[Cannon's Precedents, Volume 8]
[Chapter 252 - The Motion to Refer As Related To the Previous Question]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Chapter CCLII.\1\
THE MOTION TO REFER AS RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Applies to resolutions and certain motions. Sections 2742-
2746.
2. As applied to resolutions on which previous question is
ordered. Sections 2747, 2748.
3. Motion should be in simple form. Section 2749.
4. The motion not applicable to report from Committee on Rules.
Sections 2750-2754.
5. General decisions. Sections 2755, 2756.
6. The later rule and its interpretations. Sections 2757-2759.
7. Only one proper motion admitted. Sections 2760-2763.
8. As to who may make the motion. Sections 2764-2773.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2742. The motion to commit after the ordering of the previous
question, as provided by section 1 of Rule XVII, applies to simple
resolutions as well as to bills and joint resolutions.
The motion to recommit may not be made while another has the floor,
having begun debate, and a Member proposing a resolution is entitled to
one hour for debate, during which time the motion may not be offered
without his consent.
On January 12, 1916,\2\ Mr. Frank Buchanan, of Illinois, rising to a
question of privilege, presented articles of impeachment against H.
Snowden Marshall, United States district attorney for the Southern
District of New York, and offered a resolution (H. Res. 90) directing
the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate the charges preferred.
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, proposed a motion to commit the
resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Buchanan submitted that he had not yielded the floor, and Mr.
Fitzgerald was therefore not entitled to recognition for the purpose of
moving to commit.
The Speaker sustained the point of order and recognized Mr. Buchanan
for one hour.
At the conclusion of the hour Mr. Fitzgerald, being recognized, moved
to refer the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Buchanan raised a question of order against the motion on the
ground that the rule providing for the motion applied to bills and
joint resolutions only.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXII.
\2\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 971.
Sec. 2743
The Speaker \1\ ruled:
As there was some question about that some time ago, the Chair will
clear it all up at once.
There are two rules relating to the previous question and the motion
to commit, which at first blush seem to be in conflict, but the Chair
thinks there is no conflict. Rule XVII, section 1, provides:
``previous question.
``1. There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being
ordered by a majority of Members voting, if a quorum be present, shall
have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the House to a direct
vote upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been
asked and ordered. The previous question may be asked and ordered upon
a single motion, a series of motions allowable under the rules, or an
amendment or amendments, or may be made to embrace all authorized
motions or amendments and include the bill to its passage or rejection.
It shall be in order, pending the motion for, or after the previous
question shall have been ordered on its passage, for the Speaker to
entertain and submit a motion to commit, with or without instructions,
to a standing or select committee.''
It has been decided that this rule applies to House resolutions as
well as to the others.
Clause 4 of Rule XVI, which relates to joint resolutions, misled some
of us in the beginning. That is as follows:
``4. When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received but
to adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question (which
motions shall be decided without debate), to postpone to a day certain,
to refer, or to amend, or postpone indefinitely, which several motions
shall have precedence in the foregoing order; and no motion to postpone
to a day certain, to refer, or to postpone indefinitely, being decided,
shall be again allowed on the same day at the same stage of the
question. After the previous question shall have been ordered on the
passage of a bill or joint resolution, one motion to recommit shall be
in order, and the Speaker shall give preference in recognition for such
purpose to a Member who is opposed to the bill or joint resolution.''
Now, that subdivision of Rule XVI applies to bills and joint
resolutions, and if it applied here it would cut out this House
resolution, but Rule XVII lets this motion in. The question is on the
motion to refer this resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary.
2743. The Committee of the Whole having reported back Senate
amendments to a bill with recommendations for their disposition, it was
held that a motion to recommit properly applied to the bill and not to
the amendments.
It is not in order by way of a motion to recommit to strike out
language inserted by the House.
On August 16, 1921,\2\ the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union under motion authorized by the
following resolution:
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7294)
entitled ``An act supplemental to the national prohibition act,'' under
the five-minute rule. After the completion of such consideration the
committee shall arise and report the amendments of the Senate to the
House with such recommendation as may have been adopted, whereupon the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the Senate
amendments and all motions incidental thereto recommended by the
committee to final passage without intervening motion except one motion
to recommit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 5081.
Sec. 2743
Consideration having been concluded, the Committee rose and the
Chairman reported--
that that committee had had under consideration the Senate amendments
to H. R. 7294, and had directed him to report the same to the House
with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the
House concur in the action of the committee.
The question being taken on agreeing to the recommendation of the
Committee of the Whole, it was decided in the affirmative.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, asked recognition to move to
recommit the bill.
Mr. John Q. Tilson, advanced the suggestion that--
we have been here passing upon a series of amendments to the bill in
their order. The bill as a whole has not been before the House and is
not before the House now, but a series of amendments.
Now, what would a motion to recommit carry? Would it carry one
amendment or all amendments? I do not see what the motion to recommit
can be made to apply to here. Each amendment has been passed upon
seriatim and adopted and the matter closed. It seems to me we are not
in a position of passing a bill through the House.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, too, the position that--
the bill is still in the possession of the House, and under the
practice of the House, if not under the strict rules of the House, a
motion to recommit is in order so long as the bill remains before the
House and is not sent to conference. The rule itself is drawn, of
course, in conformity with the usual provisions of rules, except the
motion to recommit being cut out by the previous question.
Now, frequently it happens that a gentleman does not know, or the
House does not know, whether it desires to vote for a motion to
recommit until it has disposed of pending amendments. The last
amendment recommended by the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union has just been voted on by the House. To say that a motion
to recommit must have been made before the amendment was disposed of is
to put the House in a very awkward position. It seems to me, in view of
the practice and the precedents, it is not desirable to cut out the
motion to recommit practically entirely, because it could not well be
made until the committee amendments were acted upon.
You can order the bill to be engrossed and read a third time; you can
make a motion to recommit generally, or make a motion to recommit with
instructions as to certain amendments. The only amendments that would
be in order now would be amendments, of course, to the Senate
amendments. But the House might reverse its opinion as to a Senate
amendment, although it had been disagreed to or agreed to.
That is what the motion to recommit is for. That is the practice--
under the motion to recommit to reverse the action of the House and
order a bill to the third reading.
Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, agreed:
I was about to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are speculating now
without knowing what the motion to recommit may be. I have no doubt the
motion to recommit will be subject to the point of order, but I think
there is no question that it is in order to offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker held the motion to recommit in order, and recognized Mr.
Blanton, who moved--
to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following language stricken from the bill:
``Provided further, That this provision against importation shall not
apply to shipments en route to the United States at the time of the
passage of this act.''
Mr. Tilson made the point of order that the motion to recommit
proposed to strike out language just adopted by the House.
Sec. 2744
Mr. Mann support the point of order, and said:
Speaker Clark held repeatedly--and his holdings have been followed by
the present Speaker--that it was not in order in a motion to recommit
to direct the committee to report back striking out an amendment which
had been agreed to by the House; so this motion is not in order,
because that is what it proposes to do.
The Speaker \1\ sustained the point of order.
2744. The previous question having been ordered on a motion to agree
to a Senate amendment to a House bill, a motion to recommit is in
order.
On February 10, 1910,\2\ the House was considering amendments of the
Senate to the urgent deficiency appropriation bill.
Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, moved that the House
recede from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 39, providing for
a commission to study immigration problems, and concur therein.
On motion of Mr. James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, the previous question
was ordered.
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, moved to commit the bill and
amendment to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, with
instructions to report it back to the House with an amendment to the
Senate amendment.
Mr. Gardner made the point of order that while motion to recommit
would be in order before the stage of disagreement was reached, under
the pending status that motion would be in order which would tend to
most speedily bring the Houses together.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The Chair will read:
``The previous question having been ordered on a motion to agree to a
Senate amendment to a House bill''--
Which is this case--
``a motion to commit is in order.
``On November 1, 1893, the House was considering the Senate
amendments to the bill (H. R. 1) to repeal a part of the act of July
14, 1890, relating to the purchase of silver bullion.
``Mr. Leonidas F. Livingston, of Georgia, submitted the question of
order whether after the previous question should have been ordered on a
motion to concur in a Senate amendment, it would be in order to commit
the bill and amendment to a committee with instructions.
``The Speaker expressed the opinion that the motion to commit would
in such case be in order.''
That was a ruling by Mr. Speaker Crisp, of Georgia. The Chair has not
been referred to, and does not recollect any other precedents, but upon
general principles it seems to the Chair that the precedent referred to
is correct. The previous question operates upon a motion to recede and
concur. Under the operation of that question the House has receded, and
the question now is, the previous question operating, whether the House
will concur, which brings the two bodies together. But the motion to
commit with instructions, under Rule XVII and under the precedents,
seems to the Chair to be in order. The Clerk will report the motion.
2745. On March 1, 1915,\4\ the House was considering Senate
amendments to the agricultural appropriation bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1720.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 5053.
Sec. 2746
The previous question having been ordered, Mr. Otis Wingo, of
Arkansas, offered a motion to recommit, and on that motion moved the
previous question.
Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, raised a question of order
against the motion and argued:
Mr. Speaker, the general practice of a motion to recommit under
general parliamentary law is that it shall not be in order after the
previous question. But the practice grew up because it was found that
we considered bills in such a narrow way that there was only one
amendable stage.
The House was given an extra stage for a record vote, for a last
glance, by a motion to recommit after the previous question was
ordered. That was done because it was found that the House was in the
habit of ordering the previous question without much thought. Therefore
this new stage in the consideration of a bill when it first went
through the House, the equivalent of an extra reading, as it were, was
allowed. That is allowed by two rules; first by section 4 of Rule XVI,
which reads:
``After the previous question shall have been ordered on the passage
of a bill or joint resolution''--
This is not a bill or joint resolution, with the question of passage
pending, but a question of agreeing to a certain amendment--``one
motion to recommit shall be in order, and the Speaker shall give
preference''--
And so forth.
That is Rule XVI, section 4. Now, there is another rule of the House
under which a motion to recommit is permissible after the previous
question is ordered. It is Rule XVII, paragraph 1. The last sentence of
that paragraph reads:
``It shall be in order, pending the motion for, or after the previous
question shall have been ordered on its passage''--
This is not the question of the passage; this is a question of
agreeing to a Senate amendment--``for the Speaker to entertain and
submit a motion to recommit, with or without instructions, to a
standing or select committee.''
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is not a case for one of these
extra stages. They are not separate readings, first, second, and third,
motions to engross, and so forth, but a plain question of agreeing to a
Senate amendment. It is not a question needing a successive stage.
The Speaker \1\ overruled the point of order, and said:
By analogy there must be some place, somewhere, to make the motion to
recommit. The question now is on the motion for the previous question
on the motion to recommit.
2746. The motion to refer is in order before the previous question is
demanded, but after the previous question has been ordered on a bill to
final passage, the motion to refer is not admissible until after the
third reading.
On March 5, 1930,\2\ the House was considering the bill (H. R. 9683)
to amend the Federal reserve act by prescribing a penalty for
circulation of statements derogatory to National and State member
banks.
The consideration of the bill for amendment having been completed, a
motion by Mr. Luis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, for the previous
question on the bill and all amendments to final passage was agreed to.
Whereupon, Mr. Charles H. Brand, of Georgia, asked recognition to
offer a motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Banking and
Currency.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 4389.
Sec. 2747
The Speaker pro tempore \1\ declined recognition and said:
That comes on the final passage of the bill, before the question is
put on the final passage.
It seems to the Chair that the practice is well established, the
previous question on the bill to final passage having been adopted, the
motion to recommit is not in order until after the vote on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill and before the final passage
of the bill.
Mr. Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, took issue with the Chair and
argued that the distinction between the two motions, the motion to
refer and the motion to recommit, had not been taken into
consideration, and that the former was in order either before or after
the ordering of the previous question.
The Speaker pro tempore dissented and held:
The previous question shuts off the right to make a motion to refer
until after the motion on the engrossment and third reading of the bill
is disposed of. The motion to refer might have been in order before the
previous question was ordered on the bill to final passage; but the
previous question having been ordered it seems clear to the Chair that
a motion to refer is not now in order until after the vote on the
engrossment and third reading.
The rule, as the Chair understands it, is, as stated in the Manual--
section 790--as follows:
``The motion to commit may be made pending the demand for the
previous question on the passage, whether a bill or resolution be under
consideration (V, 5576); but when the demand covers all stages of the
bill to the final passage the motion to commit is made only after the
third reading, and is not in order pending the demand or before the
engrossment or third reading. (V, 5578-5581.)''
The previous question was ordered on the bill to final passage, so
that it seems clear to the Chair that the motion to recommit is not in
order until after the motion on the engrossment and third reading is
disposed of.
2747. Where the motion for the previous question covers all stages of
the bill to final passage the motion to recommit is made after the
third reading, and is not in order after the question has been put on
the passage of the bill.
On March 11, 1924,\2\ the previous question has been ordered on the
resolution (H. Res. 216) regarding a request Attorney General for
certain information relative to charges against two Members of the
House.
A pending amendment having been agreed to, the Speaker put the
question on agreeing to the passage of the resolution.
Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee, demanded the yeas and nays on the
question and, a parliamentary inquiry, asked if it would be in order to
move to recommit the resolution.
The Speaker \3\ said:
It was in order before this vote was taken. The Chair has put the
question on agreeing finally to the resolution, and the gentleman from
Tennessee has demanded the yeas and nays. Obviously, it is too late.
The gentleman from Tennessee demands the yeas and nays.
2748. The motion to recommit a simple resolution may be made at any
time before the question is put on the passage of the resolution and is
not in order after the resolution has been agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, Speaker pro tempore.
\2\ First session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3994.
\3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 2749
The Member in charge of the bill is entitled to prior recognition to
move the previous question.
On June 11, 1919,\1\ Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, by direction of
the Committee on Accounts, presented as privileged the resolution (H.
Res. 98) authorizing expenditures by the Select Committee on
Expenditures in the War Department.
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, asked recognition to offer an
amendment.
Mr. Mapes requested recognition to move the previous question on the
resolution.
The Speaker recognized Mr. Mapes, as the Member in charge of the
bill, to demand the previous question.
The previous question was ordered, and the question recurring on the
passage of the resolution it was decided in the affirmative without
division.
Mr. Blanton offered a motion to recommit the resolution to the
Committee on Accounts with instructions to report it back forthwith
with an amendment striking out provision for compensation for legal
services.
Mr. Madden made the point of order that the motion was not in order
after the resolution had been agreed to.
After debate the Speaker \2\ said:
The gentleman from Texas rose and said he wished to offer an
amendment, and at the same time the gentleman from Michigan who had
charge of the bill rose and moved the previous question. The Chair
followed the precedent of all Speakers in recognizing the gentleman who
had charge of the bill for the motion for the previous question. If the
House wished to consider the amendment of the gentleman from Texas and
did not wish the previous question it could have voted it down. The
previous question, however, was ordered by the House and the gentleman
then made no motion to recommit. The resolution itself was then
adopted, and after the resolution was adopted the gentleman from Texas
offered a motion to recommit. The time for the motion to recommit is
before the passage of a bill, but a resolution differs from an ordinary
bill, because with an ordinary bill there is a third reading and after
that and before the passage of the bill the motion to recommit must be
made. Here there was no third reading, so there was but one motion for
the passage of the resolution and the motion to recommit should have
been made before that motion. It can not be made after the resolution
has passed. The Chair sustains the point of order.
2749. The previous question having been ordered, a motion to recommit
embodying argument is not in order.
On November 29, 1922,\3\ the House had under consideration the bill
(H. R. 12817) to amend the merchant marine act of 1920.
The previous question having been ordered, Mr. Rufus Hardy, of Texas,
offered a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries with instructions to report it back to the House
forthwith with certain amendments, including an amendment to--
Strike from the bill all the provisions of Title IV, all of which
relate to granting subsidies to shipowners.
Mr. Everett Sanders, of Indiana, made the point of order that the
instructions carried by the motion to recommit embodied argument and
was not admissible under the operation of the previous question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 975.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ Third session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 427.
Sec. 2750
The Speaker \1\ held that argument was not in order in a motion to
recommit, and that the instructions included descriptive matter which
might be construed as argumentative.
2750. The motion to recommit is not admitted after the previous
question has been ordered on a report from the Committee on Rules.
On April 5, 1909,\2\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, from the
Committee on Rules, reported a resolution providing for the
consideration of the bill H. R. 1438, the tariff bill.
The previous question having been ordered, Mr. Champ Clark, of
Missouri, offered a motion to recommit the resolution to the Committee
on Rules with instructions to report it back with an amendment
providing for consideration under the five-minute rule.
Mr. Dalzell made the point of order that the motion to recommit was
not admissible after the previous question had been ordered on a report
from the Committee on Rules.
After debate, the Speaker \3\ read a decision \4\ by former Speaker
Crisp, and said:
This ruling of Mr. Speaker Crisp has been four times, the Chair is
reminded, sustained by Mr. Speaker Henderson, and the present occupant
of the chair has on two occasions followed the rulings of Mr. Speaker
Crisp and Mr. Speaker Henderson. The Chair now reads from the Manual,
page 273, at the bottom, the rule that was adopted in the Congress
presided over by Mr. Speaker Crisp, as follows:
``It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a report
from the Committee on Rules, and, pending the consideration thereof,
the Speaker may entertain one motion that the House adjourn; but after
the result is announced he shall not entertain any other dilatory
motion until the said report shall have been fully disposed of.''
And under that rule these decisions were made by Mr. Speaker Crisp,
by Mr. Speaker Henderson, and the present occupant of the chair. It is
an exception under the express rule to the ordinary practice arising
under Rules XVI and XVII.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
2751. On June 17, 1910,\5\ Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, from
the Committee on Rules, reported the resolution (H. Res. 808) amending
the rules of the House by adding a new section to Rule XXVIII,
providing for the motion to discharge committees from the further
consideration of bills under certain circumstances.
After debate, on motion of Mr. Walter I. Smith, of Iowa, the previous
question was ordered.
Mr. William W. Rucker, of Missouri, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked
if it would be in order to move to recommit the resolution.
The Speaker \6\ said:
Under the decisions, beginning with Speaker Crisp down to the present
time, a motion to recommit a resolution from the Committee on Rules
does not apply; is not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\2\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1117.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\4\ Section 5594 of Hinds' Precedents.
\5\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 8445.
\6\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2752
2752. On October 5, 1917,\1\ Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee,
reported from the Committee on Rules the resolution (H. Res. 168)
providing for consideration of the bill H. R. 5723, the war-risk
insurance bill, and, after debate, moved the previous question on the
resolution.
Mr. Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, offered a motion to
recommit.
Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, made the point of order that the
rule admitting the motion to recommit after the demand for the previous
question did not apply to reports from the Committee on Rules.
The Speaker \2\ cited a decision by former Speaker Cannon on a
similar question of procedure, and sustained the point of order.
2753. On January 31, 1929,\3\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, presented for privileged
consideration the resolution (H. Res. 303) to take from the Speaker's
table and send to conference the first deficiency appropriation bill
with Senate amendments thereto.
Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, submitted a parliamentary inquiry
as to whether it would be in order to move to recommit the resolution
to the Committee on Rules with instructions.
After extended debate, the Speaker \4\ held:
Clause 4 of Rule XVI of the House with regard to the full liberty of
the motion to recommit is as follows:
``After the previous question shall have been ordered on the passage
of a bill or joint resolution one motion to recommit shall be in order,
and the speaker shall give preference in recognition for such purposes
to a Member who is opposed to the bill or joint resolution.''
This is not a joint resolution. It is a House resolution. The Chair
thinks that a motion to recommit this resolution is not in order.
2754. On May 31, 1932,\5\ Mr. Edward W. Pou, of North Carolina, from
the Committee on Rules, by direction of that committee, reported a
resolution providing for the appointment of a special committee to
investigate Government competition with private enterprise.
The previous question having been ordered, Mr. Tilman B. Parks, of
Arkansas, inquired if it would be in order to move to recommit the
resolution.
The Speaker pro tempore \6\ said:
A motion to recommit a special rule from the Committee on Rules is
not in order.
The question is on the passage of the resolution.
2755. Before the adoption of rules, while the House was acting under
general parliamentary law, it was held that the motion to recommit was
in order pending the motion for the previous question or after it has
been ordered on a resolution.
On April 7, 1913,\7\ at the organization of the House and prior to
the adoption of rules, Mr. Robert L. Henry, of Texas, offered a
resolution (H. Res. 8) to adopt the rules of the Sixty-second Congress
as the rules of the Sixty-third Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 7849.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Seventieth Congress, Journal, p. 399; Record, p.
2550.
\4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\5\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 11681.
\6\ Loring M. Black, of New York, Speaker pro tempore.
\7\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 77.
Sec. 2756
After debate, on motion of Mr. Henry, the previous question was
ordered on the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. A. W. Lafferty, of Oregon, moved to recommit the resolution to a
select committee to be appointed by the Speaker,\1\ with instructions
to report the resolution back to the House with a substitute providing
for the adoption of the rules of the Sixty-second Congress with certain
amendments.
Mr. Thomas W. Hardwick, of Georgia, made the point of order that the
motion to recommit was not admissible under general parliamentary law.
The Speaker, in ruling, cited decisions by former Speakers Crisp,
Reed, and Carlisle holding that under parliamentary law and the
practice of the House it was customary before the adoption of rules to
entertain the motion to recommit pending a motion for the previous
question or after ordering of the previous question, and overruled the
point of order.
2756. On December 7, 1931,\2\ at the opening session of the Seventy-
second Congress, prior to the adoption of rules, Mr. Edward W. Pou, of
North Carolina, offered a resolution providing for the adoption of
rules.
Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
asked if in event the previous question was ordered on the resolution a
minority Member would be recognized to offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker \3\ said:
Within the spirit of the rules of the Seventy-first Congress on the
motion to recommit, the Chair thinks that they would have that right.
Speaker Clark, at the beginning of the Sixty-third Congress, ruled to
the same effect.
2757. A rule provides that after the previous question is ordered on
the passage of a bill preference in recognition to move to recommit
shall be given a Member opposed to the bill.
Form and history of section 4 of Rule XVI.
A paragraph of section 4 of Rule XVI provides:
After the previous question shall have been ordered on the passage of
a bill or joint resolution one motion to recommit shall be in order,
and the Speaker shall give preference in recognition for such purpose
to a Member who is opposed to the bill or joint resolution.
This amendment to section 4 of Rule XVI was agreed to March 15,
1909,\4\ in the adoption of the rules at the organization of the House
in the Sixty-first Congress.
Provision for the motion to recommit after the ordering of the
previous question had been afforded by the rules \5\ since 1880.\6\ But
debate on the adoption of this amendment indicates that the
modification was occasioned by the practice which had grown up under
which the Speaker recognized the Member in charge of the bill to make
the motion to recommit, in effect nullifying the purpose of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 12.
\3\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
\4\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 22.
\5\ Section 1 of Rule XVII.
\6\ Record, p. 23.
Sec. 2758
motion. This amendment is intended to insure recognition of a Member
actually opposed to the measure and afford the House a last opportunity
to express its preference on the final form of the bill.
2758. A unanimous-consent agreement to close debate and vote at a
specific time is in effect an order for the previous question, and the
motion to recommit is in order under Rule XVI.
The motion to recommit and the motion to recommit with instructions
are of equal privilege and have no relative precedence.
Recognition to move recommitment is determined by the attitude of
proponents on the pending bill, and a Member opposed to the bill
without qualification is recognized in preference to a Member opposed
to the bill in part or conditionally.
On July 12, 1909,\1\ on motion of Mr. Sereno Payne, of New York, by
unanimous consent, the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 40) proposing a
constitutional amendment providing for an income tax, was taken up for
consideration, debate thereon to continue until 4 o'clock p. m., at
which time a vote should be taken.
The time for debate having expired, Mr. Robert L. Henry, of Texas,
proposed to offer a motion to recommit the joint resolution.
Mr. Payne made the point of order that the agreement limiting debate
was equivalent to ordering the previous question and amendments were
not in order.
After debate, the Speaker \2\ ruled:
The Chair will rule in this case according to the order of the House,
whatever the consequences of that ruling may be. It is not the office
or the duty of the Chair to disobey the rules of the House upon one
hand as its presiding officer, or set aside the order upon the other.
Now, what is the situation? In a colloquy between the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Payne, and the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clark, as to
time for discussion upon this joint resolution it was agreed, in
substance, that general debate should be closed upon the resolution at
4 o'clock, at which time a vote should be taken upon the joint
resolution. Now, then, in the opinion of the Chair, that is equivalent
to the previous question, by unanimous consent, and if there was no
such thing as the previous question under the rules of the House an
agreement made by unanimous consent that a vote shall be taken upon a
joint resolution at a given time would only be dispense with by the
same unanimous consent, in the opinion of the Chair, that made the
agreement; so that the agreement operates as the previous question, and
was something more than the previous question, because under that
agreement, made by unanimous consent, in the opinion of the Chair it
would require unanimous consent to unmake it. Therefore the Chair must
hold that the point of order is well taken upon the amendment.
An appeal by Mr. Henry from the decision of the Chair was, on motion
of Mr. Payne, laid on the table, yeas 186, nays 144.
The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read a
third time.
Mr. Henry again proposed to offer a motion to recommit. Mr. Augustus
P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, also asked recognition to move to
recommit the joint resolution.
The Speaker said:
After the previous question shall have been ordered on the passage of
a bill or joint resolution, a motion to recommit shall be in order; and
the Speaker shall give preference of recognition for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4438.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2759
such purpose to a Member who is opposed to the bill or joint
resolution. Is the gentleman an opponent of the joint resolution?
Mr. Henry replied:
I am opposed to it as long as there is any chance under the rules to
amend it and make it a better proposition.
Mr. Gardner stated:
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the joint resolution.
The Speaker thereupon recognized Mr. Gardner as complying with the
requirements of the rule.
Mr. Henry, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if the motion to
recommit with an amendment did not take precedent of the simple motion
to recommit.
The Speaker replied in the negative.
2759. Unless the previous question is ordered, a motion to recommit
with instructions is open to amendment, and a substitute striking out
all proposed instructions and substituting others can not be ruled out
as interfering with the right of the minority to move recommitment.
On August 16, 1912,\1\ under authorization of a special order (H.
Res. 1196), Mr. John A. Moon, of Tennessee, moved to take from the
Speaker's table the Post Office appropriation bill, disagree to the
Senate amendments thereto, and send the same to conference.
The previous question having been ordered, Mr. James R. Mann, of
Illinois, moved to commit the Senate amendments to the Committee on the
Post Office and Post Roads with instructions to report back forthwith
with the recommendation that Senate amendment No. 118 be agreed to.
Mr. Moon moved to amend the motion by striking out the instructions
and substituting others.
Mr. George W. Norris, of Nebraska, made the point of order that the
amendment in proposing to strike out all instructions in effect
deprived the minority of the right to move to recommit.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
The Chair does not believe that at all. The Chair thinks that when
the Chair has given to the minority a right to make a motion, although
Rule XVII does not recognize and does not require it, though Rule XVI
does, and when the minority exercises that right under the preference
given by the item to make the motion, then the motion is in the hands
of the House and subject to every rule of the House and to every rule
of amendment. But there is no question in the mind of the Chair but
that the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee is germane to the
subject, and it does not take away from the minority the preferential
right in the matter, but it has a right to say whether it prefers the
proposition of the minority or the majority.
2760. Under Rule XVII, one proper motion to recommit is in order
pending demand for the previous question or after the previous question
has been ordered.
A motion to recommit having been ruled out of order, another motion
is in order if offered in good faith, but subsequent recognition to
move
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 11090.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2761
recommitment is within the discretion of the Speaker and may be denied
if dilatory.
On December 5, 1912,\1\ the House resumed consideration of the bill
(H. R. 22593) for the physical valuation of railroads, on which the
previous question had been ordered and on which a motion to recommit
with instructions offered by Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, was
pending.
Mr. Thetus W. Sims, of Tennessee, made a point of order that the
instructions proposed included amendments not germane to the bill.
The point of order being sustained, Mr. Mann proposed to offer a
further motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. William A. Cullop, of Indiana, raised a question of order against
the motion, first, on the ground that the motion to recommit was not
admissible after the previous question had been ordered, and, second,
that a similar amendment proposed in a motion to recommit had already
been ruled out of order.
The Speaker \2\ ruled:
The Chair overrules the first point of order that this motion to
commit could not be offered after the previous question was ordered.
The rule is clear on that question. Rule XVII, says:
``It shall be in order, pending the motion for or after the previous
question shall have been ordered on its passage, for the Speaker to
entertain and submit a motion to commit, with or without instructions,
to a standing or select committee.''
The Chair, for the elucidation of the matter, will state this in
regard to how many motions anybody is allowed to make to recommit. Of
course a Member can only make one if it is germane, but a motion to
recommit is not a motion to recommit at all if it is ruled out on the
point of order, and the logic of the rule is that everybody wanted the
privilege of making a motion to recommit to be absolute so nobody could
take the power away from a Member, and a Member would have the right to
offer a motion to recommit which is germane. If that turned out to be
obnoxious to the point of order, that would go out. Well, now, the
Chair does not undertake to say that a Member can offer motions to
recommit interminably that are not germane. That is a matter in the
discretion of the Chairman at the time, but where the Chair believes a
Member is acting in good faith he will entertain them within reasonable
limits. The Chair overrules the second point of order on the
proposition submitted now, and the question is on the motion to
recommit with the last instructions read.
2761. A motion to recommit having been ruled out of order with the
previous question operating, a proper motion to recommit may be
offered.
On January 15, 1932,\3\ the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union reported the bill H. R. 7360, the farm relief bill,
providing for the establishment of the Finance Relief Corporation, with
amendments and with the previous question operating under the special
order under which it was being considered.
Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of Pennsylvania, moved to recommit the bill to
the Committee on Banking and Currency with instructions including an
amendment which was ruled out of order as not germane.
Whereupon, Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, offered a motion
to recommit.
Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, made the point of order that one
motion to recommit having been offered under the rule, a second motion
was not in order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 176.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 2080.
Sec. 2762
The Speaker \1\ said:
The point of order having been sustained to the motion to recommit by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McFadden, a motion to recommit by
the gentleman from New York, Mr. LaGuardia, is in order. I will ask the
gentleman from New York if he is opposed to the bill?
Mr. LaGuardia having answered in the affirmative, the Speaker
directed the Clerk to report the motion.
2762. Under the later rule but one motion to recommit is in order,
and the Speaker in recognizing for the motion is required to give
preference to a Member opposed to the bill.
The motion to recommit is subject to amendment, as by adding
instructions, unless the previous question is ordered.
In construing the rules no distinction is made between the motion to
recommit and the motion to recommit with instructions, and neither is
entitled to precedence over the other.
In recognizing for the motion to recommit, the Speaker gives
preference to members of the committee reporting the bill, and if no
member of the committee rises, recognizes within his discretion any
Member opposed to the bill and from such recognition there is no
appeal.
On March 15, 1910,\2\ the pending question was on the passage of the
legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill.
Mr. William S. Bennet, of New York, moved to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Appropriations.
Simultaneously, Mr. Martin D. Foster, of Illinois, and Mr. William A.
Cullop, of Indiana, respectively, asked recognition to offer motions to
recommit.
The Speaker,\3\ after severally ascertaining their attitude on the
bill, ruled:
Neither of the three gentlemen, rising at substantially the same
time, are on the Committee on Appropriations. Neither one, so far as
the Chair can determine, has any prior title to recognition, and
therefore the Chair under that condition will recognize the gentleman
on the majority side.
There can be but one motion to recommit, and the motion to recommit
with instructions is, in fact, substantially the same as the motion to
recommit. A motion to recommit is amendable with instructions, provided
the motion for the previous question is defeated. They are, in fact,
therefore the same motions. And the Chair may state further that the
practice of the House has been, so far as the Chair recollects, on
motions to recommit, prior to the adoption of the late rule upon that
subject, to recognize a friend of the bill. The interjection of the
motion to refer after the previous question is ordered is an anomalous
proceeding, and in order only because of a special provision of the
rules. The object of this provision was, as the Chair has always
understood, that the motion should be made by one friendly to the bill,
for the purpose of giving one more change to perfect it, as perchance
there might be some error that the House desired to correct. But since
the adoption of the late rule upon this subject, the Chair is
compelled, provided some one arises and moves to recommit the bill, to
submit the question: ``Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?'' And if
so, the Chair, following the kindred practice of the House, would have
recognized some one on the Committee on Appropriations who was opposed
to the bill.
But no one arising, the Chair is at liberty to recognize any
gentleman that arises to make the motion. The gentleman from New York,
who first addressed the Chair, states that he is opposed to the bill,
and therefore the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3220.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2763
Mr. Foster proposed to appeal from the decision of the Chair.
The Speaker declined to entertain an appeal on a question of
recognition.
Mr. Bennet moved the previous question on his motion to recommit.
The question being taken on ordering the previous question was
decided in the negative.
Mr. Foster moved to amend the motion to recommit by adding
instructions to report the bill back forthwith with an amendment
striking out appropriations for automobiles for the Speaker and the
Vice President, and on that motion asked the previous question.
Mr. Cullop then requested recognition to offer an amendment to the
pending amendment.
The Speaker reminded that the previous question has been ordered and
further amendment was not in order.
2763. One proper motion to recommit is in order under operation of
the previous question, and one motion being ruled out, another motion
to recommit is in order.
On May 8, 1913,\1\ the House was considering the bill H. R. 3321, the
tariff bill, which had come over as unfinished business from the
preceding day with the previous question ordered.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, offered a motion to recommit with
instructions which was held not to be germane to the bill, on a point
of order raised by Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama.
Mr. Payne then offered a motion to recommit with other instructions.
Mr. Victor Murdock of Kansas, raised the question of order that Mr.
Payne had already been recognized to offer a motion to recommit and was
not entitled to a second recognition for that purpose.
The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order, and held that the first
motion to recommit, having been ruled out, was not considered as
complying with the requirement of the rule and it was still in order to
entertain a proper motion to recommit.
2764. The leading opponent of the pending measure is entitled to
prior recognition to move to recommit.
A motion may be withdrawn in the House at any time before action or
decision thereon.
On August 5, 1911,\3\ the House was considering the resolution (H.
Res. 246) adopting the report of the Committee on Expenditures in the
State Department on charges against certain officials in that
department in connection with the painting of the portrait of former
Secretary of State Day.
The previous question having been ordered, Mr. John Q. Tilson, of
Connecticut, moved to recommit the resolution to the Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of State.
Mr. John A. Martin, of Colorado, also proposed to offer a motion to
recommit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1384.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3666.
Sec. 2765
The Speaker \1\ ruled:
The gentleman from Connecticut, who led the fight against this
resolution is, I think, entitled to make the motion to recommit.
Mr. Tilson thereupon announced the withdrawal of his motion in order
to permit Mr. Martin to move to recommit.
The Speaker said:
The Chair is of the opinion that the spirit of the rule is that the
leader on the side of opposition to a particular measure has the right
to make the motion to recommit, and his side itself has that
preference. The Chair offered to recognize the gentleman from
Connecticut, Mr. Tilson, to make the motion to recommit, but the
gentleman from Connecticut waived his right and asked the Chair to
recognize the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Ollie M. James, of Kentucky, made the point of order that a
motion could not be withdrawn in the House save by unanimous consent.
The Speaker said:
Any motion in the House can be withdrawn before action is taken.
2765. The practice is for the Speaker to ask a Member offering a
motion to recommit if he is opposed to the bill, and if he is not, then
to inquire if any Member opposed to the bill desires to move
recommitment, and if none rises the Member first rising is recognized.
On October 1, 1918,\2\ the bill H. R. 12776, the emergency power
bill, was ordered to be engrossed and was read a third time.
Mr. Richard Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, proposed to offer a motion
to recommit the bill with instructions.
The Speaker \3\ asked:
Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. Parker replied:
No.
The Speaker then inquired:
Does any gentleman in the House who is opposed to the bill desire to
make a motion to recommit? If not, the Chair will recognize the
gentleman from New Jersey.
There being no response, the Speaker recognized Mr. Parker to offer
the motion proposed.
2766. On February 28, 1919,\4\ the House was considered the sundry
civil appropriation bill, on which the previous question had been
ordered to final passage.
Mr. John L. Burnett, of Alabama, offered a motion to recommit the
bill to the Committee on Appropriations.
The Speaker \5\ asked if the gentleman was opposed to the bill, and
on being answered in the negative announced:
If anybody who is opposed to the bill wants to offer a motion to
recommit, the Chair will recognize him. Anybody who qualifies by
stating that he is opposed to the bill has the right
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 11011.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4673.
\5\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 2767
of way. If nobody does that, then the gentleman from Alabama will be
recognized. The Clerk will report the motion offered by the gentleman
from Alabama.
2767. In recognizing Members to move to recommit the Speaker gives
preference, first, to the ranking minority member of the committee
reporting the bill; then to the remaining minority members of that
committee in the order of their rank, and if no member of the committee
qualifies, then to the leader of the minority party in the House.
On May 7, 1913,\1\ during consideration of the bill H. R. 3321, the
tariff bill, the speaker,\2\ in response to a parliamentary inquiry
submitted by Mr. Victor Murdock, of Kansas, said:
The Chair laid down this rule, from which he never intends to depart
unless overruled by the House, that on a motion to recommit he will
give preference to the gentleman at the head of the minority list,
provided he qualifies, and then go down the list of the minority of the
committee until it is gotten through with. And then if no one of them
offer a motion to recommit the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Mann, to make it, but if he does not do so, will
recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Murdock, as the leader of the
third party in the House. Of course he would have to qualify. The Chair
will state it again. The present occupant of the chair laid down a rule
here about a year ago that in making this preferential motion for
recommitment the Speaker would recognize the top man on the minority of
the committee if he qualified--that is, if he says he is opposed to the
bill--and so on down to the end of the minority list of the committee.
Then, if no gentleman on the committee wants to make the motion, the
Speaker will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, because
he is the leader of the minority. Then, in the next place, the Speaker
would recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr.. Murdock. But in this
case, the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Murdock, is on the Ways and Means
Committee, which would bring him in ahead, under that rule, of the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann.
2768. Members of the committee reporting a bill are entitled to prior
recognition for the purpose of moving to recommit.
On February 22, 1921,\3\ the conference report on the first
deficiency appropriation bill was under consideration in the House.
The previous question having been ordered, Mr. Alben W. Barkley, of
Kentucky, asked recognition to offer a motion to recommit.
Mr. George Holden Tinkham, of Massachusetts, claimed prior right to
recognition to move to recommit for the reason that he was a member of
the Committee on Appropriations reporting the bill.
The Speaker \4\ thereupon recognized Mr. Tinkham.
2769. A member of the committee reporting a bill is entitled to prior
recognition to move recommitment in preference to one not a member of
the committee.
A Member opposed to the bill as a whole is recognized to move to
recommit in preference to one opposed to a portion of the bill only.
On January 14, 1913,\5\ the House had under consideration the Post
Office appropriation bill, on which the previous question had been
ordered to final passage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 1373.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 3645.
\4\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\5\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 1519.
Sec. 2770
The bill having been read a third time, Mr. John J. Gardner, of New
Jersey, and Mr. Victor Murdock, of Kansas, rose to move to recommit the
bill.
The Speaker \1\ inquired of the gentlemen in turn if they were
opposed to the bill.
Mr. Gardner replied:
I am not opposed to the bill in the sense that I would vote against
it as it now stands, but I am opposed to a provision in it as it
stands, and I would like to get it out.
Mr. Murdock replied:
I am opposed to this bill.
The Speaker held:
Under the rulings the gentleman from Kansas has the right, being on
the committee, to offer the motion to recommit. The gentleman from New
Jersey is also on the committee and ranks the gentleman from Kansas,
but the gentleman from New Jersey does not answer affirmatively.
2770. Prior right to move to recommit belongs to the member of the
committee reporting the bill who first rises and qualifies as opposed
to the bill.
In recognizing for the motion to recommit the Speaker will not
investigate the attitude of a Member on the bill further than to
inquire, and accepts his statement as final.
Under the rule for the previous question, but one proper motion to
recommit is in order.
On March 8, 1910,\2\ the House had under consideration the Post
Office appropriation bill, the previous question having been ordered on
the bill to final passage.
Following the third reading of the bill, Mr. J. Sloat Fassett, of
New York, and Mr. Charles E. Townsend, of Michigan, respectively,
addressed the Chair and requested recognition for the purpose of
offering a motion to recommit.
Speaker \3\ said:
Two gentlemen have arisen and asked for recognition--the gentleman
from Michigan and the gentleman from New York. The gentleman from New
York is a member of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.
Under the practice it is proper that the first recognition should go to
a member of the committee, provided that he arises to make a motion
that is in order, and he is opposed to the bill, and the gentleman
states that he is. The Chair, therefore, following the usage,
recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Townsend submitted that Mr. Fassett's attitude during
consideration had not demonstrated that he was opposed to the bill.
The Speaker replied:
The Chair must take the word of the gentleman--he is entitled to
recognition if he is opposed to the bill--as the Chair took the word of
the gentleman from Michigan.
The question being taken on agreeing to the motion to recommit
offered by Mr. Fassett, it was decided in the negative.
Mr. Townsend thereupon asked recognition to offer a motion to
recommit with instructions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 2917.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
Sec. 2771
The Speaker ruled:
But one motion to recommit is in order. The question is on the
passage of the bill.
2771. When the previous question has been ordered on a bill and
amendments to final passage, members of the committee reporting the
bill who qualify without condition or reservation are entitled to
priority in recognition to move to recommit.
On January 6, 1932,\1\ the previous question had been ordered on the
first deficiency appropriation bill, when Mr. Andrew J. Montague, of
Virginia, Mr. Fiorello LaGuardia, of New York, and Mr. William B.
Oliver, of Alabama, rose simultaneously to offer a motion to recommit.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Montague, and the gentleman from New
York, Mr. LaGuardia, desire to submit a motion to recommit the bill.
The practice of the House heretofore has been to give to the minority
the right to make the motion to recommit when a member of the minority
qualifies for that purpose. So the Chair will ask the gentleman from
New York and the gentleman from Virginia if each of them is opposed to
the bill?
Mr. Montague said he was opposed to the bill; Mr. LaGuardia said he
was opposed to the bill in its present form and expected to vote
against it; Mr. Oliver said:
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee and as one who is opposed
to the bill in its present form, I should like to offer a motion to
recommit.
Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, objected to the form of Mr.
Oliver's qualification, and the Speaker said:
Permit the Chair to say to the gentleman from Tennessee that a member
of the committee who qualifies as being opposed to the bill undoubtedly
would have preference in recognition. Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill as it stands?
Mr. Oliver answered in the affirmative and announced his intention to
vote against the bill.
The Speaker held:
The gentleman from Alabama qualifies and is entitled to submit a
motion to recommit.
2772. The right to move to recommit a House bill with Senate
amendment belongs to a Member opposed to the bill rather than to one
opposed to the Senate amendment only.
On April 25, 1916,\3\ the House agreed to a resolution (H. Res. 216)
reported from the Committee on Rules, sending to conference without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit the bill H. R. 12766,
the Army reorganization bill, with Senate amendments thereto.
Mr. Julius Kahn, of California, ranking minority member of the
Committee on Military Affairs, reporting the bill, being recognized,
offered a motion to recommit.
Mr. Meyer London, of New York, who was not a member of the Committee
on Military Affairs, also demanded recognition to move to recommit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 1396.
\2\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
\3\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 6821.
Sec. 2773
Mr. Kahn, for the purpose of qualifying, announced that he was
opposed to the Senate amendment.
Mr. London submitted that he was opposed both to the Senate amendment
and to the bill.
The Speaker \1\ remarked tentatively:
The Chair is inclined to the opinion that the matter in controversy
here is the Senate amendment, and that it is the only thing in
controversy.
Mr. Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, argued that the attitude of a
Member on the bill and not on the amendment was the true criterion
under the rule providing for the motion to recommit.
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, dissented:
Mr. Speaker, this is a House bill that has passed the House. A motion
to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was made and that
motion was laid on the table, and it is not within the power of the
House itself under the rules of the House to change a word in the House
bill of its own motion. The only way that it can make a change in the
House bill as it passed the House is by agreeing to some proposition
which the Senate proposes or which comes to the House as a result of a
conference between the House and the Senate. The House can not take any
vote upon the House bill now. The only thing that the House can dispose
of now are the Senate amendments. To ask whether a Member is opposed to
the original House bill upon which the House can not act would be
ridiculous, as it seems to me. The question is, What will the House do
with the Senate amendments? That is the question that has to be put
when the Speaker asks whether the Member making the motion is opposed
to the proposition.
The Speaker ruled:
The Chair is inclined to think, after reflection, that the gentleman
from New York who is opposed to the whole business from start to
finish, and who not only speaks for a minority but is the whole
minority in himself, is entitled to recognition to make that motion.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
2773. In qualifying to offer a motion to recommit, the attitude of
the Member at the time the motion is made and not at any previous time
governs, and statements previously made by the proponent in the
discussion of the bill are not taken into consideration.
In recognizing under the rule to move to recommit, the Speaker is
governed by the attitude of Members toward the bill and not by their
political affiliation.
A member of the committee opposed to the bill reporting the measure
is entitled to recognition to move recommitment over one not a member
of the committee but otherwise equally qualified.
On September 5, 1918,\2\ the previous question was ordered on the
bill S. 1419, the water-power bill, to final passage.
Mr. Scott Ferris, of Oklahoma, a member of the Committee on Water
Power, reporting the bill, proposed to offer a motion to recommit.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, also asked recognition to propose
a motion to recommit, and argued that he was entitled to prior
recognition for the purpose because, although not a member of the
committee reporting the bill, he
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 10051.
Sec. 2773
was a member of the political minority while Mr. Ferris belonged to the
political majority of the House.
The Speaker \1\ ruled:
The Chair laid down the rules covering a motion to recommit in the
first Congress in which he was Speaker. It is a triple condition. The
first one is, if anyone is opposed to the bill, if one man is and no
one else is, the one who is out and out opposed to it is entitled to
recognition. That is condition No. 1. The second one is the mandate in
the rule that a member of the minority shall be recognized in
preference to a member of the majority. The Chair has ruled half a
dozen times that that does not mean a political majority and minority,
that it means a majority and minority on the bill. The third condition
is that a member of the committee has preference over the other Members
of the House equally qualified. The gentleman from Oklahoma, a member
of the committee, the second member upon it, makes a motion to
recommit. Of course, the contention of the gentleman from Oklahoma that
he received recognition has nothing to do with the matter. He has every
qualification, however. In the first place, he is a member of the
committee. In the second place, he is opposed to the bill out and out,
and in the third place, so far as the Chair can ascertain at the
present time, he is a member of the minority--that is, in a minority
touching this bill. The Chair does not know how it is going to turn out
on the roll call, but from the beginning, since the time the bill was
first considered, the gentleman from Oklahoma has been in opposition.
If the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Haugen, had arisen before the gentleman
from Oklahoma, the Chair would have been delighted to recognize him,
but the question of majority and minority has nothing to do with the
political complexion of the House on a motion to recommit. The
gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized, and the Clerk will report his
motion.
Mr. Walsh then submitted that Mr. Ferris did not qualify to offer a
motion to recommit because he had on previous occasions voiced support
of the bill and referred to citations from the Congressional Record:
Mr. Thomas. Do you not think the best thing to do with this bill is
to defeat it?
Mr. Ferris. I do not; I have tried here for years; and I want to try
a little longer to help get this bill through.
Also:
Mr. Thomas. does the gentleman not think, to be plain about this
matter, that this bill is purely a socialistic bill?
Mr. Ferris. Mr. Chairman, of course I think this is a good bill.
The Speaker said:
The gentleman from Oklahoma rose and offered his motion, and the
Chair asked him, as he would have asked anyone else, as he has always
done, if he was opposed to the bill, and the gentleman from Oklahoma
answered without any equivocation or hesitation that he was. What the
gentleman from Oklahoma thought yesterday the Chair does not know. The
bill may have changed for all he knows in a dozen different directions.
All that the Chair knows about a bill that has been in the Committee of
the Whole House or the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union is what the chairman reports to him. The Chair does know this,
that the gentleman from Oklahoma filed a minority repot, and just
judging from what the Chair heard when he came in here once in a while
he thought that he was leading the fight against the bill. But, however
that may be, what he said yesterday or the day before or the day before
that has nothing in the world to do with the answer that he gave the
Speaker when the Speaker propounded the acid test. So the point of
order of the gentleman from Massachusetts is overruled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.