[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[E. Motions to Refer or Recommit]
[Â§ 32. Motions to Recommit With Instructions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4694-4716]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 32. Motions to Recommit With Instructions

Precedence

Sec. 32.1 The motion to recommit with instructions does not take 
    precedence over a straight motion to recommit.

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(12) the House was considering H.R. 
19504, the Federal Aid Highway Act. Both Mr. Frederick Schwengel, of 
Iowa, and Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, of Virginia, sought to offer motions to 
recommit. Mr. Brock Adams, of Washington, was then recognized to 
propound a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12. 116 Cong. Rec. 38997, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, would a specific motion to recommit 
    with instructions have priority over a general motion to recommit? 
    Did the gen

[[Page 4695]]

    tleman from Virginia announce that his motion was a general motion 
    to recommit?

        It is my understanding that the motion to recommit by the 
    gentleman from Iowa is a motion to recommit with instructions and, 
    therefore, has priority.
        The Speaker:(13) The Chair will state in response to 
    the parliamentary inquiry that a motion to recommit with 
    instructions does not have priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        It is my understanding that under the rules, a motion to 
    recommit with instructions is a motion that, if not described by 
    the word ``priority'' is entitled to prior recognition by the Chair 
    because a motion with specific instructions is entitled to 
    recognition over a general motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that a motion to recommit 
    with instructions does not have priority over a straight motion to 
    recommit.

Amendment to Motion to Recommit

Sec. 32.2 A motion to recommit with instructions is subject to 
    amendment if the previous question is voted down.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(14) the House was considering H.R. 
14000, the military procurement authorizations for fiscal year 1970. 
After Mr. Alvin E. O'Konski, of Wisconsin, moved to recommit the bill 
to the Committee on Armed Services with certain instructions, Mr. 
Donald M. Fraser, of Minnesota, rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 28487, 28488, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in order to be able to amend the 
    pending motion to recommit, is it necessary that the previous 
    question be voted down?
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair will state the answer to 
    the question is ``yes.''(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 12262, 12263, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 8, 
        1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.3 Parliamentarian's Note: The House may reject the previous 
    question on a straight motion to recommit, and then amend the 
    motion to include instructions to reinsert in the bill any germane 
    amendment, including amendments adopted in the Committee of the 
    Whole but rejected in the House.

Sec. 32.4 If the previous question is voted down on a motion to 
    recommit, a Member offering an amendment to the motion does not 
    necessarily have to qualify as being opposed to the bill.

    On June 26, 1968,(17) the House was considering H.R. 
18037, ap
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 18940, 18941, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4696]]

propriations for Labor and HEW for fiscal 1969. Mr. Robert H. Michel, 
of Illinois, offered a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
Appropriations with certain instructions. Mr. Michel then propounded a 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Michel: Is it not also true that for one to qualify to 
    amend a motion to recommit, one would also have to be opposed to 
    the bill?
        The Speaker: (18) At that stage, should it develop, 
    not necessarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.5 An amendment incorporated in a motion to recommit with 
    instructions must be germane to the bill to which the amendment is 
    proposed.

    On June 18, 1957,(19) the House was considering H.R. 
6127, to provide the means of further securing and protecting the civil 
rights of persons within the United States. Mr. Richard H. Poff, of 
Virginia, offered a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the 
Judiciary with certain instructions, and Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New 
York, rose with a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 9516, 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    wording of the motion to recommit is not germane to the bill. We 
    have already debated the germaneness of the wording of this motion 
    in Committee of the Whole. But, I have this additional observation 
    to make, which was not made, as I recall, during the debate, 
    namely, that this proposed amendment is to the act, where as it is 
    inserted as an amendment to a section of the act. It is sought to 
    insert this in part III of the bill only at page 10, line 5, but it 
    purports to be an amendment to the entire act. We had a similar 
    situation presented in the Committee in the consideration of this 
    matter and the Chair ruled in Committee that because the wording 
    was an amendment to the section, but was worded as an amendment to 
    the act, that it was not germane. I urge that if the amendment were 
    to the act, as it purports to be, it would have to be at some other 
    point in the bill and could not be an amendment to the act in the 
    middle of one of the sections of the act.
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This same question was raised in the Committee of the Whole on 
    the same amendment. The very capable gentleman from Rhode Island 
    [Mr. Forand] Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, overruled the 
    point of order after having heard all the debate. The present 
    occupant of the Chair, having read all of the debate and having 
    heard most of it, reaffirms the decision of the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole in the consideration of the bill and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Sec. 32.6 The Speaker indicated that an amendment accom

[[Page 4697]]

    panying a motion to recommit a bill would have to follow the form 
    of the bill as reflected by the engrossed copy.

    On Mar. 22, 1949,(1) the House was considering H.R. 
1437, the Army and Air Force Act of 1949. Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, 
asked unanimous consent that the third reading of the bill be dispensed 
with, when Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, reserving the right to 
object, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 2936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if the pending unanimous-consent 
    request is granted and a motion to recommit is offered with an 
    amendment, does the amendment have to follow the lines of the 
    engrossed copy?
        The Speaker: (2) It should. Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 32.7 An amendment in the form of a limitation to an appropriations 
    bill, contained in a motion to recommit with instructions, 
    providing that no funds were to be used for the purchase of certain 
    foreign agricultural products, was held in order under Rule XXI 
    clause 2.

    On May 19, 1939,(3) the House was considering H.R. 6392, 
state, justice, judiciary, and commerce appropriations for 1940. Mr. 
Charles Hawks, Jr., of Wisconsin, offered the following motion to 
recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 5856, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hawks moves to recommit the bill to the committee with 
    instructions to report it back forthwith with the following 
    amendment: At the end of the bill insert a new paragraph, as 
    follows:

            No part of the funds appropriated in this bill shall be 
        used for the purpose of purchasing any foreign dairy or other 
        competitive foreign agricultural products. . . .

        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the motion to recommit is not in order in that it is an 
    attempt to place legislation in an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, it 
    is a limitation on appropriations.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from South Carolina.
        The point of order has been made that the motion to recommit is 
    not in order because of the fact that it sets up matters of 
    legislation in an appropriation bill. The Chair has tried carefully

[[Page 4698]]

    to read the provisions of the motion. On a fair reading and 
    construction of the whole motion it appears that there is nothing 
    affirmative in the motion in the way of legislation. It appears to 
    the Chair on the whole to be a restriction or a limitation upon the 
    expenditure of funds.

Sec. 32.8 A motion to recommit a bill reported by the Committee on 
    House Administration, making unlawful the requirement of the 
    payment of a poll tax, with instructions to report it back in the 
    form of a joint resolution amending the Constitution to accomplish 
    the purpose of the bill was held not germane inasmuch as a 
    constitutional amendment involving the question would lie within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On July 26, 1949,(5) the House was considering H.R. 
3199, the antipoll tax bill. After the bill was read for a period of 
time, Mr. Robert Hale, of Maine, offered a motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 10247, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hale moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3199 to the 
        Committee on House Administration with directions that they 
        report the legislation back to the House in the form of a joint 
        resolution amending the Constitution to make illegal payment of 
        poll taxes as a qualification of voting. . . .

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: I make the point of order 
    that the language which is carried in the motion to recommit is not 
    germane to the bill. The motion calls for a constitutional 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: (6) The Chair is inclined to agree with 
    the gentleman for the simple reason that a constitutional amendment 
    involving this question would lie within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary and not within the Committee on House 
    Administration. The Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timeliness of Point of Order

Sec. 32.9 A point of order that a motion to recommit 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 in the 
    House, and has yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.

    On June 2, 1971,(7) the House was considering H.R. 3613, 
a manpower and revenue-sharing bill. Mr. Marvin L. Esch, of Michigan, 
offered a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Education and 
Labor with certain instructions, and was recognized for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 17491-95, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4699]]

five minutes of debate thereon. At this point, Mr. James G. O'Hara, of 
Michigan, interrupted Mr. Esch with a parliamentary inquiry:

        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 non-germane amendment in order as a motion to 
    recommit with instructions?
        The Speaker: (8) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Esch] may continue to debate 
    his motion to recommit with instructions.

Instructions to House Committees

Sec. 32.10 The House may, through use of the motion to recommit, 
    instruct one of its committees to take certain actions.

    On Aug. 22, 1966,(9) the House was considering H.R. 
16340, prohibiting picketing within 500 feet of any church in the 
District of Columbia. Mr. Don Edwards, of California, offered a motion 
to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 20119, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Clerk will report 
    the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Edwards of California moves to recommit H.R. 16340 to 
        the District of Columbia Committee with instructions to hold 
        public hearings and to request a report of the Department of 
        Justice and the testimony of the Attorney General.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:  Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the motion to recommit. We cannot tell a committee 
    who to call as witnesses and what kind of hearings to hold.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House has authority to instruct 
    the committee. The motion is in order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 28036, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970; 
        and 114 Cong. Rec. 6270, 6275, 6276, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 
        13, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.11 The House rejected a motion to recommit a resolution of the 
    Committee on Un-American Activities to a select committee with 
    instructions to examine the sufficiency of the contempt citation 
    and report back to the House.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution

[[Page 4700]]

1060, relating to the refusal of Milton M. Cohen to testify before the 
Committee on Un-American Activities. Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of 
Massachusetts, offered a motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 27484, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves to recommit the resolution of the Committee 
        on Un-American Activities to a select committee of seven 
        Members to be appointed by the Speaker with instructions to 
        examine the sufficiency of the contempt citations under 
        existing rules of law and relevant judicial decisions and 
        thereafter to report it back to the House, while Congress is in 
        session, or, when Congress is not in session, to the Speaker of 
        the House, with a statement of its findings.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to recommit. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 90, nays 181, not 
    voting 161.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also 112 Cong. Rec. 1742-63, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 2, 1966; 
        H. Rept. No. 1241 and H. Res. 699, contempt proceedings against 
        Robert M. Shelton of the Ku Klux Klan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conditional Instructions

Sec. 32.12 A motion to recommit a bill to the Committee on Public 
    Works, with instructions not to report back to the House until 
    final plans for construction became available, was rejected by the 
    House.

    On Mar. 5, 1970,(15) the House was considering S. 2910, 
providing additional authorization for the Madison Memorial building. 
The Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Marion 
G. Snyder, of Kentucky, to offer a motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 6191, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Snyder moves to recommit the bill S. 2910 to the 
        Committee on Public Works with the instruction that it not be 
        reported back to the House until all necessary designs, plans, 
        and specifications have been completed. . . .

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 149, nays 197, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 83.

Rulings as to Propriety of Motion

Sec. 32.13 Parliamentarian's Note: It is the responsibility of the 
    Speaker, not the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, to rule 
    upon the propriety of a motion to recommit with instructions.

Raising Points of Order

Sec. 32.14 Where a motion to recommit with instructions is

[[Page 4701]]

    ruled out on a point of order, a further motion to recommit may be 
    offered.

    On Mar. 2, 1967,(16) the House was considering H.R. 
4515, supplemental military authorizations for fiscal 1967. After Mr. 
Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, offered a motion to recommit the bill 
with instructions, Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, rose with a 
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 5156, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    instructions contained in the motion to recommit are not germane to 
    the bill under consideration. Therefore, they are not in order and 
    are not germane to the matter under consideration.
        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman from South Carolina 
    [Mr. Rivers] makes the point of order that the motion to recommit 
    contains provisions that are not germane to the bill presently 
    under consideration. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        It is evident to the Chair that the amendment--or at least 
    portions thereof--are not germane as they involve different 
    subjects than the field covered by the pending bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.
        The question is on the passage of the bill.

                             Motion To Recommit

        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.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 94 Cong. Rec. 5007, 5008, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 28, 
        1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.15 A point of order against a motion to recommit with an 
    instruction was made prior to completion of the reading thereof, 
    the same proposition having been ruled out as not germane when 
    offered as an amendment in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Mar. 2, 1967,(19) the House was considering H.R. 
4515, supplemental military authorizations for fiscal 1967. After Mr. 
Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, offered a motion to recommit the bill 
with certain instructions, Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, 
interrupted the reading of the motion to make a point of order. Mr. 
Reuss spoke in defense of his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 5156, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    [Mr. Reuss] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4702]]

        Mr. Reuss: Mr. Speaker, I shall appreciate proceeding briefly 
    in opposition to the point of order that the amendment is not 
    germane.
        Mr. Speaker, the amendment contained in the motion to recommit 
    is precisely the amendment which I offered earlier. It was ruled 
    not germane by the able and respected Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union, the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski]. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves thus in the position of having 
    two precedents on both sides of the question, which is not an 
    unprecedented matter in the history of precedents. It is a matter 
    analogous to where there is disagreement in the circuit courts of 
    appeals, thus requiring the Supreme Court to rule to resolve the 
    dispute.
        Accordingly, I hope and trust that the Speaker will rule that 
    the motion to recommit, and the amendment contained in it, is 
    germane, and thus that this body may vote on this important 
    question of war and peace.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        It is evident to the Chair that the amendment--or at least 
    portions thereof--are not germane as they involve different 
    subjects than the field covered by the pending bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.
        The question is on the passage of the bill.

 Instructions to Report Back With Amendment

Sec. 32.16 The House recommitted a joint resolution to the Committee on 
    Education and Labor with instructions that the preamble and body be 
    reported back forthwith with an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

    On Feb. 9, 1972,(1) the House was considering House 
Joint Resolution 1025, providing a procedure for settlement of a 
dispute on the Pacific Coast among certain shippers and employees. Mr. 
Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota, offered the following motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 3451-53, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Quie moves to recommit House Joint Resolution 1025 to the 
    Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to that 
    committee to report it back to the House forthwith with the 
    following amendment: Strike out all after title of the joint 
    resolution and insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .

    The motion to recommit then provided an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute for the joint resolution.

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the motion to recommit.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (2) The question is on the motion to 
    recommit. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion to recommit was agreed to.

[[Page 4703]]

Instructions Modifying Previously Adopted Amendment

Sec. 32.17 Absent a special rule, a motion to recommit may not include 
    instructions to modify an amendment previously agreed to by the 
    House.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(3) the House was considering House 
Resolution 221, authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Un-
American Activities. Mr. John Ashbrook, of Ohio, offered a motion to 
recommit the resolution with instructions and Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of 
Ohio, rose with a point of order against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 8441, 8442, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to recommit the resolution (H. Res. 
        221)to the Committee on House Administration with instructions 
        to report the resolution forthwith with the following 
        amendment: On page 1, line 5, strike out ``$350,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$400,000.''

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: (4) For what purpose does the gentleman 
    rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion to recommit on the grounds that the House has just adopted 
    the committee amendment to cut the amount from $400,000 to 
    $350,000. The gentleman now offers a motion to recommit to restore 
    it from the $350,000 to $400,000 and it is clearly out of order.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashbrook] desire 
    to be heard?
        Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that we voted to order the 
    previous question on the amendments and the motion to recommit, in 
    my opinion, would be a proper motion to recommit. I hope that the 
    Chair will so hold.
        The Speaker: The Chair will call attention to that fact that 
    the previous question was ordered and the amendments were adopted 
    by the House.
        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.
        An amendment to strike out an amendment already adopted is not 
    in order. The subject matter of the motion to recommit has already 
    been passed upon by the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  See also 111 Cong. Rec. 2914, 2917, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 17, 
        1965; 103 Cong. Rec. 12471, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 23, 
        1957; and 95 Cong. Rec. 5597, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 
        1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.18 A motion to recommit an appropriation bill to a committee 
    with instructions to reduce the amount of the appropriation by a 
    certain amount is in order, but, absent a special rule, the com

[[Page 4704]]

    mittee may not report the bill back to the House with an amendment 
    proposing a change in the amendments adopted by the House.

    On May 15, 1939,(6) the House was considering H.R. 6260, 
providing appropriations for certain civil functions administration by 
the War Department. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized 
Mr. D. Lane Powers, of New Jersey, to offer a motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powers moves to recommit the bill to the Committee of 
    Appropriations with instructions to report the same back forthwith 
    with amendments reducing the total amount of the bill $50,000,000.
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the motion to recommit undertakes to do 
    indirectly what cannot be done directly.
        The amount carried in this bill, with these amendments, totals 
    $305,000,000. Part of it is for the Panama Canal, part for 
    cemeterial expense, part for the Signal Corps and Alaskan 
    Communications Commission, part for rivers and harbors, part for 
    flood control, and part for the United States Soldiers' Home. Of 
    the amount of $305,000,000, $277,000,000 is for rivers and harbors 
    and flood control, leaving only $28,000,000 for all of these other 
    governmental activities. A reduction of $50,000,000 would take away 
    a large part of the money carried in the two amendments voted in 
    the House last Wednesday. A motion to recommit to do this cannot be 
    done. This motion to recommit attempts to do indirectly what cannot 
    be done directly. It proposes a second vote on the same 
    propositions that were voted on last Wednesday; therefore is 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair may state, in connection with the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi, that the Chair 
    understands the purpose of the motion to recommit, one motion to 
    recomit always being in order after the third reading, is to give 
    those Members opposed to the bill an opportunity to have an 
    expression of opinion by the House upon their proposition. It is 
    true that under the precedents it is not in order by way of a 
    motion to recommit to propose an amendment to an amendment 
    previously adopted by the House, but the motion now pending does 
    not specifically propose to instruct the Committee on 
    Appropriations to do that. The Chair is inclined to the opinion 
    that the motion to recommit in the form here presented is not 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
        The Chair understands the rule to be that the House can adopt a 
    motion to recommit with instructions to reduce the amount of the 
    appropriation by $50,000,000, but the committee, if this motion 
    should be adopted, could not report the bill back to the House with 
    an amendment proposing a change in the amendments adopted by the 
    House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to such instructions, the Com

[[Page 4705]]

mittee on Appropriations would not necessarily be forced to recommend 
specific reductions in line item appropriations, but could report an 
amendment directing an overall reduction of funds in the bill in some 
manner.

Sec. 32.19 Where a special rule permitted two motions to recommit and 
    made 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 previously 
    agreed to by the House.

    On Mar. 22, 1935,(7) the House was considering H.R. 
3896, relating to the payment of adjusted service certificates from 
World War I. Mr. Fred M. Vinson, of Kentucky, was recognized to offer a 
motion to recommit the bill with instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 4309-11, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

    After the Clerk reported the motion to recommit, Mr. Thomas L. 
Blanton, of Texas, raised a point of order against the motion.

        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose only of getting a 
    ruling from the Chair on the existing parliamentary situation, 
    which is novel in that there has never been a precedent like it 
    before in the whole history of this House, I make the point of 
    order that even though the rule provides for two motions to 
    recommit, they are under and governed by the general rules of the 
    House except insofar as the special rule itself changes the general 
    rules. The rules and precedents of the House provide that where a 
    matter has been voted upon and adopted, not only in the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union but also in the House 
    itself after the bill comes back from the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union to the House, and the House votes 
    on such substantive proposition in the bill and registers its 
    decision on that proposition, and motion is duly made and carried 
    to reconsider the vote by which the proposition was passed and to 
    lay that motion on the table, you cannot have two votes thereafter 
    in the House on the same identical proposition that has been voted 
    upon once in the House. . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    pending bill is being considered under a special rule which was 
    unanimously adopted by the House before the bill was taken up for 
    consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is true, as the gentleman from Texas suggests, that under 
    the ordinary rules of the House only one mo

[[Page 4706]]

    tion 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 socalled ``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.

Sec. 32.20 Where the House has adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, such amendment cannot be further amended by way of a 
    motion to recommit with instructions, absent a special rule, and 
    only a straight motion to recommit would be in order.

    On June 17, 1952,(9) the House was considering S. 658, 
to amend the Communications Act of 1934. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 7421, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: In view of the fact that the matter before us is a 
    committee amendment, a complete amendment to the whole bill, would 
    any motion to recommit, except a straight motion to recommit, be in 
    order?
        The Speaker: (10) That is the only motion that would 
    be in order under the rule.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
11. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 9416, 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 4, 
        1960; and 103 Cong. Rec. 12471, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 23, 
        1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.21 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 with amendments notwithstanding the fact that the House 
    has just agreed to an amendment in the nature

[[Page 4707]]

    of a substitute reported from the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 29, 1965 (12) the Committee of the Whole having 
considered the bill H.R. 4644, providing home rule for the District of 
Columbia, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 25438, 25439, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment. . . .
        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.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Although Mr. Smith stated that he was seeking to clarify the 
        matter, his statement reflected some confusion on his part. The 
        impending vote was on the Multer substitute as amended by the 
        Sisk substitute amendment, both of which had been adopted by 
        the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Smith was correct in stating 
        that if the Multer substitute as amended by the Sisk substitute 
        amendment was defeated, the proposition then before the House 
        would have been H.R. 4644. H.R. 4644 was considered pursuant to 
        H. Res. 515, which had been taken from the Committee on Rules 
        on a discharge petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.
        Mr. Hays: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Then 
    the House would be faced with voting for or against the original 
    bill Mr. Multer himself abandoned. Is that not true?
        The Speaker: The Chair feels that the gentleman from Ohio 
    answered his own question.

Instruction With Previously Rejected Amendment

Sec. 32.22 An amendment rejected in the Committee of the

[[Page 4708]]

    Whole may be offered in the House in a motion to recommit with 
    instructions.

    On July 8, 1940,(15) the House was considering S. 326, 
the Mexican claims bill. Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, offered a 
motion to recommit, and Mr. Luther A. Johnson, of Texas, rose with a 
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 9302, 9303, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luther A. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
        The Speaker: (16)The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luther A. Johnson: An identical amendment was voted upon in 
    Committee of the Whole, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Rich].
        The Speaker: That was an amendment which was offered in 
    Committee of the Whole, the Chair will state. The House takes no 
    judicial notice of action in Committee of the Whole or the 
    rejection of an amendment in the Committee. The point of order is 
    overruled.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 10126-30, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 22, 
        1968; and 93 Cong. Rec. 10445, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 
        1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instructions to Report Back ``Forthwith''

Sec. 32.23 Instructions to report back ``forthwith'' accompanying a 
    motion to recommit must be complied with immediately, and while the 
    committee to which a bill is recommitted with instructions to 
    report ``forthwith'' takes no action thereon, the Member in charge 
    of the bill immediately reports the bill to the House as 
    instructed, and the amendment is before the House for immediate 
    consideration.

    On Apr. 24, 1950,(18) after the engrossment and third 
reading of (H.R. 5965) providing for the construction of certain 
Veterans' Administration hospitals the House adopted a motion to 
recommit the bill to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs with 
instructions to report the bill back forthwith with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 5620, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the motion just adopted, I report the bill back with the amendment 
    and move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (1) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Clerk read the amendment the Speaker announced that the 
question was on the amendment. Mr. James W. Wadsworth, of New York, 
then rose with the following parliamentary inquirty.

[[Page 4709]]

        Mr. Wadsworth: Mr. Speaker, is it possible that such a motion 
    can be made by the gentleman from Mississippi in view of the fact 
    that the committee has had no meeting?
        The Speaker: This is a forthwith motion. The question is on the 
    amendment.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 19208, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 
        1961; and 105 Cong. Rec. 8635, 8636, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 
        20, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.24 Where a motion to recommit with instructions to report back 
    ``forthwith'' with an amendment has been agreed to, and the bill 
    and amendment have again been reported to the House, the question 
    recurs upon agreeing to the amendment, and if the amendment is 
    agreed to, the bill is again ordered engrossed and read a third 
    time.

    On Sept. 30, 1965,(3) Mr. James T. Broyhill, of North 
Carolina, had offered a motion to recommit the bill H.R. 10281, the 
Federal Salary Adjustment Act of 1965. After the Speaker, John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on the motion to recommit 
the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 25701, 25702, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 238, nays 140, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 53. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit I report 
    back the bill, H.R. 10281, with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 38, strike out line 9 and all that follows through 
        line 5 on page 39.

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on 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.
        The Speaker: The question is on passage of the 
    bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 1194, 1195, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 26, 
        1965; 108 Cong. Rec. 21897, 21898, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 3, 
        1962; and 89 Cong. Rec. 3948, 3956, 3957, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        May 4, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.25 A motion to recommit a bill to a committee with instructions 
    to amend it and report the bill back to the House ``as thus 
    amended'' was construed to mean ``not forthwith,'' and the bill 
    when reported back to the House was not given a privileged status.

    On May 18, 1938,(5) the House was considering H.R. 9738, 
to cre
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 7103, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4710]]

ate a Civil Aeronautics Authority. Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, was 
recognized to offer a motion to recommit, and the following occurred:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mapes moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce with instructions to that 
        committee to amend the bill so as to provide for the regulation 
        of civil aeronautics by the Interstate Commerce Commission 
        instead of by the Civil Aeronautics Authority provided in the 
        bill, and to report the same back to the House as thus amended. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boileau: The gentleman from Michigan has offered a motion 
    to recommit which is not in the usual form of a motion to recommit, 
    which provides that the committee shall report the bill back 
    forthwith with the following amendments. It is a direction to the 
    committee to amend the bill in accordance with the instructions in 
    the motion to recommit and to report the bill back to the House. 
    Obviously the motion to recommit, if carried, will necessitate 
    considerable work on the part of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce. My parliamentary inquiry is, after the Committee 
    on Interstate and Foreign Commerce makes the necessary changes as 
    directed in the motion to recommit--assuming, of course, that the 
    motion should prevail--would the bill then come back to the House 
    automatically without action on the part of the Committee on Rules? 
    In other words, would the bill amended in accordance with the 
    instructions in the motion to recommit come back to the House as a 
    matter of privilege?
        The Speaker: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chair will state that the bill would 
    be reported back to the House as it was in the first instance 
    before the consideration of the bill was begun.
        Mr. Boileau: Assuming the motion to recommit prevails and the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce is directed to make 
    certain amendments, would not the committee then be forced to bring 
    the bill back to the House as amended, and in that instance would 
    it be a matter of privilege, or would the Committee on Rules be 
    required to present a rule to make consideration of the bill in 
    order?
        The Speaker: This is a rather unusual form in which to prepare 
    a motion to recommit. However, the Chair will have to construe the 
    motion as it is presented in the light of the parliamentary inquiry 
    of the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        The motion provides that the committee shall amend the bill so 
    as to provide, and so forth. If the motion to recommit should 
    prevail, of course, under the terms of the motion the bill would be 
    recommitted to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce for 
    the purpose of undertaking to carry out the instructions. The Chair 
    is not of the opinion that thereafter the bill would have a 
    privileged status before the House.

[[Page 4711]]

Sec. 32.26 Where a motion to recommit a bill with instructions that it 
    be reported back forthwith with an amendment has been agreed to, a 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause of the bill is not in 
    order pending the report of the committee pursuant to the 
    instructions.

    On Apr. 16, 1970,(7) the House adopted a motion to 
recommit the bill H.R. 16311, the Family Assistance Act of 1970, to the 
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the bill back 
to the House forthwith with several amendments. Immediately after the 
vote was announced on the motion to recommit, Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of 
Ohio, was recognized:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 12093, 12106, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: (8) Will the gentleman state his 
    motion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: I move that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that motion is not in 
    order. The Chair passed on it awhile ago. That motion is not in 
    order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Parliamentarian's Note: The previous question had been ordered on 
        the bill and amendments to final passage without intervening 
        motion except one motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.27 The House voted to recommit a bill to a committee with 
    instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment and then 
    rejected the amendment when so reported.

    On Feb. 4, 1940,(10) the House was considering H.R. 
7551, relating to certain payments to the San Carlos Apache Indians. 
The House adopted a motion offered by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of 
Michigan, to recommit the bill to the Committee on Indian Affairs with 
instructions to report it back forthwith with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 1456-58, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Will] Rogers of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    instructions of the House, I refer the bill back to the House with 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 2, line 6, strike out all the remainder of the 
        paragraph after the word ``Indians.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(11) The question is on 
    agreeing to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Schafer of Wisconsin) there were--ayes 11, noes 14.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4712]]

        Mr. Cochran: Is that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] just adopted by a roll-call vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. It was 
    included in the motion to recommit. The House voted on the 
    amendment provided for in the motion to recommit, and there were--
    ayes 11, noes 14.
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    regular order.
        The amendment was rejected.

Sec. 32.28 The House having voted to recommit a bill to a committee 
    with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment agreed 
    to the amendment when so reported, but then defeated the bill on a 
    yea and nay vote.

    On June 30, 1941,(12) the House was considering H.R. 
4228, a wiretapping bill. After the House adopted a motion to recommit 
the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
it back forthwith with an amendment, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 5793, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, in obedience to the 
    instruction of the House we report the bill back as amended in 
    accordance with the order of the House.
        The Speaker: (13) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Clerk reported the amendment the following occurred:

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed, read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question in on the passage of the bill. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 147, nays 154, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 130, as follows: . . .

Recommittal of Conference Report With Instructions

Sec. 32.29 On a motion to recommit a conference report with 
    instructions, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on the 
    instructions or various branches thereof.

    On Apr. 11, 1956,(14) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 12, to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949. 
After Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, offered a motion to 
recommit the conference report with various instructions, Mr. Arthur L. 
Miller, of Nebraska, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 6157, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: Since the motion to recommit applies to 
    several

[[Page 4713]]

    titles and sections of the bill, is it possible under the rules of 
    the House to get a separate vote on the various amendments that 
    seek to strike certain matter from the bill?
        The Speaker: (15) A motion to recommit is not 
    subject to division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.30 A motion to recommit a conference report to the committee of 
    conference with instructions to do something which the House itself 
    does not have the power to do (to amend its own bill after its 
    passage) is not in order.

    On Aug. 25, 1950,(16) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 7786, an appropriations bill. Mr. Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, offered the following motion to recommit the 
conference report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 13476, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 
    7786 to the committee of conference with instructions to the 
    managers on the part of the House to incorporate in the conference 
    report the following provisions: At the end of chapter XI, titled 
    ``General Provisions,'' add the following:
        ``None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be paid to 
    any person, firm, partnership, or corporation which refuses 
    equality in employment to any person because of race, color, or 
    creed.''

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, rose with a point of order:

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the motion is not in order for two 
    reasons: In the first place, the proposed instructions to the House 
    managers incorporated in the motion propose action which is not 
    within their province, they direct the managers on the part of the 
    House to change the conference report, an action which can be taken 
    only with the concurrence of the managers on the part of the 
    Senate.
        The second point is that the provision which the gentleman from 
    New York seeks to add to the conference report does not appear in 
    either the House bill or the Senate bill. It is therefore not in 
    conference. It is not in difference between the two Houses. For 
    either reason, the motion to recommit is not in order.
        The Speaker: (17) The Chair is ready to rule. 
    Without passing on the first point raised by the gentleman from 
    Missouri, the Chair will rule on the second point made by the 
    gentleman from Missouri. The point of order is that this matter was 
    not incorporated in the bill when it passed the House, nor was it 
    in the bill as it passed the other body. The motion to recommit 
    calls upon the committee of conference to do something which the 
    House itself does not have the power to do, namely to amend its own 
    bill after its passage. This matter, not being in either the House 
    version or the Senate version of the bill, the Chair holds that the 
    point or order is well taken and sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.31 A motion to recommit a conference report with in

[[Page 4714]]

    structions to the House managers to report back an amendment which 
    would include the provisions of the bill as reported by the House 
    committee, rather than as passed by the House with changes, was 
    held not in order as being beyond the scope of the Senate and House 
    passed versions.

    On May 9, 1955,(18) the House was considering the 
conference report on S. 1, the Coastal Field Service Compensation Act 
of 1955. Mr. Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, offered a motion to recommit 
and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees of Kansas moves to recommit the bill S. 1 as amended 
    to the committee of conference with instructions to report back an 
    agreement which would include the provisions of H.R. 4644 as 
    reported by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, with 
    the additional provision that the 6-percent increase be retroactive 
    to March 1, 1955.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit. As I understand, the 
    motion instructs the conferees to do something less than the House 
    voted. We are bound to follow the instructions of the House in the 
    conference. That matter is not even in conference.
        The Speaker: (19) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair thinks that this question has been passed upon many times in 
    the past. An exactly similar question was raised on September 15, 
    1922, when a very distinguished gentleman by the name of John N. 
    Garner made a similar motion to recommit with instructions to the 
    conferees to lower the rates contained in either the bill or in the 
    amendment. Mr. Edward Taylor, of the State of Colorado, made the 
    point of order. Speaker Gillette sustained the point of order, and 
    that decision may be found in Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, 
    section 3244. It is exactly on all fours with this. Therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Practice

Sec. 32.32 Where the Senate recommits a bill to the committee which 
    reported it such action nullifies all amendments agreed to on the 
    floor; the committee has the entire matter before it again and may 
    report it back with or without former committee amendments and 
    amendments agreed to by the Senate, unless the motion to recommit 
    contains specific instructions as to how the bill should be 
    reported.

    On May 11, 1949,(20) the Senate was considering H.R. 
3083, Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 1950. The following 
discussion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 6039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4715]]

took place on the effect of the motion to recommit:

        The Vice President: (21) The Chair will advise 
    Senators that when a bill is recommitted to the committee from 
    which it emanates, such action nullifies all amendments that have 
    been agreed to on the floor of the Senate, and the bill goes back 
    to the committee--if it happens to be a House bill--in the same 
    shape in which it came to the Senate from the House, regardless of 
    the intention of any Senator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Alben W. Barkley (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Taft [of Ohio]: Mr. President, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Vice President: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Taft: Is it not true that the committee, complying with the 
    intention of the Senate, as indicated by the motion, can report the 
    bill back adopting or recommending as committee amendments, 
    amendments which it formerly recommended, and also amendments which 
    the Senate itself had specifically approved?
        The Vice President: The committee might do that; but the 
    committee would have to act upon the amendments in committee as if 
    no action had previously been taken.
        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. President, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

        The Senator from New Hampshire has today reaffirmed the same 
    principle. I am raising the parliamentary question, Is not the 
    Senate the superior body, which has control of the action of its 
    committees? If the intention of the Senate is clear, could there be 
    any parliamentary result to the contrary?
        The Vice President: The Senate can instruct its committees as 
    it sees fit. It may make an exception of any amendment which has 
    been agreed to on the floor. However, if it does not make an 
    exception of any amendment agreed to on the floor, the 
    parliamentary effect of recommittal is to nullify all amendments 
    agreed to on the floor. In the recommittal of the bill the other 
    day no exception was made of any amendment. The committee has a 
    perfect right to act upon its own judgment; but in the opinion of 
    the Chair, there is no automatic exception with regard to any 
    amendment agreed to in the Senate prior to recommittal of the bill.

Sec. 32.33 The Senate recommitted a House bill to its Committee on 
    Commerce with instructions to report it back forthwith in an 
    amended form combining the provisions of both the House bill and a 
    related Senate measure.

        On Feb. 20, 1970,(1) the Senate was considering H.R. 
    14465, relating to the expansion and improvement of airport and 
    airway systems when Senator Warren G. Magnuson, of Washington, was 
    recognized to offer a motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 4327, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Magnuson: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 
    14465, to provide for expansion and improve

[[Page 4716]]

    ment of the Nation's airport and airway systems, be recommitted to 
    the Committee on Commerce with instructions to report back 
    forthwith a bill which combines the provisions of S. 3108, to 
    provide for additional Federal assistance for the improvement of 
    the airway system, plus the provisions of H.R. 14465, as both were 
    originally reported to the Senate from the Committee on Finance. 
    The bill has two parts and one part had to go to the Committee on 
    Finance.
        The Presiding Officer: (2) Without objection, it is 
    so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert C. Byrd (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Magnuson: This procedure is followed to permit the bill to 
    be printed in the form in which it will be considered, I believe, 
    early next week. This is one of the most important pieces of 
    legislation we will consider this session.