pending bill. Inasmuch as 
    the House sustained the interpretation of the rule as expressed by 
    the Chair on yesterday by a vote on the appeal taken by the 
    gentleman from New York, the Chair is constrained to sustain the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Virginia.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 595, 596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The special rule in this case related to 
the consideration of a general appropriations bill which was privileged 
for consideration under the general rules of the House. By prohibiting 
certain amendments ``during consideration of'' the bill the rule 
precluded such amendments during all proceedings thereon, in the House 
and in Committee of the Whole.
    Where a special rule makes in order a motion to resolve into

[[Page 4316]]

Committee of the Whole for consideration of a (nonprivileged) bill, 
provides for the consideration of the bill for amendment under the 
five-minute rule, and prohibits amendments, that restriction only 
applies to consideration in Committee of the Whole, and does not 
prohibit instructions with a motion to recommit in the House to 
effectuate such amendments, unless the special rule specifically 
prohibits such amendments ``in the House and in the Committee of the 
Whole.''

Two Motions to Recommit

Sec. 26.13 Under the peculiar circumstances wherein a special rule 
    provided for two motions to recommit, the Chair held that the usual 
    practice with respect to recognition for motions to recommit need 
    not necessarily be followed and in the instant case recognized a 
    member of the majority party to offer the first motion.

    On May 3, 1932, the Committee of the Whole reported to the House a 
bill which was ordered engrossed and read the third time. The special 
order under which the bill was being considered provided for two 
motions to recommit. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled as follows 
on recognition for the first motion to recommit: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 9512-18, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr.  [John] McDuffie [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Alabama offers a motion to 
    recommit, which the Clerk will report.
        Mr. [C. William] Ramseyer [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I was on my 
    feet seeking recognition. Under the practice of the House, is not 
    the minority entitled to first recognition? I demand such 
    recognition.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule giving the right to make 
    two motions to recommit. In the opinion of the Chair those in 
    control of the bill should have the right to submit the first 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, when was 
    any decision ever made that those in control of a bill would have 
    the right to submit the first motion to recommit? Generally those 
    in control of a bill do not submit a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: They certainly have that right under this rule.
        Mr. Snell: But the motion to recommit is an entirely different 
    proposition, and the ruling of the Speaker would foreclose the 
    minority from having its rights with respect to such a motion.

        The Speaker: The Chair does not think the minority has that 
    right at all. The rule of the House of Representatives since the 
    present occupant of the chair has been a Member of it has been that 
    in case a motion to recommit is desired to be made the

[[Page 4317]]

    Members in charge of the bill, if the bill has been amended so they 
    can not support it, in the order of their seniority are recognized 
    to submit a motion to recommit.
        Mr. Snell: I am very sorry I have to disagree with the 
    distinguished Speaker. That is not my understanding of the rule.
        The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from 
    Alabama to offer a motion to recommit.
        Mr. [William B.] Oliver [of Alabama]: If the Chair will permit, 
    the Speaker made that announcement when this rule was first offered 
    and there was no objection to it.
        The Speaker: Undoubtedly that is the spirit of the rule.
        Mr. Snell: I do not agree with the ruling of the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: As I understand, the rule permits two motions to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Michener: If the motion which has been offered by the 
    gentleman from Alabama [Mr. McDuffie] fixing the exemption at 
    $2,000, should fail, then would it be in order to offer the 
    staggering plan or the furlough plan with a $2,000 exemption?
        The Speaker: It does not make any difference whether the motion 
    fails or not, they have the right to submit two motions to 
    recommit.
        Mr. Michener: And recommit the bill twice?
        The Speaker: Certainly; that is what the rule provides. As the 
    Chair construes this rule, if the motion of the gentleman from 
    Alabama [Mr. McDuffie] is carried, there would still be opportunity 
    for another motion to recommit.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, if that is true and if the McDuffie 
    motion carries, the bill is then recommitted forthwith to the 
    committee, there is nothing before the House, and what in the world 
    are we are going to recommit after that has been done?
        The Speaker: It may be the House will want to strike out 
    something else.
        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: If the Chair will permit, 
    if the McDuffie motion prevails, the bill will be immediately 
    reported back to the House with the amendment.
        The Speaker: Certainly; and another motion to recommit, with 
    respect to some other part of the bill would be in order.
        The question is on the motion to recommit.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 167, nays 225, not 
    voting 39, as follows: . . .
        Mr. Ramseyer: Mr. Speaker, I present the following motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Speaker, I move to recommit the bill, H.R. 11267, to 
        the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to that 
        committee to report it back forthwith with the following 
        amendments:

        1. Strike out sections 101 to 104, both inclusive, of the 
    Economy Committee amendment and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following: . . .

[[Page 4318]]

        Mr. Ramseyer: On that, Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Iowa to recommit.
        Mr. Ramseyer: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 146, nays 250, not 
    voting 35, as follows: . . .

    The special rule under which the House was operating was House 
Resolution 203, reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted on 
April 27, 1932:

                            House Resolution 203

        Resolved, That after the adoption of this resolution it shall 
    be in order in the consideration of H.R. 11267, the legislative 
    appropriation bill, for the chairman of the Economy Committee or 
    any member of the Economy Committee acting for him, by direction of 
    that committee, to offer an amendment to said bill, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. On said amendment there 
    shall be two hours of general debate, one-half to be controlled by 
    the chairman of the Economy Committee and one-half by the ranking 
    minority member of that committee. At the termination of such 
    debate the amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as 
    an original bill and shall be considered by titles. Each title as 
    it is read shall be open to four amendments, said amendments not 
    being subject to amendment, and no further amendments shall be 
    entertained by the Chair. The provisions of clause 7, Rule XVI, or 
    clause 2, Rule XXI, shall not apply to the substitute amendment 
    offered to Title I of the Economy Committee amendment. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union the committee shall rise and 
    report the bill to the House with the amendments, including the 
    amendment offered by the Economy Committee as amended, 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 Economy 
    Committee amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and Economy Committee amendment, including the 
    amendments to the Economy Committee amendment to final passage 
    without intervening motion except two motions to recommit, and such 
    motions to recommit shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
    contrary notwithstanding.
        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bankhead: Page 2, line 4, after 
        the word ``chair'', strike out the period, insert a colon, and 
        add the following:
            ``Provided, That this limitation on the right to offer 
        amendments shall not apply to amendments that may be offered by 
        direction of the Economy Committee.''

Waiving Points of Order Against Motion to Recommit

Sec. 26.14 Where a special rule permits two motions to re

[[Page 4319]]

    commit and makes such motions in order, any rule of the House to 
    the contrary notwithstanding, it was held that instructions in a 
    motion to recommit might propose the striking out of an amendment 
    therein before agreed to by the House.

    On Mar. 19, 1935, the House agreed to a special order reported from 
the Committee on Rules, allowing two motions to recommit on the same 
bill: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Res. 165, 79 Cong. Rec. 3984, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 H.R. 3896, ``a bill to provide for the immediate 
    payment of World War adjusted-service certificates, to extend the 
    time for filing applications for benefits under the World War 
    Adjusted Compensation Act, 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 10 hours, to be evenly divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute 
    rule. It shall be in order to consider as substitute amendments for 
    the bill any such amendments that relate to the payment of World 
    War adjusted-service certificates, and such substitute amendments 
    shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill 
    for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the same to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, 
    except two motions to recommit, with or without instructions: 
    Provided, however, That if the instructions in such motions relate 
    to the payment of World War adjusted-service certificates, they 
    shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    On Mar. 22, 1935, the bill so provided for was reported back to the 
House from the Committee of the Whole and was ordered engrossed and 
read the third time. Mr. Fred M. Vinson, of Kentucky (a Democrat and 
member of the majority), was recognized to offer a motion to 
recommit.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 4309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vinson of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I move to recommit the 
    bill (H.R. 3896) to the Committee on Ways and Means with 
    instructions to report the same back forthwith with the following 
    amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause in the said 
    bill and insert the following amendment, which I send to the 
    Clerk's desk.
        Mr. Blanton and Mr. Rankin reserved all points of order against 
    the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 4320]]

            Mr. Vinson of Kentucky moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
        3896, to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to 
        report the same back forthwith with the following amendment: 
        Strike out all after the enacting clause in said bill and 
        insert the following:
            ``That notwithstanding the provisions of the World War 
        Adjusted Compensation Act, as amended (U.S.C., title 38, ch. 
        11; U.S.C., Supp. VII, title 38, ch. 11), the adjusted-service 
        certificates issued under the authority of such act are hereby 
        declared to be immediately payable.''

    Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made a point of order against the 
motion to recommit and argued in part as follows: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 4309, 4310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In this connection I want to call the attention of the Chair to 
    the fact that the Patman amendment was submitted in the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union as a substitute for 
    the Vinson bill under the proper rules of the House, by moving to 
    strike out the first paragraph of the Vinson bill and offering the 
    Patman bill as an amendment in the way of a substitute, and then 
    giving notice that in case the amendment were adopted the balance 
    of the Vinson bill would be stricken out on motion.
        This procedure was followed under the rules of the House. The 
    notice was given, the Patman bill was adopted as a substitute for 
    the Vinson bill in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union by a teller vote, following which the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Patman] moved and by unanimous consent had all the balance of 
    the Vinson bill stricken out.
        This action was reported to the House itself as soon as the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union rose. Then 
    there was a direct vote in the House itself on the Patman 
    amendment, on substituting it for the Vinson bill. The House voted 
    by roll call, and the vote was 202 for the Patman substitute as 
    against 191 for the Vinson bill. And thus the House substituted the 
    Patman bill for the Vinson bill.
        Now a motion to recommit, seeking to turn around and switch 
    back the Vinson bill for the Patman bill would undo exactly what 
    the House has already voted. My point of order is this: If the 
    special rule provides to do away with all the rules respecting 
    motions to recommit and if we may have two votes in the House on 
    the identical proposition which has already been decided by the 
    House, then we would be placed in the ridiculous position that 
    after we now vote on the Vinson motion to recommit, to substitute 
    the Vinson bill, which will be the second time the House has voted 
    on it, and if the House should vote against that, which would be 
    the second time the House had voted it down, then somebody else 
    could again offer a motion to recommit, the second such motion 
    under the special rule, to substitute the Vinson bill, and then we 
    would have the ridiculous situation of the House of Representatives 
    voting three different times in the House on the same proposition.

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, overruled the point of 
order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 4310, 4311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The pending bill is being 
    considered under

[[Page 4321]]

    a special rule which was unanimously adopted by the House before 
    the bill was taken up for consideration.
        It is true, as the gentleman from Texas suggests, that under 
    the ordinary rules of the House only one motion to recommit would 
    be in order. However, the Committee on Rules, after a very long and 
    thorough consideration of the question before the House, and after 
    what the Chair understands to be a general understanding among 
    those for and against either one of the bills decided in the 
    interest of fairness to propose a rule which permitted two motions 
    to recommit.
        While it has no bearing upon the ruling of the Chair, the Chair 
    feels that every Member of the House, without regard to his 
    position on this or any other bill pending, understood at the time 
    the rule was proposed by the Committee on Rules, that it would 
    enable the House to express its will with reference to these two 
    bills. The rule was adopted unanimously, and it provided, ``That if 
    the instructions in such motion relate to the payment of World War 
    adjusted-service certificates, they shall be in order, any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding.''
        Now, in view of the action of the House in adopting the rule, 
    the Chair thinks, notwithstanding the fact that a vote was taken 
    yesterday on the so called ``Patman bill'' and a motion to 
    reconsider laid on the table, it is in order to recognize a Member 
    to offer the Vinson bill in a motion to recommit, even though it 
    may involve a vote for the second time on the Patman bill.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

    The motion to recommit offered by Mr. Vinson was rejected. The 
Speaker then recognized Mr. Allen T. Treadway, of Massachusetts (a 
Republican and member of the minority), to offer a second motion to 
recommit with instructions, which was likewise rejected.

Separate Votes in House on Amendments Reported From Committee of the 
    Whole

Sec. 26.15 Form of resolution permitting a demand in the House for a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in Committee of 
    the Whole to the bill or committee substitute, where the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute has been read as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 24, 1964: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 732, 110 Cong. Rec. 14897, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That 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. 3881) to authorize the Housing and Home Finance 
    Administrator to provide additional assistance for the development 
    of com

[[Page 4322]]

    prehensive and coordinated mass transportation systems in 
    metropolitan and other urban areas, and for other purposes, and all 
    points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not 
    to exceed four hours, 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 five-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the substitute 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 five 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. After the passage of the bill H.R. 
    3881, it shall be in order in the House to take from the Speaker's 
    table the bill S. 6 and to move to strike out all after the 
    enacting clause of said Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof 
    the provisions contained in H.R. 3881 as passed by the House.

Sec. 26.16 Form of resolution allowing separate vote in House on single 
    section committee amendment in nature of substitute (not read for 
    amendment as original bill).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Sept. 13, 1973: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 29713, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 544

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of Rule XI to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on that State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 9553) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 for 
    one year with regard to the broadcasting of certain professional 
    home games. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall 
    be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of the bill for amendment, 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 amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

[[Page 4323]]

    now printed in the bill. 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. After the passage of H.R. 9553, the Committee 
    on Interstate and Foreign Commerce shall be discharged from the 
    further consideration of the bill S. 1841, and it shall then be in 
    order in the House to move to strike out all after the enacting 
    clause of the said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the 
    provisions contained in H.R. 9553 as passed by the House.

Sec. 26.17 Under a special procedure permitting a demand in the House 
    for a separate vote on an amendment adopted to an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for a bill reported from Committee of the 
    Whole, the Speaker inquires whether a separate vote is demanded 
    before putting the question on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

    On Mar. 8, 1973, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, proceeded as 
follows where a bill had been reported back from the Committee of the 
Whole and where the rule governing the consideration of the bill (H. 
Res. 274) permitted separate votes on amendments adopted in Committee 
of the Whole to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 7138, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the Committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of 
    the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 26.18 Where a special rule permits a separate vote in the House on 
    an amendment to a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    adopted in Committee of the Whole, a Member must make a timely 
    demand for a separate vote before the question is taken on the 
    committee substitute.

    On Sept. 20, 1972, H.R. 15003 (to protect consumers) was reported 
back to the House from the Committee of the Whole, wherein an amendment 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute had been 
agreed to. The bill was being considered under a special order (H. Res. 
1116) permitting a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
in Committee of the Whole. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled that 
a demand for a separate vote on an amendment came too late: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 31409, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4324]]

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of 
    the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana (Mr. Dennis).
        The Speaker: Without objection, the action by which the 
    amendment was agreed to is rescinded.
        Mr. [David W.] Dennis: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
    object, my understanding is that the amendment was agreed to and 
    that the gentleman's request comes too late.
        The Speaker: The Chair was under the impression that no 
    separate vote was demanded and put the question on adoption of the 
    amendment.
        The Chair put as a unanimous consent request, that the action 
    by which the amendment was agreed be rescinded.
        Mr. Dennis: I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Dennis: I object because the amendment has been adopted.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.

Sec. 26.19 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    amended in Committee of the Whole by the adoption of a substitute 
    and is reported to the House under a special procedure permitting a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment, the House is faced with three possible versions of the 
    bill (the substitute, the committee amendment, or the text of the 
    bill as introduced), but amendments reported from Committee of the 
    Whole are not subject to amendment in the House where, pursuant to 
    the resolution under which the bill is being considered, the 
    previous question has been ordered.

    On June 16, 1970, the House was considering House Resolution 1077, 
a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules and called up by Mr. 
William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, providing for the consideration of a 
bill:

                                H. Res. 1077

        Resolved, That 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. 17070) to improve and modernize the postal 
    service, to reorganize the Post Office Department, and for other 
    purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours,

[[Page 4325]]

    to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 
    the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point 
    of order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service now printed in the 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule. It shall also be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the text of the bill H.R. 17966 
    as a substitute for the said committee amendment. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of H.R. 17070 for amendment, 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 amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 
    the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    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.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 19837, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered 
parliamentary inquiries on procedures for voting in the House on 
amendments reported from Committee of the Whole pursuant to the 
provisions of the special order, which made in order the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and also made in order a 
substitute amendment to such amendment

        Mr. [Arnold] Olsen [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I should like to 
    have attention while I make a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Olsen: The parliamentary inquiry is: If the Udall bill is 
    passed by the Committee of the Whole and we go into the House and 
    then the Udall bill is voted down in the House, is it correct that 
    the only thing left we would have would be the original Blount 
    bill, the original H.R. 17070?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In response to the inquiry, the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute would immediately 
    be under consideration. Of course, it would not be subject to 
    amendment.
        Mr. Olsen: That is something I wanted to get straight, that the 
    committee bill as amended would not be subject to amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The previous question having been 
    ordered, it would not be subject to amendment.
        Mr. Olsen: So, Mr. Speaker, Members who have amendments to the 
    committee bill, who want to amend H.R. 17070, should give attention 
    to the fact that they will not have an opportunity to amend it if 
    the Udall substitute is defeated in the House.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 19842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.20 Normally, if the Committee of the Whole perfects

[[Page 4326]]

    a proposition by amendments and then adopts an amendment striking 
    out all after section one of the proposition and inserting a new 
    text [in effect, a substitute for the whole proposition], only the 
    proposition, as amended by the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, is reported to the House: but when the bill is being 
    considered under a special rule permitting a separate vote in the 
    House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the 
    Whole to the bill or the committee substitute, all amendments 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole are reported to the House, 
    regardless of their inconsistency, and the House may vote on an 
    amendment which will be eliminated if the House agrees to the 
    substitute finally adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

    On May 26, 1960, the Committee of the Whole reported to the House a 
bill, where the special order (H. Res. 536) governing the consideration 
of the bill provided that separate votes could be demanded in the House 
on any amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole to the bill or to 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedure of 
demanding and putting separate votes: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 106 Cong. Rec. 11302, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stewart L.] Udall [of Arizona]: I believe that under the 
    rule this is the proper time to demand separate votes on 
    amendments. There are three amendments on which I desire a separate 
    vote.
        The Speaker: It is. The gentleman will state the amendments on 
    which he desires a separate vote.
        Mr. Udall: The Elliott amendment, the Powell amendment, and the 
    Bow amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the first amendment on which 
    a separate vote is demanded.
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bow: The so-called Bow amendment struck out the entire 
    bill. I am wondering whether that would not have the effect of 
    taking out the Elliott amendment and the Powell amendment so that 
    the only vote would be on the Bow amendment.
        The Speaker: That depends.
        Mr. [John James] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Flynt: I would like advice as to whether it would not be 
    proper for the

[[Page 4327]]

    Clerk at this time to read the Bow substitute as adopted by the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: It will be at the proper time. The other 
    amendments will be voted upon first.
        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bailey: The so-called Bow amendment was brought into the 
    picture irregularly in that it was a substitute for another 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: It was an amendment to the committee amendment.
        Mr. Bailey: It was subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: It is not now.
        The Clerk will report the so-called Elliott amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, does not 
    the first vote occur upon a substitute or the Bow amendment?
        The Speaker: It does not. It was an amendment to an amendment.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, what is the first order?
        The Speaker: The first order is the vote on the amendment that 
    the Clerk has just reported.
        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    believe it would be of great interest to the Members of the House 
    to clarify the first amendment, the second amendment, and the third 
    amendment in the order in which they will be taken up.
        The Speaker: Each amendment will be reported when the proper 
    time comes. The first on the list is the Elliott amendment.
        Mr. Barden: Mr. Speaker, what effect will the Bow amendment 
    have on the other amendments that will be voted on?
        The Speaker: If the Bow amendment is agreed to it will strike 
    out the other two amendments.
        Mr. Barden: It strikes out the Elliott amendment and the Powell 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: For further discussion of the three 
amendments, their relation to one another, and the order in which voted 
on in the House. see Sec. 26.22, infra.

Sec. 26.21 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    reported from the Committee of the Whole with various amendments 
    thereto, and, under a rule permitting such procedure, separate 
    votes are demanded in the House on several of the amendments to the 
    substitute amendment, the Chair puts the question first on those 
    amendments on which a separate vote is demanded, then on the 
    amendment, as amended; the Chair does not put the question on the 
    remaining amendments to the amendment but proceeds immediately to 
    the vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 4328]]

    On Oct. 6, 1966, the Committee of the Whole reported back to the 
House a bill, where the special order (H. Res. 1025) under which the 
bill was being considered permitted separate votes in the House on any 
amendment adopted to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The Committee of the Whole had adopted the 
committee amendment with amendments. The following procedure took place 
in the House when separate votes were demanded: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 25585-87, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (8) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the Fountain amendment which appears on page 63 of 
    the bill, after line 9.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Paul A.] Fino [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the O'Hara amendment, the antibusing amendment. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: It is the Chair's recollection that the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] offered one amendment covering four 
    sections of the bill. Later he offered another, intended to cover 
    the fifth section. . . .
        Does the gentleman from New York demand a separate vote on both 
    of the amendments?
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, I do, to eliminate any confusion.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the two amendments on which the gentleman from New York has 
    asked for a separate vote be voted en bloc.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan?

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        If not, the Clerk will report the first amendment on which a 
    separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read [the Fountain amendment] as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
    and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 221, nays 116, not 
    voting 95, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the so-called O'Hara 
    amendments on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendments.
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, on this vote I demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: Members in favor of taking this vote by the yeas 
    and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. [After 
    counting.] Fifty-six Members have arisen, not a sufficient number.

[[Page 4329]]

        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker appointed Mr. O'Hara of 
    Michigan and Mr. Fino as tellers.
        The House divided, and the tellers reported that there were--
    ayes 263, noes 5.
        So the amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The Speaker: 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.

Sec. 26.22 Where the Committee of the Whole had agreed to (1) an 
    amendment to section 4 of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, (2) then an amendment to section 6, (3) then an 
    amendment striking out all after section 1 and inserting new text, 
    and (4) then to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended, the amendments were voted on in the House, 
    under a special rule permitting separate votes on any, amendments 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole to either the bill or the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, in the order in 
    which adopted thus following the rule that an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is always perfected before a vote is taken 
    on a substitute amendment therefor.

    On May 26, 1960, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
10128 (to authorize assistance for school construction) pursuant to a 
special order (H. Res. 536) providing that the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute be read as an original bill for amendment, 
and allowing a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. In Committee of the Whole, four amendments were adopted 
in the following order: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282-302, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [To Sec. 4 of the committee amendments]

        Mr. [Carl A.] Elliott of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Elliott of Alabama: Page 13, 
        strike out lines 5 through 12, and insert the following: . . .

        Mr. Elliott of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

[[Page 4330]]

        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Elliott of Alabama and Mr. Kearns.
        The Committee again divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 130, noes 112.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

    [To Sec. 6 of the committee amendment]

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Powell: Page 18, line 4, after 
        section 6(a) insert:
            ``7. The school facilities constructed with the assistance 
        of payments received under this act shall be available to 
        students without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, 
        or religion, in accordance with the decisions of the United 
        States Supreme Court.''. . .

        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Powell) there were--ayes 126, noes 108.
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Powell and Mr. Thompson of New Jersey.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 151, noes 103.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

    [Substitute striking all after title of committee amendment]

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bow of Ohio: On page 11, line 20, 
        after ``Sec. 2.'' strike out all after section 1 and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``(a) The Congress hereby finds and declares that 
        responsibility for and control over education is one of the 
        powers not delegated to the United States but reserved to the 
        States or to the people under the tenth amendment to the 
        Constitution.
            ``(b) The Congress hereby reaffirms and reenacts a portion 
        of Article III of the Ordinance of 1787, adopted by the 
        Confederation Congress, July 13, 1787, as follows: `Religion, 
        morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and 
        the happiness of mankind schools and the means of education 
        shall forever be encouraged.'
            ``(c) The Congress further finds that continued 
        encouragement of the means of education requires the 
        strengthening of State governments.
            ``Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 
        out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
        for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1960, and for each fiscal 
        year thereafter, to each State, to be used by such State for 
        construction of public schools, an amount equal to 25 per 
        centum of the Federal tax on cigarettes (computed as provided 
        in this Act) collected on cigarettes sold within such State 
        during the preceding fiscal year.
            ``(b) For the purpose of determining the amount authorized 
        to be appropriated for payments under the provisions of this 
        section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall estimate the 
        number of cigarettes sold in each State in each fiscal year on 
        the basis of such statistics as may be available.

[[Page 4331]]

            ``(c) For the purposes of this section the term `State' 
        includes the District of Columbia.''. . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided.
        The Chairman: On this vote by a division the ayes are 121, and 
    the noes 121. The Chair votes no, so the noes are 122.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Bow and Mr. Roosevelt.
        The Committee again divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 154, noes 129.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

    [Committee amendment as amended]

        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment as 
    amended.
        The committee amendment as amended was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule the Committee rises.

    When the Committee rose and reported the bill back to the House 
with amendments adopted in Committee of the Whole, Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedure for voting 
on amendments adopted to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 11302, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stewart L.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Udall: I believe that under the rule this is the proper 
    time to demand separate votes on amendments. There are three 
    amendments on which I desire a separate vote.
        The Speaker: It is. The gentleman will state the amendments on 
    which he desires a separate vote.
        Mr. Udall: The Elliott amendment, the Powell amendment, and the 
    Bow amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the first amendment on which 
    a separate vote is demanded.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bow: The so-called Bow amendment struck out the entire 
    bill. I am wondering whether that would not have the effect of 
    taking out the Elliott amendment and the Powell amendment so that 
    the only vote would be on the Bow amendment.
        The Speaker: That depends.
        Mr. [John James] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Flynt: I would like advice as to whether it would not be 
    proper for the Clerk at this time to read the Bow substitute as 
    adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: It will be at the proper time. The other 
    amendments will be voted upon first.

[[Page 4332]]

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bailey: The so-called Bow amendment was brought into the 
    picture irregularly in that it was a substitute for another 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: It was an amendment to the committee amendment.
        Mr. Bailey: It was subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: It is not now.
        The Clerk will report the so-called Elliott amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, does not the first vote occur upon a 
    substitute or the Bow amendment?
        The Speaker: It does not. It was an amendment to an amendment.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, what is the first order?
        The Speaker: The first order is the vote on the amendment that 
    the Clerk has just reported.
        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    believe it would be of great interest to the Members of the House 
    to clarify the first amendment, the second amendment, and the third 
    amendment in the order in which they will be taken up.
        The Speaker: Each amendment will be reported when the proper 
    time comes. The first on the list is the Elliott amendment.
        Mr. Barden: Mr. Speaker, what effect will the Bow amendment 
    have on the other amendments that will be voted on?
        The Speaker: If the Bow amendment is agreed to it will strike 
    out the other two amendments.
        Mr. Barden: It strikes out the Elliott amendment and the Powell 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

    The House rejected the Elliott amendment, adopted the Powell 
amendment, and rejected the Bow amendment.(12)