[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[C. Motions to Lay on the Table]
[§ 9. In General; Application and Effect]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 4549-4566]
CHAPTER 23
Motions
C. MOTIONS TO LAY ON THE TABLE
Sec. 9. In General; Application and Effect
The motion to lay on the table, also referred to as the motion to
table, is used by the House to reach a final adverse disposition of a
proposition.(16) The motion is not in order in the Committee
of the Whole.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 9.1 et seq., infra.
17. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2330, 2556a, 3455; and 4 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 4719, 4720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to lay on the table is of high privilege, but yields to
a
[[Page 4550]]
motion to adjourn.(18) The motion may not be made after the
previous question has been ordered,(19) but is in order
where the previous question has been moved. It may not be applied to a
demand for the previous question (20) nor to motions to
suspend the rules.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1981).
19. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2655; 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 5415-5422.
20. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5410, 5411.
1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5405, 5406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion may not be applied to motions to recommit,(2)
motions to go into the Committee of the Whole,(3) nor to any
motion relating to the order of business.(4) It is generally
not in order on motions which are neither debatable nor
amendable.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2655; and 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 5412-5414.
3. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 726.
4. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5403, 5404.
5. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 785 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most matters laid on the table may be taken therefrom only by
unanimous consent (6) or by a motion to suspend the
rules.(7) However, questions of privilege laid on the table
may be taken from the table on a motion agreed to by the House
(8) as may vetoed bills.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. Sec. 13.1, 13.2, infra.
7. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6288.
8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5438.
9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3550; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a proposed amendment is laid on the table the pending bill
also goes to the table.(10) The result is the same when a
Senate amendment to a House bill is laid on the table.(11)
However, where one motion to dispose of a Senate amendment (with an
amendment) is tabled, the bill and all Senate amendments do not
automatically go to the table, as other motions remain available to
dispose of that Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2656; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5423.
11. 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 5424. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect on Pending Measure
Sec. 9.1 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated
that adoption of a motion to lay a resolution on the table would
result in the final adverse disposition of the resolution.
On Dec. 14, 1970,(12) the House was considering House
Resolution 1306, asserting the privileges of the House relative to the
printing and publishing of a report of the Committee on Internal
Security. Mr. Louis Stokes, of Ohio, offered a motion to table the
resolution. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 41372, 41373, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 4551]]
The Speaker: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to table prevails, there
can be no further consideration at all of this matter. Is that not
correct? Does it not apply the clincher?
The Speaker: If the motion to table is agreed to, then the
resolution is tabled.
Mr. Watson: Then that ends it. All right.
Effect on Debate
Sec. 9.2 The motion to lay on the table may deprive a Member of
recognition for debate on a resolution he has offered.
On Jan. 17, 1933,(14) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of
Pennsylvania, offered a resolution of impeachment against President
Herbert Hoover. The following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 76 Cong. Rec. 1968, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McFadden: During the opening I addressed the Speaker to
ascertain whether or not I would be protected in one hour time for
debate. I am prepared to debate. I understand a certain motion will
be made which will deprive me of that right.
The Speaker: (15) The Chair can not control 434
Members of the House in the motions they will make. The Chair must
recognize them and interpret the rules as they are written. That is
what the Chair intends to do. The gentleman from Pennsylvania would
have an opportunity to discuss this matter for an hour under the
rules of the House, if some gentleman did not take him off his feet
by a proper motion. [Applause.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McFadden: That is what I was attempting to ascertain.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the resolution.
Mr. [Henry T.] Rainey [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay
the resolution of impeachment on the table.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois moves to lay the
resolution of impeachment on the table.
May the Chair be permitted to make a statement with reference
to the rules applying to that motion. The parliamentarian has
examined the precedents with reference to the motion. Speaker Clark
and Speaker Gillette, under identical conditions, held that a
motion to lay on the table took a Member off the floor of the
House, although the general rules granted him one hour in which to
discuss the resolution of impeachment or privileges of the House.
Therefore the motion is in order.
Application of Motion to Appeal
Sec. 9.3 An appeal from a decision of the Speaker may be laid on the
table.
On Aug. 13, 1937,(16) the House was considering the
election contest of Roy v Jenks. After the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 8845, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4552]]
Speaker (17) overruled a point of order against the
privileged report filed by the elections committee, the following took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I
respectfully appeal from the decision of the Chair.
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York appeals from the
decision of the Chair.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the
appeal on the table.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Texas to lay the appeal on the table.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Snell) there were--ayes 212, noes 63.
Sec. 9.4 When an appeal from a decision of the Chair is tabled, the
effect of such action sustains the decision of the Chair.
On May 25, 1944,(18) the House was considering H.R.
4879, making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1945. In response to a parliamentary inquiry the Speaker
(19) ruled that points of order against the bill had been
waived by unanimous consent two days previously. The following then
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 90 Cong. Rec. 4990-92, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, in view
of the importance of this as a matter of setting a precedent, I
respectfully appeal from the decision of the Chair and ask for
recognition. . . .
The question involved is whether or not you want the Speaker to
recognize Members to ask for the consideration of appropriation
bills with points of order waived and let that recognition come at
any time regardless of whether or not the bill has been reported to
the House.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move
that the appeal be laid on the table.
The Speaker: The motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts is
preferential.
The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the House
divided; and there were--ayes 175, noes 54. . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
The Speaker: The motion offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts is agreed to and the decision of the Chair sustained.
. . .
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the Speaker to state
that the decision of the Chair was sustained or that the appeal was
laid on the table? The effect is perhaps the same.
The Speaker: The motion to lay the appeal on the table was
agreed to. The ruling of the Chair was thereby sustained.
[[Page 4553]]
Mr. Case: The Chair holds that the two things were involved in
laying the appeal on the table?
The Speaker: They were in the disposition of the appeal.
Rejection of Motion to Table as Affecting Vetoed Bill
Sec. 9.5 The Speaker declined to construe a ``no'' vote on a motion to
table as being ``tantamount to overriding the President's veto.''
On Sept. 7, 1965,(20) Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri,
offered a motion to discharge the Committee on Armed Forces from
further consideration of the bill H.R. 8439, for military construction,
which had been vetoed by the President, and to have that bill
considered in the House. Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, moved
to lay that motion on the table. Mr. Hall then rose with a
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman will
state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, would a ``no'' vote as just stated by
the Chair be tantamount to overriding the Presidential veto of the
military construction bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot make such
construction on a motion. . . .
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 323, nays 19, not
voting 90. . . .
So the motion was agreed to.
Debate on Motions to Table
Sec. 9.6 The motion to lay on the table is not debatable.
On Dec. 9, 1971,(2) the House approved House Resolution
729, providing for consideration of conference reports the same day
reported during the first session of the 92d Congress. Mr. Fletcher
Thompson, of Georgia, then moved to reconsider the vote by which the
resolution was agreed to. Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, then
offered a motion to table that motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 117 Cong. Rec. 45875, 45876, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay that motion on the
table.
The Speaker: (3) The question is on the motion to
table, offered by the gentleman from Mississippi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. Thompson of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
According to rule XVIII, section 819, debate on the motion to
reconsider:
A motion to reconsider is debatable only if the motion proposed
to be reconsidered was debatable.
[[Page 4554]]
The motion was debatable.
The Speaker: The House is not voting on the motion to
reconsider. It is voting on the motion to table. That motion is not
debatable.
Tabling of Motion to Instruct Conferees
Sec. 9.7 A motion to instruct conferees is subject to a motion to
table.
On Aug. 8, 1961,(4) the House was considering H.R. 7576,
authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission. After Mr.
James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, had offered a motion to instruct
the managers on the part of the House at the conference, and after one
hour debate thereon, a motion to table was offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 107 Cong. Rec. 14949, 14957, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Van Zandt: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Van Zandt moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the bill H.R. 7576 be instructed not to agree to
project 62-a-6, electric energy generating facilities for the
new production reactor, Hanford, Wash., $95 million as
contained in the Senate amendment. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Van Zandt].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the motion to instruct conferees be laid on the table.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Under the rules of the House, is this motion to
table in order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion is in order. . . .
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 164, nays 235, not
voting 38.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 31202-04, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 23,
1969; and 96 Cong. Rec. 2501-16, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 28,
1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.8 The House has adopted the preferential motion to lay on the
table a motion to instruct House conferees.
On Dec. 8, 1970,(7) the House was considering H.R.
17755, the Department of Transportation Appropriation Act for fiscal
1971. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 116 Cong. Rec. 40271, 40288, 40289, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Yates moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the bill H.R. 17755 be instructed to agree to Senate amendment
No. 4. . . .
Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a privileged motion.
[[Page 4555]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Boland moves to lay on the table the motion offered by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).
The Speaker: (8) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 213, nays 175,
answered ``present'' 1, not voting 45. . . .
So the motion to table was agreed to.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 29315, 29316, 31202-04, 91st Cong. 1st
Sess., Oct. 23, 1969; and 96 Cong. Rec. 2501-16, 81st Cong. 2d
Sess., Feb. 28, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.9 The House rejected a preferential motion to lay on the table a
motion to instruct the House managers at a conference.
On Dec. 18, 1969,(10) the House was considering H.R.
13111, dealing with appropriations for the Department of Labor and HEW
for fiscal 1970. After Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a
motion to instruct the House conferees to agree to two Senate
amendments, Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 39826-30, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Flood moves to lay on the table the motion of the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
The Speaker: (11) The question is on the
preferential motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 181, nays 216, not
voting 36. . . .
So the preferential motion was rejected.
Since Mr. Conte had informally conducted debate on his motion prior
to formally offering it, the question was at this point taken thereon,
and the motion adopted.
Tabling of Resolution to Adjourn Sine Die
Sec. 9.10 A motion to lay on the table a concurrent resolution
providing for adjournment sine die is in order.
On Mar. 27, 1936,(12) Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas,
offered a concurrent resolution providing that the two Houses adjourn
sine die. Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, then rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 4512, 4513, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the
table.
The Speaker: (13) The question is on the motion to
lay the resolution on the table. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to lay the resolution on the table was agreed to,
and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution providing for adjourn
[[Page 4556]]
ment though not debatable is subject to amendment.
Tabling of Motion to Approve the Journal
Sec. 9.11 A motion to lay on the table a motion to approve the Journal
is in order, and takes precedence over the motion for the previous
question.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(14) after the Clerk concluded the
reading of the Journal, a motion was made that it be approved as read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
Journal be approved as read; and on that I move the previous
question.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
that motion be laid on the table; and I offer an amendment to the
Journal.
The Speaker: (15) The Chair will state that the
motion to lay on the table is in order, but the amendment is not in
order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the motion to lay on the table the motion
that the Journal be approved as read.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 138, nays 244, not
voting 50.
Tabling of Motion to Rerefer a Bill
Sec. 9.12 A motion to rerefer a bill to a committee claiming
jurisdiction has been laid on the table.
On Apr. 21, 1942,(16) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York,
moved that the bill H.R. 6915, be rereferred from the Committee on the
Judiciary to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. After the
Speaker overruled several points of order against the motion by Mr.
Dickstein the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Then, Mr. Speaker, I
move to lay on the table the motion of the gentleman from New York.
The Speaker: (17) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 238, nays 83,
answered ``present'' 2, not voting 108.
Tabling of Consent Calendar Bill
Sec. 9.13 A bill called on the Consent Calendar was, by unanimous
consent, laid on the table.
On Dec. 17, 1963,(18) the Clerk of the House had just
called House Joint Resolution 838, relating to the commission
established
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 24788, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4557]]
to report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The
resolution authorized the commission to compel the attendance of
witnesses and the production of records. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New
York, then rose to his feet:
Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, an identical bill having passed the
House, I ask unanimous consent that House Joint Resolution 852 be
tabled.
The Speaker: (19) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Tabling of Resolution of Impeachment
Sec. 9.14 The motion to lay on the table applies to resolutions
proposing impeachment.
On Jan. 17, 1933,(20) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of
Pennsylvania, offered a resolution proposing the impeachment of
President Herbert Hoover. After the Clerk concluded reading the
resolution Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, rose to his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 76 Cong. Rec. 1965-68, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rainey: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution of
impeachment on the table.
The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Illinois moves
to lay the resolution of impeachment on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
May the Chair be permitted to make a statement with reference
to the rules applying to that motion. The parliamentarian has
examined the precedents with reference to the motion. Speaker Clark
and Speaker Gillette, under identical conditions, held that a
motion to lay on the table took a Member off the floor of the
House, although the general rules granted him one hour in which to
discuss the resolution of impeachment or privileges of the House.
Therefore the motion is in order.
Tabling of Motion to Discharge a Committee
Sec. 9.15 A motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a
vetoed bill is subject to the motion to table.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. But see Sec. 9.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 7, 1965,(3) the Chair recognized Mr. Durward G.
Hall, from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the highest
privilege of the House, based directly on the Constitution and
precedents, and offer a motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Clerk will report
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Motion by Mr. Hall:
Resolved, That the Committee on Armed Services be
discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 8439,
for military construction, with
[[Page 4558]]
the President's veto thereon, and that the same be now
considered.
Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from South Carolina. . . .
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it. . . .
Mr. Hall: Is a highly privileged motion according to the
Constitution subject to a motion to table?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is. . . .
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 323, nays 19, not
voting 90.
Parliamentarian's Note: The general rule (stated in Sec. 9.16,
infra) is that motions to discharge committees are not subject to a
motion to table. Rule XXVII clause 4,(5) which authorizes
motions to discharge committees from consideration of ``public bills
and resolutions'' provides, inter alia, that such motions be decided
without intervening motion except one motion to adjourn, and thereby
precludes motions to lay on the table. However, this rule does not
apply to vetoed bills where the motion to discharge is based on the
constitutional privilege accorded the consideration of a veto.
Therefore, the prohibition against intervening motions on motions to
discharge committees does not apply when a motion to discharge is made
under another rule of the House or provision of law not governed by
rule XXVII clause 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.16 The motion to lay on the table a motion to discharge a
committee under rule XXVII clause 4 is not in order.
On June 11, 1945,(6) a Member sought to obtain
consideration of H.R. 7, a bill to outlaw the poll tax, by calling up a
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration
of a resolution providing for consideration of that bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
the motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further
consideration of House Resolution 139, providing for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) making unlawful the requirement
for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a
primary or other election for national officers.
After the Clerk read the resolution, the following occurred:
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the motion be laid on the table.
The Speaker: (7) That motion is not in order under
the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4559]]
Tabling of Resolution of Inquiry
Sec. 9.17 The motion to lay on the table may be applied to a resolution
of inquiry adversely reported from a committee.
On Aug. 16, 1972,(8) Mr. Charles M. Price, of Illinois,
called up House Resolutions 1078 and 1079, directing the Secretary of
Defense to furnish certain information to the House of Representatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 118 Cong. Rec. 28365, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Price of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that
this resolution was adversely reported by the House Committee on
Armed Services by a rollcall vote of 27 to 5, I move to lay House
Resolution 1078 on the table.
The Speaker: (9) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinios (Mr. Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to table was agreed to. . . .
Mr. Price of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution
1079 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution. . . .
Mr. Price of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that
this resolution was ordered adversely reported to the House on a
vote of 31 to 1 by the House Armed Services Committee I move to lay
House Resolution 1079 on the table.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).
The motion to table was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on
both motions to table was laid on the table.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 6383-85, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 6, 1973;
117 Cong. Rec. 34266, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 30, 1971; 117
Cong. Rec. 23030, 23031, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1971;
and 111 Cong. Rec. 24030, 24033, 24034, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Sept. 16, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.18 A resolution of inquiry was, by unanimous consent, discharged
from the Committee on the Judiciary and laid on the table at the
request of its sponsor.
On Oct. 23, 1973, Mr. Paul N. McCloskey, of California, introduced
House Resolution 634, a privileged resolution of inquiry, requesting
the Attorney General to furnish the House with all documents and items
of evidence in the custody of the Watergate Special Prosecutor as of
Oct. 20 of that year.
On Nov. 1, 1973,(11) after the Attorney General had
turned over the documents in question to a federal court, Mr. McCloskey
took the following action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 35644, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further
consideration of
[[Page 4560]]
House Resolution 634 and that the resolution be laid upon the
table.
The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Sec. 9.19 The House has rejected a motion to lay on the table an
adversely reported resolution of inquiry, and after debate, agreed
to the resolution.
On Feb. 20, 1952,(13) Mr. James P. Richards, of South
Carolina, offered a privileged resolution, House Resolution 514,
directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House information
relating to agreements made between the President of the United States
and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. After the Clerk read the
resolution and the adverse report thereon by the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 1215, 1216, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Richards: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be laid
on the table.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of very considerable
importance. Does the making of this motion at this time preclude
all debate, or may we expect that the chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs will yield time to those who may want to discuss
this matter?
The Speaker: The motion to lay on the table is not debatable.
The gentleman from South Carolina cannot yield time after he has
made a motion to lay on the table. . . .
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from South
Carolina. . . .
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 150, nays 184, not
voting 97. . . .
So the motion was rejected.
Debate ensued on the resolution and the proceedings were resolved
as follows:
Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question.
The previous question was ordered. . . .
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 189, nays 143, not
voting 99, as follows. . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
Raising Question of Consideration
Sec. 9.20 Parliamentarian's Note: The question of consideration may be
raised after a motion to lay on the table has been
made.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tabling of Resolution From Rules Committee
Sec. 9.21 In response to a parliamentary inquiry the
[[Page 4561]]
Speaker advised that if the previous question on a privileged
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules was voted down, a
motion to table would be in order and would be preferential.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(16) the House was considering House
Resolution 1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct, when a series of parliamentary inquiries were raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous
question is refused, it is true that then amendments may be offered
and further debate may be had on the resolution?
The Speaker: (17) If the previous question is
defeated, then the resolution is open to further consideration and
action and debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it
not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a
preferential motion.
Sec. 9.22 After defeating the motion for the previous question on a
resolution establishing a select investigative committee reported
by the Committee on Rules, the House then voted to table the
resolution.
On Mar. 11, 1941,(18) the House was considering House
Resolution 120, providing for an investigation of the national military
defense capability. Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, offered an amendment
to the resolution and moved the previous question on the amendment and
the resolution. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 87 Cong. Rec. 2189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire whether or not the
amendment as offered is debatable before the previous question is
voted upon.
The Speaker: The previous question has been moved. If the
previous question is voted down, the amendment would be subject to
debate. The question is on ordering the previous question. . . .
So the motion for the previous question was rejected.
Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I move that House Resolution 120 be laid
on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 3291-301, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8,
1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4562]]
Sec. 9.23 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules providing a
special order of business was, after debate, laid on the table.
On June 15, 1938,(2) the House was considering House
Resolution 526, providing for the consideration of a joint resolution
to establish a Bureau of Fine Arts in the Department of the Interior.
After debate, the previous question was rejected and the following
transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 83 Cong. Rec. 9499, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
resolution be tabled.
Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I do not
yield to the gentleman from Georgia for that purpose unless the
same order is entered with reference to my retaining the floor in
the event the motion is defeated.
The Speaker: (3) Unless there is objection the Chair
will consider that the same order shall prevail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia moves that the
resolution be laid on the table.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Boileau) there were--ayes 195, noes 35.
So the motion was agreed to.
Sec. 9.24 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules has been laid
on the table by unanimous consent.
On Oct. 2, 1963,(4) the House was considering House
Resolution 514, concerning a trip to be made by members of the
Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, was
recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 109 Cong. Rec. 18583, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules
reported House Resolution 514 concerning a trip to be made by
members of the Committee on Agriculture. The matter did not get
through until after the trip was over. It is now on the Calendar. I
ask unanimous consent that House Resolution 514 be laid on the
table.
The Speaker: (5) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Tabling of Resolution Relating to the Privileges of the House
Sec. 9.25 A resolution raising a question of the privileges of the
House has been laid on the table.
On June 20, 1968,(6) the House was considering the
conference report on H.R. 15414, the Revenue and Expenditure Control
Act of 1968, when Mr. H.R. Gross, of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 114 Cong. Rec. 17970-72, 17977, 17978, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4563]]
Iowa, rose to a question of privilege of the House, and offered a
resolution (H. Res. 1222) which contended that the Senate in its
amendments to the House bill had contravened the Constitution and had
infringed on the privileges of the House. After the debate on the
resolution had concluded the following occurred:
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay
the resolution offered by the gentleman from Iowa on the table.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion is to lay the resolution on the table.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 257, nays 162, not
voting 14, as follows. . . .
So the motion to table the resolution was agreed to.
Tabling a Motion to Dispense With Further Proceedings Under a Call
Sec. 9.26 A motion to lay on the table a motion to dispense with
further proceedings under a call of the House is not in order since
a motion to table may not be applied to a motion which is neither
debatable nor amendable.
On Dec. 18, 1970,(8) the following occurred after a
rollcall in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 116 Cong. Rec. 42504, 42505, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (9) On this rollcall 312 Members have
answered to their names, a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, further proceeding under the call will be
dispensed with.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object to
dispensing with further proceedings under the call.
motion offered by mr. albert
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
dispense with further proceedings under the call.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Oklahoma.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move to
table that motion.
The Speaker: The motion to dispense with further proceedings
under the call is not debatable and is not amendable. The Chair
rules that the motion of the gentleman from Missouri is not in
order. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from
Oklahoma.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 26453, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 11, 1968;
and 111 Cong. Rec. 23596-98, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13,
1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4564]]
Tabling of Motions Relating to the Order of Business
Sec. 9.27 The motion to lay on the table may not be applied to a motion
relating to the order of business.
On Apr. 22, 1940,(11) the following took place on the
floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 4860, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8980) to
provide revenue for the District of Columbia, and for other
purposes; and, pending that, I ask unanimous consent that general
debate on the bill be limited to 1 hour, one-half to be controlled
by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] and one-half by
myself.
Mr. [John C.] Schafer [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a
preferential motion. I move to lay the pending motion on the table.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12)) The Chair may say to
the gentleman from Wisconsin that his motion is not in order. It
applies to the order of business and is not in order at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.28 A resolution providing a special order of business, before
the House under operation of the discharge rule, is not subject to
the motion to table, since the discharge rule provides that ``if
the motion prevails to discharge the Committee on Rules from any
resolution pending before the committee, the House shall
immediately vote on the adoption of said resolution, the Speaker
not entertaining any dilatory or other intervening motion except
one motion to adjourn.''
On June 11, 1945,(13) the House voted to discharge the
Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 139,
providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 7, which sought to
eliminate the payment of the poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a
primary or other election for a national officer. The Speaker, Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, announced that the question was on the resolution.
At that point, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, rose with a
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 5895, 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Does that mean that this is the end, that this is
the last vote on the resolution?
The Speaker: The last vote today. If the resolution is agreed
to, the bill
[[Page 4565]]
comes up tomorrow under the terms of the resolution.
Mr. Rankin: I thought the other vote was the only vote to be
taken today.
The Speaker: The other vote was on the question of discharging
the Committee on Rules. This vote is on the resolution to make the
bill in order.
Mr. Rankin: I move to lay that motion on the table.
The Speaker: Under the rule, that motion is not in order.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken and the Chair announced that the ayes
seemed to have it.
Application of Motion in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 9.29 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that
a motion to table a pending amendment and all amendments thereto
was not in order in the Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 30, 1970,(14) Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New
York, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 13782, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Stratton: Would it be in order to move at this time that
the Reid of New York amendment and all amendments thereto be tabled
so that this matter of grave consequence might be considered at
another time?
The Chairman: A motion to table is not in order at this
time.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 72 Cong. Rec. 8959, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 9.30 The motion to lay on the table is not in order in Committee
of the Whole.
On Oct. 19, 1945,(17) the House was considering H.R.
4407, to reduce appropriations and contract authorizations for certain
departments and agencies. Mr. Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, made a point
of order against an amendment offered by Mr. John E. Rankin, of
Mississippi, on the grounds that the amendment was not germane to the
bill. After the Chairman, Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, sustained the
point of order, the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 9846, 9867-70, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, with all the deference in the world
for the distinguished Chairman, whom we all love, I respectfully
appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. O'Neal: Mr. Chairman, I move to lay the appeal on the
table.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, the appeal cannot be laid on the
table. The Committee has a right to vote on it.
The Chairman. The motion to lay on the table is not in order in
the Committee.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 7698-700, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27,
1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4566]]
Senate Debate on Motion
Sec. 9.31 In the Senate, the motion to lay an appeal on the table is
not debatable.
On Aug. 2, 1948,(19) 22 Senators signed a cloture
petition against a motion to take up the bill H.R. 29, the anti-poll
tax bill. Senator Richard B. Russell, of Georgia, submitted a point of
order against the cloture petition on the grounds that the Senate rules
prohibited the use of the cloture petition against a motion to take up
a bill. The President pro tempore, Arthur H. Vandenberg, of Michigan,
sustained the point of order, although he stated that his personal
feelings were at variance therewith, and he invited the Senate to
appeal his ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 9598-605, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert A.] Taft [of Ohio]: Mr. President, I appeal from
the decision of the Chair chiefly, of course, because it leaves the
Senate in an almost impossible situation. A motion to take up is
subject to debate and against it under the Chair's decision, a
cloture petition cannot lie. Consequently there is no way by which
this situation can be changed, except by physical exhaustion, by
keeping the Senate in session day in and day out, which I hope will
not be necessary, although we shall have to get to it next year
unless this proposed change is made. . . .
The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Ohio has appealed
from the decision of the Chair. Therefore, the pending question
before the Senate is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
decision of the Senate? . . .
Mr. [Kenneth S.] Wherry [of Nebraska]: Mr. President, I
propound the following inquiry: If a motion is made to lay the
appeal on the table, is that motion subject to debate?
The President Pro Tempore: No motion to table is ever subject
to debate.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also 95 Cong. Rec. 2273-75. 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 11,
1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------