Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL-04) knows what to do with Republican motions to recommit:

Members of the House, a consistent argument that we hear from the other side is about the alleged lack of transparency and bipartisanship in this House. Yet it was only five minutes ago that we received this motion to recommit. How seriously can we take this? It is a motion to delay.

There's plenty more on the substance of the bill, and you should watch what he has to say. It's a rousing rebuttal to the Republican position.

But right there, in the first few sentences, Gutierrez lays out the one and only thing you really need to know about how to deal with Republican motions to recommit (and how they dealt with ours when they were in the majority). No rank-and-file Democrat would ever be given the opportunity to walk onto the floor out of nowhere and demand a vote on an amendment that could change the entire tenor of a bill that was about to be voted on. You'd never get that chance even if anyone thought it was a good idea to vote on an amendment sight unseen. So why afford that kind of opportunity to a Republican who opposes the bill on top of it all?

I suppose I could be more sympathetic to motions that incorporate amendments that were raised, debated, and defeated in committee, on the assumption that having that debate in full view of the C-SPAN cameras on the floor might yield a different result than it did in committee. But surprise amendments that nobody's seen or had the opportunity to think through and really debate? That's almost never a good idea.

The motion to recommit can almost never be fully evaluated on its substance, which is why it should be considered a procedural vote only, and usually little more than an annoyance at that. Even a good motion, well-founded in the facts is difficult to evaluate based on a maximum of ten minutes' debate.

Ironically, the Democratic Members most often found voting for such motions are the same ones who most often voice sympathy with Republicans when they complain about not having enough time to read a bill before it's voted on. Five minutes to read it and ten minutes to debate it? That should be an almost automatic "no."