[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[E. Motions to Refer or Recommit]
[Â§ 30. Debating the Motion]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4689-4693]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 30. Debating the Motion

Time for Debate

Sec. 30.1 Pursuant to Rule XVI clause 4, five minutes of debate in 
    favor of and five minutes in opposition to a motion to recommit 
    with instructions are in order notwithstanding the ordering of the 
    previous question on a bill or joint resolution to final passage.

    On July 19, 1973,(17) the House was considering H.R. 
8860, to amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970. After the 
previous question was ordered on the bill, Mr. Charles M. Teague, of 
California, was recognized:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 24966, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Teague of California: Mr. Speaker I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: (18) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Teague of California: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. . . 
    .
        Under the rule the gentleman from California is recognized for 
    5 min- 
    utes. . . .
        Does the gentleman from Texas desire to rise in opposition to 
    the motion to recommit?
        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: I do, Mr. 
    Speaker.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 13079, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 18, 1973; 
        118 Cong. Rec. 3451-53, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 9, 1972; and 
        117 Cong. Rec. 34345-47, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 30, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XVI clause 4 was amended by the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 [84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 91-
510, Sec. 123 (Oct. 26, 1970)] to provide that 10 minutes of debate 
shall always be in order on a motion to recommit with instructions 
after the previous question is ordered on the passage of a bill or 
joint resolution. This change became effective on Jan. 22, 1971 (H. 
Res. 5, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.).

Yielding to Another Member After Debate

Sec. 30.2 The Member offering a motion to recommit a bill with 
    instructions may, at the conclusion of debate thereon, yield to 
    another Member to

[[Page 4690]]

    offer an amendment to the motion if the previous question has not 
    been ordered on that motion.

    On July 19, 1973,(20) Mr. Charles M. Teague, of 
California, offered a motion to recommit the bill H.R. 8860, to amend 
and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970. After Mr. Teague had debated 
his motion for five minutes, William R. Poage, of Texas, the chairman 
of the committee that reported the bill, was recognized in opposition 
to the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 24966, 24967, 93d Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (1) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to rise in opposition to the motion to recommit?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    distinguished chairman of the committee yield for an amendment to 
    the motion to recommit?
        Mr. Poage: Certainly I will yield, but I would like to hear the 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is not in order. The gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Teague) has control of the motion to recommit and 
    can yield for that purpose if he desires to do so.
        The gentleman from Texas now has the floor.
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I will not yield for a pig in a poke. I 
    want to know what the gentleman is proposing.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot yield for that purpose. The 
    gentleman from California can yield for that purpose. . . .
        The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I do not 
    believe the gentleman from California can yield for this purpose 
    without getting unanimous consent.
        The Speaker: The gentleman can yield for the purpose of an 
    amendment, since he has the floor.
        Mr. Teague of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
    distinguished minority leader for the purpose of offering an 
    amendment.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Moss: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the time of 
    the gentleman from California had expired.
        The Speaker: That does not keep him from yielding.
        Mr. Moss: He has not got the floor.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California has the right to 
    yield for an amendment, since he still has the floor as the 
    previous question has not been ordered on the motion to recommit.

Challenging Motion After Debate

Sec. 30.3 A point of order that a motion to recommit a bill

[[Page 4691]]

    with instructions is not germane to the bill comes too late after 
    the proponent of the motion has been recognized for five minutes of 
    debate and has yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.

    On June 2, 1971,(2) the House was considering H.R. 3613, 
the Public Service Employment Act. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
then recognized Mr. Marvin L. Esch, of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 17491-95, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Esch: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Esch: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

    The Clerk then read Mr. Esch's motion to recommit the bill with 
instructions to report it back forthwith with an amendment.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. [James. G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?

        Mr. Esch: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan for a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if this is the 
    exact text of H.R. 8141 that was made in order by the amendment to 
    the rule.
        Mr. Esch: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. O'Hara: Then I would like to inquire of the Speaker, if the 
    fact that an amendment was made in order, a particular amendment 
    otherwise not germane, was made in order under the 5-minute rule, 
    by provisions of the resolution from the Committee on Rules, would 
    that make the same nongermane amendment in order as a motion to 
    recommit with instructions?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) has been 
    recognized on his motion to recommit with instructions. Any 
    challenge to the motion would now come too late.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) may continue to debate 
    his motion to recommit with instructions.

Rights of Member Recognized in Opposition

Sec. 30.4 A Member recognized for five minutes in opposition to a 
    motion to recommit with instructions controls the floor for debate 
    only, and may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment to 
    the motion to recommit.

    On July 19, 1973,(3) Mr. Charles M. Teague, of 
California, had offered a motion to recommit the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 24967, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4692]]

bill H.R. 8860, to amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970, to 
the Committee on Agriculture. After five minutes of debate, the 
Speaker, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, addressed William R. Poage, of 
Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture:

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to rise in 
    opposition to the motion to recommit?
        Mr. Poage: I do, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    distinguished chairman of the committee yield for an amendment to 
    the motion to recommit?
        Mr. Poage: Certainly I will yield, but I would like to hear the 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is not in order. The gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Teague) has control of the motion to recommit and 
    can yield for that purpose if he desires to do so.
        The gentleman from Texas now has the floor.
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I will not yield for a pig in a poke. I 
    want to know what the gentleman is proposing.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot yield for that purpose. The 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Teague) can yield for that purpose. 
    . . .
        The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

Debate on Recommittal of Simple Resolution

Sec. 30.5 The provisions of Rule XVI clause 4, which make in order 10 
    minutes of debate on a motion to recommit with instructions, after 
    the previous question has been ordered on a measure, apply only to 
    bills and joint resolutions; debate is not in order on a motion 
    under Rule XVII clause 1, to recommit a simple resolution with 
    instructions after the previous question has been ordered.

    On Nov. 15, 1973,(4) the House was considering House 
Resolution 702, providing additional funds for investigations by the 
Committee on the Judiciary. After the previous question was ordered on 
the resolution, Mr. William L. Dickinson, of Alabama, was recognized:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 37150, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (5) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

    After the Clerk read the motion to recommit, the Speaker stated:

        Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 4693]]

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, am I not entitled to five minutes 
    as the member offering this motion to recommit?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that that 
    procedure is not applicable on a motion to recommit a simple 
    resolution.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, is that also true when there are 
    instructions in the motion to recommit?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    procedure permitting 10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit 
    with instructions only applies to bills and joint resolutions.

Motion to Recommit Conference Report With Instructions

Sec. 30.6 When the previous question on agreeing to a conference report 
    has been ordered, a motion to recommit is not debatable.

    On Sept. 27 (a continuation of the legislative day of Sept. 25), 
1961,(6) the House had just ordered the previous question on 
the conference report on H.R. 9169, providing supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal 1962. Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, 
was recognized and offered a motion to recommit the conference report 
with instructions that the House conferees insist on their disagreement 
to a particular Senate amendment. After the Clerk reported the motion 
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 21524, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Is the motion debatable?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not debatable.