[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[E. Motions to Refer or Recommit]
[Â§ 29. Time for Motion]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4684-4689]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 29. Time for Motion

After Engrossment and Third Reading.

Sec. 29.1 The motion to recommit is not in order until the bill

[[Page 4685]]

    has been engrossed and read a third time.

    On June 12, 1961,(20) the House was considering H.R. 
7053, relating to the admission of certain evidence in the courts of 
the District of Columbia. Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, rose with 
a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 10080, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Multer: Mr. Speaker, at what point is a motion to recommit 
    in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Prior to the passage of 
    the bill and after the third reading.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
 2. See also 105 Cong. Rec. 10561, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1959; 
        96 Cong. Rec. 2254, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1950; and 84 
        Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., May 15, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.2 Further consideration of a general appropriation bill having 
    been postponed to a day certain by unanimous consent following 
    engrossment and third reading of the bill, a motion to recommit the 
    bill is in order when consideration resumes on the subsequent day.

    On Apr. 17, 1973,(3) the House having considered H.R. 
6691, making appropriations for the legislative branch for fiscal 1974, 
ordered that the bill be engrossed and read a third time, and then 
postponed further consideration thereof until the next day. On Apr. 
18,(4) the Speaker (5) made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 12792, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Id. at p. 13079.
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business is the question on the passage of the 
    bill (H.R. 6691) making appropriations for the legislative branch 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for the other 
    purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Alphonzo] Bell [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Bell: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

Pending Concurrence With Recommendation That Enacting Clause Be 
    Stricken

Sec. 29.3 Whenever a bill is reported to the House by the Committee of 
    the Whole with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken out, pending the question of concurrence, a motion to 
    recommit the bill to a committee is in order.

    On Mar. 24, 1949,(6) the Committee of the Whole having 
had
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 3110-15, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4686]]

under consideration H.R. 2681, to provide pensions for the veterans of 
World War I and World War II, reported the bill back to the House with 
the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. As the 
Speaker pro tempore, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that 
the question would be on that recommendation, Mr. Olin Teague, of 
Texas, and Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, both members of the 
majority party, rose:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the recommendation 
    of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union that 
    the enacting clause be stricken out.
        Mr. Teague rose.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Texas rise?
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: I make the point of order that, according to the 
    rules of the House, the vote comes now on the motion to strike out 
    the enacting clause. I looked into the matter carefully last night.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In this particular legislative 
    situation the motion to recommit is in order under clause 7 of rule 
    23.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Teague]. . . 
    .
        Mr. Teague: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: The gentleman from Texas to qualify to offer a 
    motion to recommit must announce that he is opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Texas opposed to 
    the bill?
        Mr. Teague: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill as now 
    written.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk 
    will report the motion to recommit.

After Ordering of Previous Question

Sec. 29.4 A motion to recommit a resolution is properly made after the 
    previous question on that resolution is ordered.

    On Sept. 17, 1965,(7) the House was considering House 
Resolution 585, dismissing five Mississippi election contests. After 
the previous question was ordered, the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that the question would be on the resolution as 
amended. Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of California, rose with a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 24291, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gubser: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4687]]

        Mr. Gubser: Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer a motion to 
    recommit. Will the Chair please advise when that will be in order?
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Gubser: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman now is the 
    appropriate time.

After Yeas and Nays Ordered

Sec. 29.5 Where the yeas and nays had been ordered on the passage of a 
    bill, it was held to be too late to offer a motion to recommit.

    On June 27, 1935,(8) the House was considering H.R. 
8555, the merchant marine bill. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
put the question on the passage of the bill, and the following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 10288, 10289, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
        Mr. [Ralph O.] Brewster [of Maine]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Maine 
    rise?
        Mr. Brewster: To propound a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brewster: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of order. The Clerk had already begun the calling of the roll 
    and had called the first name, ``Allen.'' I make the point of order 
    the gentleman from Maine cannot interrupt the roll call.
        The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order. The 
    gentleman from Maine is entitled to propound a legitimate 
    parliamentary inquiry, and the Chair presumes that the inquiry 
    propounded is a proper one. The gentleman from Maine will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Brewster: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that a motion to 
    recommit cannot be submitted at this stage?
        The Speaker: Such a motion is not in order at this time.

After Announcing Result of Vote

Sec. 29.6 A motion to recommit comes too late when the Chair has put 
    the question on passage and has announced the apparent result of 
    the vote.

    On Dec. 11, 1969,(9) the House was considering H.R. 
4249, extending portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 38536, 38537, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) The question is on the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.

[[Page 4688]]

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry: has a motion to recommit been made?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that a motion to recommit 
    comes too late at this stage. The Chair has already put the 
    question on the passage of the bill and announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.

Recommittal of Conference Report

Sec. 29.7 A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order 
    unless the previous question has been ordered on the conference 
    report.

    On Dec. 15, 1970,(11) the House was considering H.R. 
17755, Department of Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1971. 
Pending the ordering of the previous question on the conference report 
on H.R. 17755, Mr. Sidney Yates, of Illinois, was recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 41502, 41503, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, as I understand, in order to have 
    specific instructions given to the conferees it is necessary that 
    the previous question be voted down; is that correct? I mean on the 
    motion to recommit?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Illinois is in error. The previous question on the 
    conference report has to be ordered before there can be a motion to 
    recommit.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 25663, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 30, 
        1965; 109 Cong. Rec. 25409, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 
        1963; and 101 Cong. Rec. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 
        1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.8 A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order when 
    the other House has, by acting on the report, discharged its 
    managers.

    On June 5, 1968,(14) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 11308, amending the National Foundation of 
Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 16058, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the conference report.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [William J.] Scherle [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman will 
    state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the motion to recommit on the ground that the other 
    body has already acted.

[[Page 4689]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is 
    sustained.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 109th Cong. Rec. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 
        1963; 107 Cong. Rec. 5288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 29, 1961; 
        102 Cong. Rec. 13755, 13764, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 
        1956; and 89 Cong. Rec. 7135, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 3, 
        1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------