[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[F. Motions to Reconsider]
[§ 39. Scope and Application of Motion]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 4733-4744]
CHAPTER 23
Motions
F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
Sec. 39. Scope and Application of Motion
Use in Committee
Sec. 39.1 A motion to reconsider may be used in a committee, when a
quorum is present, to report out from that committee bills approved
earlier that day in the absence of a quorum.
On July 9, 1956,(10) John L. McMillan, of South
Carolina, Chair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 102 Cong. Rec. 12199, 12200, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4734]]
man of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called up for
consideration H.R. 4697, to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of
the District of Columbia. Mr. Albert P. Morano, of Connecticut, rose to
a point of order:
Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the
consideration of this bill on the ground that when the committee
considered this bill there was not a quorum present to report it to
the House.
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, may I be
recognized on the point of order?
The Speaker: (11) Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, there is great difficulty,
it is true, in getting a quorum of the District Committee, but I
was personally present when this bill was voted out, and there was
a quorum of the committee present. And, in order to be sure that
there was no such question as this raised on the floor of the
House, I myself made a motion, when a quorum was present, to
reconsider all of the bills that had been considered and voted them
out again, which was done.
The Speaker: Does the chairman of the Committee of the District
of Columbia desire to be heard on the point of order? . . .
Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Smith] is correct. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair must know whether the gentleman says
that there was a quorum present or not, to his knowledge.
Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there was a quorum present part of
the time and part of the time there was not.
The Speaker: That is not an answer to the query of the Chair.
Mr. [Sidney E.] Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, would the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith of Virginia: I yield.
Mr. Simpson of Illinois: I will say for the benefit of the
House that I was at the committee meeting when the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Smith] brought up the point of no quorum; and there
was a quorum present.
The Speaker: That is what the Chair is trying to ascertain from
the chairman of the committee.
Mr. McMillan: That is correct.
The Speaker: That is the point that is involved here.
Mr. McMillan: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] made that
motion and there was a quorum present. . . .
Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I press my point of order. I would
like to know whether or not there was a quorum present when this
bill was reported, not when the gentleman from Virginia made his
motion.
The Speaker: The chairman of the legislative committee has just
stated to the Chair that there was a quorum present when this bill
was reported. The Chair is going to take the word of the chairman
of the committee, because that is according to the rules and
practices of the House.
Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I understood the chairman to say that
when the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] made his motion there
was a quorum present. But I did not understand the chairman of the
committee
[[Page 4735]]
to say that when this bill was reported there was a quorum present.
The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. McMillan] that question now.
Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Virginia
made his motion he stated that he wanted all bills that were
considered that day passed with a quorum present.
The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman again if a
quorum was present, to his certain knowledge, when this bill was
reported.
Mr. McMillan: There was not when this bill was passed.
Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be heard
further, because I think it is important to straighten this
question out.
The Speaker: It is.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Not from the standpoint of this bill,
but as a parliamentary question. Frequently bills are discussed and
voted upon when a quorum is not present. It is the custom, at the
conclusion of the discussion, when a quorum is present, to move a
reconsideration of all the bills that have been passed, and to move
to report them out. That is what was done in this matter. I think
it is important for the House to know just how strict this rule is
and how it is to be applied, because I think every bill that was
passed upon this morning came here under the same conditions as
this bill.
Mr. Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith of Virginia: I yield.
Mr. Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to verify what
Judge Smith is saying. That was exactly the procedure in this
matter in the House Committee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: On this proceeding of the committee, I
think we ought to be straightened out on it for the future.
The Speaker: This has come up many times and it has always been
decided by the Chair on the statement of the chairman of the
legislative committee concerned. The gentleman from South Carolina
said that when this bill was reported there was not a quorum
present. Is the Chair quoting the gentleman from South Carolina
correctly?
Mr. McMillan: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: That really is not the question I am
trying to get determined for the benefit of the House and other
committees. It is true, I believe, there was not a quorum present
when any one of these bills was considered, but before the session
adjourned a quorum did appear, and then a blanket motion was made
to reconsider all of the bills that had previously been passed upon
and to vote them out, which motion was carried. May I ask the
chairman of the committee if that is a correct statement of what
occurred?
Mr. McMillan: That is correct.
The Speaker: A quorum was present at that time?
Mr. Smith of Virginia: At that time a quorum was present. That
was the reason the motion was made. That is the only way we can
operate in that committee, I might add.
Mr. [Henry O.] Talle [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, may I say as a
member of the District Committee that I was present
[[Page 4736]]
at the meeting. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] has
recorded the proceedings accurately.
Mr. Morano: There is obviously a contradiction here, Mr.
Speaker. The chairman of the committee said there was not a quorum
present when this bill was considered. The issue before the
Speaker, as I understand it, is a ruling on this bill, not on other
bills that were considered en bloc.
The Speaker: That is correct, but the gentleman from South
Carolina said that on the last action on the bill in the committee
a quorum was present.
The Chair under the circumstances must overrule the point of
order made by the gentleman from Connecticut.
Sec. 39.2 A point of order against one motion to reconsider the actions
whereby a committee reported out several bills in the absence of a
quorum should be made in the committee and not in the House.
On July 9, 1956,(12) Mr. John L. McMillan, of South
Carolina, called up H.R. 4697, to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Act of the District of Columbia of 1954. Mr. Albert P. Morano, of
Connecticut, raised a point of order against the consideration of this
bill on the ground that the Committee on the District of Columbia had
considered this bill in the absence of a quorum. A dialogue ensued and
established the following facts: The committee adopted this and several
other bills in the absence of a quorum; however, before the committee
adjourned a quorum appeared, and a motion was then adopted to
reconsider all the bills which had been approved in the absence of a
quorum and report them to the House. The Speaker thereupon overruled
the point of order. Mr. John Taber, of New York, then posed a
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 102 Cong Rec. 12199, 12200, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, is it proper to consider by a single
vote a reconsideration of the votes by which several bills have
been reported, and then make a single omnibus motion by which all
those bills that have been so reconsidered would be reported?
The Speaker: (13) If, as seems to be true in this
instance, no point of order was made, then the action of the
committee is presumed to have been in accordance with parliamentary
procedure of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, the thing that would occur to me with
reference to that is that if it may be that an omnibus motion is
made to report bills that instead of the bills being considered on
their merits and by themselves separately, it would be very
unfortunate for us to treat bills in that way.
The Speaker: Of course, if any point was made in the committee,
they would be compelled to consider them separately. But if no
point was made, it is assumed that the committee was acting in
proper parliamentary fashion.
[[Page 4737]]
Application to Motion to Table
Sec. 39.3 A motion to reconsider may be applied to a vote on a motion
to lay on the table (except to a vote to table another motion to
reconsider).
On Oct. 9, 1968,(14) the House had adopted a motion
offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to table an appeal from a
decision of the Chair sought by Mr. Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio. The
following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 30215, 30216, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged motion.
The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from California will
state his privileged motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the
motion to lay the appeal from the Chair on the table.
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
motion be laid on the table.
The Speaker: The gentleman from California moves to reconsider
the vote on the motion to lay the appeal from the decision of the
Chair on the table, and the gentleman from Oklahoma moves that that
motion be laid on the table. . . .
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Albert], that the motion to reconsider be laid on the
table.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 135, nays 104, not
voting 191, as follows: . . .
So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Application to Conference Reports
Sec. 39.4 The House may reconsider the vote whereby a conference report
was rejected.
The House may reconsider the vote on a conference report, as
illustrated by the proceedings of May 5, 1943,(16) dealing
with the War Overtime Pay Act of 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 4001, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
rule 18, I call up for consideration the motion to reconsider the
vote whereby the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1860) to
provide for the payment of overtime compensation to Government
employees, and for other purposes, was rejected. . . .
The Speaker: (17) . . . The question is: Will the
House reconsider the vote whereby the conference report on the bill
(H.R. 1860) to provide for the payment of overtime compensation to
Government employees, and for other purposes, was rejected? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question recurs on the motion to reconsider.
[[Page 4738]]
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Vorys of Ohio) there were--ayes 169, noes 82.
So the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk called the roll; and there were--yeas 275, nays 119,
not voting 40.
Application to Vote to Recommit
Sec. 39.5 The motion to reconsider has been applied to the vote whereby
a conference report was recommitted.
On the legislative day of Dec. 20, 1963,(18) after the
House voted to recommit the conference report on H.R. 9499 (foreign aid
appropriations for 1964), the following occurred on the floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 25423, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 1963 (Calendar
Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, was a motion to reconsider the vote
just taken on the motion to recommit tabled?
The Speaker: The Chair thanks the gentleman.
A motion to reconsider the vote by which action was taken on
the motion to recommit the conference report on H.R. 9499 making
appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, was laid on the
table.
Sec. 39.6 It is in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House
recommitted a joint resolution to a committee.
On July 14, 1932,(20) after the House voted to recommit
Senate Joint Resolution 169 (for relocation of the unemployed), a
motion was entered to reconsider this vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 15391, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Luther A.] Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I voted for the
motion to recommit, and I make the motion to reconsider the vote by
which the bill was recommitted, and spread that motion upon the
Journal.
The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Texas . . .
moves to reconsider the vote by which the Senate Joint Resolution
was recommitted. The motion will be spread upon the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 16, 1932,(2) this motion was called up for
consideration, and laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 75 Cong. Rec. 15725, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4739]]
Mr. Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I call up my motion to
reconsider the vote whereby Senate Joint Resolution 169 was
recommitted to the Committee on Labor.
Mr. [Charles] Adkins [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay
that motion on the table.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Illinois.
The question was taken; and on a division [demanded by Mr.
Connery], there were 147 ayes and 29 noes.
Mr. [William P.] Connery [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts demands the yeas
and nays. Eleven Members have arisen, not a sufficient number, and
the yeas and nays are refused.
So the motion to lay the motion of Mr. Johnson of Texas on the
table was agreed to.
Use of Motion to Vote on Motion to Expunge Remarks in Record
Sec. 39.7 The motion to reconsider may be used to reopen the
proceedings whereby the House voted to expunge certain proceedings
from the Congressional Record, including a speech made on the floor
by a Member.
On Feb. 11, 1941,(3) the House agreed to a motion
offered by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, to expunge from the
Record a speech made that day by Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York
(criticizing the House Committee on Un-American Activities). A point of
order raised by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, against this speech
and the Speaker's response thereto, both of which occurred during the
speech, were also removed from the Record as a result of this motion.
On Feb. 13, 1941,(4) Mr. Hoffman, who wished to have the
alleged offensive speech and his point of order against it preserved in
the Record, rose to a question of privilege of the House, contending
that by expunging from the Record those proceedings of Feb. 11, the
House had abridged the first amendment. He offered a resolution to have
the expunged proceedings included in the Record. The issue was resolved
in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 87 Cong. Rec. 932, 933, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
4. Id. at pp. 979, 980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman: I raised a question of the privilege of the House.
The House has not passed upon that question raised by the
resolution.
The Speaker: (5) The House would have to decide
that, and, in the opinion of the Chair, the House did decide the
matter when it expunged the remarks from the Record. The Chair
thinks, under the circumstances, that the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4740]]
proper way to reopen the question would be by a motion to
reconsider the vote whereby the motion of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] was adopted. The Chair is of the opinion
that inasmuch as the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan
was decided by a vote of the House on a proper motion, that he does
not now present a question of privilege of the House or of personal
privilege.
Senate Practice
Sec. 39.8 A motion to reconsider its action in passing a House bill may
be entered in the Senate; when this occurs, the Senate requests the
House to return the papers.
On May 8, 1967,(6) the following occurred on the floor
of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 113 Cong. Rec. 11868, 11918, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Allen J.] Ellender [of Louisiana]: Mr. President, I enter
a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill [H.R. 3399 to
amend section 2 of Public Law 88-240] to extend the termination
date for the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission was passed on
Thursday, May 4, 1967.
The Presiding Officer: (7) The motion will be
entered and placed on the calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Birch Bayh (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion for House to Return to the Senate the Papers on H.R. 3399
Mr. Ellender: Mr. President, I move that the House of
Representatives be requested to return to the Senate the papers on
H.R. 3399, to amend section 2 of Public Law 88-240, to extend the
termination date for the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission.
The Presiding Officer: The motion will be stated.
The Assistant Legislative Clerk: The Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. Ellender] moves that the House of Representatives be requested
to return to the Senate the papers on H.R. 3399, to amend section 2
of Public Law 88-240, to extend the termination date for the
Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the
motion of the Senator from Louisiana.
The motion was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 3399, extending the termination date
for the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission, was adopted by the
Senate on May 4, 1967. By the time the message arrived from the Senate
on May 8, requesting the return of the papers to the Senate, the
enrolled bill was on the Speaker's table awaiting his signature. After
consultations with the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
the Speaker withheld his signature until the chairman could ascertain
the reason for the Senate's request and recommend appropriate action in
response thereto.
Sec. 39.9 A motion to reconsider two Senate bills having been
[[Page 4741]]
entered, the Senate [by motion] requested the House to return the
bills.
On Aug. 26, 1963,(8) a motion to reconsider certain
votes was made on the floor of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 15849, 15850, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Michael J.] Mansfield [of Montana]: Mr. President, I enter
a motion to reconsider the votes by which the bills, S. 1914 to
incorporate the Catholic War Veterans of the United States of
America, and S. 1942 to incorporate the Jewish War Veterans of the
United States of America, were passed on August 20. . . .
The President Pro Tempore: (9) The Senator has a
right to enter the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Hayden (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mansfield: Mr. President, I move that the House of
Representatives be requested to return the papers on the bill S.
1914 to incorporate the Catholic War Veterans of the United States
of America, and on the bill S. 1942, to incorporate the Jewish War
Veterans of the United States of America.
The President Pro Tempore: The question is on agreeing to the
motion of the Senator from Montana. . . .
The motion was agreed to.
Use in Committee of the Whole
Sec. 39.10 A motion to reconsider is not in order in the Committee of
the Whole.
On May 24, 1967,(10) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7819, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
amendments of 1967. A motion regulating the time for debate had been
approved when the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 13824, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (11) The gentleman from Illinois will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Chairman, is a motion to reconsider the last
motion in order?
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Pucinski] that such motion is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 39.11 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by motion, agreed to
limit debate on a pending amendment, a motion to reconsider its
action is not in order.
On Aug. 5, 1966,(12) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, when Mr. William
L. Dickinson, of Alabama, rose to a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 18416, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4742]]
Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, we were
granted 2 hours in which to submit amendments. One hour and 45
minutes has been used up. We have 15 minutes remaining. Did the
Chair just rule that it would be inappropriate, and this Committee
would be unable to reconsider, the fixing of this time? Was that
the ruling of the Chair?
The Chairman: A motion to reconsider is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 39.12 A request to reconsider a vote on an amendment is not in
order in the Committee of the Whole, even by unanimous consent.
On Dec. 4, 1963,(14) the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6196--on the revitalization of cotton industry--when
the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 23322, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, would it now be in order to reconsider
by unanimous consent the amendment I previously offered?
The Chairman: A motion to reconsider is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 39.13 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole held out of order
a motion to reconsider the vote by which an amendment was adopted,
but allowed a unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings
whereby that amendment was adopted.
On Mar. 12, 1945,(16) while Mr. Brent Spence, of
Kentucky, was controlling debate in the Committee of the Whole on H.R.
2023 [to continue the Commodity Credit Corporation] he inadvertently
permitted adoption of an amendment offered by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of
Michigan. Upon realizing his mistake, Mr. Spence sought to reconsider
the vote on this amendment, and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 2042, 2043, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the action of
the Committee by which the amendment was agreed to.
The Chairman: (17) Such a motion is not in order in
the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Wolcott: Inasmuch as business has been transacted since the
original request was submitted by the gentleman from Kentucky,
would it be in order for me to propound a consent request that the
proceedings by which the amendment was adopted be vacated?
[[Page 4743]]
The Chairman: Such a request would be in order, and the Chair
recognizes the gentleman for that purpose.
Mr. Wolcott: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the proceedings by which the amendment was adopted reducing the
amount from $5,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000 be vacated. . . .
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Question of Consideration
Sec. 39.14 It is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House
has declined to consider a proposition since the question of
consideration can be raised again at a subsequent time.
On Apr. 7, 1937,(18) the issue before the House was
whether to consider H.R. 2251, an antilynching bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3252-54, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I raise
the question of consideration.
The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from New York raises
the question of consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is, will the House consider the bill [H.R. 2251]
to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the
equal protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching?
. . .
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 123, nays 257, not
voting 50, as follows: . . .
So the House refused to consider the bill. . . .
Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the House refused to consider the bill and lay that motion on the
table.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the motion is not in order
on a vote of this character.
Second Motion
Sec. 39.15 After a motion to reconsider has been laid on the table a
second motion to reconsider is not in order.
On June 20, 1967,(2) the House had just adopted H.R.
10480, to prohibit desecration of the flag, when confusion arose as to
the effect of House action on amendments reported out by the Committee
of the Whole. Mr. Theodore R. Kupferman, of New York, stated that his
vote had been based on a misconception of the exact wording of the
bill, and raised the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 113 Cong. Rec. 16497, 16498, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask is it in order for
reconsideration of the vote on the ground that there was a
misconception at the time of the vote?
The Speaker: (3) The Chair will reply to the
gentleman from New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4744]]
that a motion to reconsider was laid on the table and that a motion
to reconsider at this point is not in order.
Sec. 39.16 After one motion to reconsider has been acted on, a second
motion to reconsider is not in order.
On May 6, 1964,(4) the Senate rejected amendments
proposed by Senator Thruston B. Morton, of Kentucky, to amendments
offered by Senator Herman E. Talmadge, of Georgia, to H.R. 7152, the
Civil Rights Act of 1963. Senator Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois,
moved to reconsider the vote on the Morton amendments, with the
following results:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 110 Cong. Rec. 10201-03, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Acting President Pro Tempore: (5) The question
is on agreeing to the motion to reconsider the vote by which the
Morton amendments to the Talmadge amendments were rejected. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results was announced--yeas 46, nays 45, as follows: . . .
So the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Morton
amendments to the Talmadge amendments were rejected was agreed to.
The Acting President Pro Tempore: The question now is on
agreeing to the amendments, of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
Morton] to the Talmadge amendments. . . .
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. . . .
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 46, as follows: . . .
So Mr. Morton's amendments to the amendments of Mr. Talmadge
were rejected.
Mr. Dirksen: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
The Acting President Pro Tempore: The motion is not in order.