[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[A. Introductory]
[Â§ 4. Dilatory Motions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4537-4544]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                             A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec. 4. Dilatory Motions

Discretion of Chair

Sec. 4.1 The determination of whether a motion is dilatory is entirely 
    within the discretion of the Chair.

    On May 16, 1938,(17) the consideration of an omnibus 
claims bill was interrupted by a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 6938, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to 
    submit a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: The Chair has stated that tomorrow an omnibus 
    claims bill will be called up. I recall that the last time that an 
    omnibus claims bill was called up a Member rose and moved to strike 
    out a certain title which, of course, was permissible under the 
    rule. However, after he had moved to strike out the title and was 
    recognized, he immediately stated that he did not propose to insist 
    upon his motion, but that he offered the motion for the purpose of 
    giving the House some information relative to the title under 
    consideration. As I understand the spirit of the rule, there shall 
    be 5 minutes granted in opposition to the title and 5 minutes in 
    favor of the title, each bill being a separate title. It seems to 
    me that the spirit of the rule was violated on that occasion, 
    because there were two speeches of 5 minutes each in favor of the 
    title or bill, and no speech in opposition to the title. My 
    parliamentary inquiry is whether a point of order would lie against 
    the motion of a Member to strike out the title when, as a matter of 
    fact, the Member was not in favor of striking out the title.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the Chair 
    would have no way of reading a Member's mind or questioning his 
    motives with reference to any amendment that he might offer. The 
    Chair thinks that any Member who gained the floor to offer any 
    permissible amendment would be in order and he would be entitled to 
    the floor.
        Mr. Cochran: It was certainly a violation of the spirit of the 
    rule when one offers an amendment to strike out a title and then in 
    the first sentence after recognition says that he is not going to 
    insist upon his motion and consumes 5 minutes that should be 
    allowed in opposition to the title.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The rule interpreted otherwise would 
    make it pretty hard on the occupant of the chair.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Where it becomes apparent to 
    the

[[Page 4538]]

    Chair that a motion is made for the purpose of delay, then a point 
    of order may be made and would be sustained, would it not?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the chair 
    understands that the determination of whether a motion is dilatory 
    is entirely within the discretion of the Chair.

Intent to Delay

Sec. 4.2 On one occasion the Speaker announced that he would not hold a 
    motion to be dilatory until it became obvious that dilatory tactics 
    were being indulged in and that a filibuster was being conducted.

    On July 25, 1949,(19) the House sought consideration of 
H.R. 3199, a federal anti-poll tax act, by utilizing for the first time 
the so-called 21-day rule to bring this bill to the House from the 
Committee on Rules. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 10095, 10096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 2(c) of rule XI, I call up House Resolution 276, which has 
    been pending before the Committee on Rules for more than 21 
    calendar days without being reported.
        The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            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 bill (H.R. 3199) 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 and for other purposes, and all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived. That after general 
        debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
        exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        House Administration, the bill shall be read for amendment 
        under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration 
        of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report 
        the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
        adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
        without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. . . .

        Mrs. Norton: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on 
    the adoption of the rule.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 262, nays 100, not 
    voting 70. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.

[[Page 4539]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida moves that the House do 
    now adjourn.
        The Chair desires to make a statement. Since the present 
    Speaker has occupied the chair he has yet to hold a motion to be 
    dilatory, and will not until it becomes obvious to everybody that 
    dilatory tactics are being indulged in and that a filibuster is 
    being conducted.

Sec. 4.3 The Chair overruled the point of order that a motion to strike 
    out the enacting clause of a bill was dilatory where the Member 
    offering the motion stated that he was opposed to the bill.

    On Mar. 30, 1950,(1) the House was considering H.R. 
7797, to provide foreign economic assistance. The following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 4424, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fulton moves that the Committee do now rise and that 
        the bill be reported to the House with the enacting clause 
        stricken.

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    preferential motion that it is dilatory. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is not opposed to this bill and is not in good faith 
    asking that the enacting clause be stricken out; he is advocating 
    this bill vehemently and is simply taking this means to get 5 
    minutes time when many others of us have been waiting for 2 days 
    trying to get time, but in vain.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] if he is opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Fulton: In its present form I would be opposed to it.

        The Chairman: The Chair must accept the statement of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania in support of his preferential motion.

Sec. 4.4 After stating that, ``one of the greatest responsibilities the 
    Chair could assume would be to hold that motions are dilatory,'' 
    the Speaker ruled that a motion to adjourn was not dilatory.

    On June 5, 1946,(3) a Calendar Wednesday, several quorum 
calls had delayed reaching the Committee on Labor preventing a federal 
employment practices bill from being called up. After the House voted 
to dispense with further proceedings under a call of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 92 Cong. Rec. 6352-56, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4540]]

the House, Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, moved that the 
House adjourn.

        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        Mr. [Christian A.] Herter [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Herter: Mr. Speaker, the motion just made is a dilatory 
    motion and I should like to be heard on it.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, it is always in order to move to 
    adjourn.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts has made a point 
    of order and the Chair is going to hear him.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to be heard in opposition to the point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Herter: Mr. Speaker, in ruling on the point of order I 
    realize fully that entire discretion is vested in the Chair in 
    reaching a decision as to whether a motion is a dilatory motion or 
    is not a dilatory motion.

    At this point Mr. Rankin rose to a point of order that a quorum was 
not present and Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, moved a call of the 
House. The call was ordered and when taken indicated the presence of 
290 Members. Mr. Graham A. Barden, of North Carolina, moved to dispense 
with further proceedings under the call and Mr. Thomas G. Abernethy, of 
Mississippi, demanded the yeas and nays. The motion was agreed to.

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Herter] on a point of order.
        Mr. Herter: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, it is within 
    your discretion to rule on this point of order and there can be no 
    appeal from your ruling; however, in making that ruling, it is 
    obvious that you will be guided by two matters: First, by the chain 
    of circumstances which have led to the point of order being made, 
    and, secondly, by the precedents that have been set by your 
    predecessors in ruling under similar circumstances.
        Insofar as the first is concerned, the circumstances that have 
    led to this particular point of order being made are obvious to 
    every Member of this House. For the last few Wednesdays this House 
    has done no business whatsoever. It has clearly been prevented from 
    doing business because certain Members wished to avoid having 
    certain matters come up here for discussion. In other words, sir, 
    as long as the calendar contains certain pieces of legislation that 
    have been favorably reported by your duly constituted committees 
    but have not been brought here under rule, they can only be brought 
    up in this way, and as long as the Members of the House wish to 
    avoid the calendar being reached they can delay action on those 
    particular matters. We all know what they are. . . .
        Mr. Herter: Mr. Speaker, the second point that I wish to 
    emphasize is

[[Page 4541]]

    the question of precedents that have been set by your predecessors 
    under circumstances very similar to those which we are facing here 
    today. I am reading now direct quotations from Cannon's Precedents 
    of the House of Representatives, volume 8, page 424. . . 
    .(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Mr. Herter cited 8 Cannon's precedents Sec. 2813, where a motion to 
        adjourn had been ruled out as dilatory. In that situation, 
        Speaker Frederick H. Gillett (Mass.) in ruling out a motion to 
        adjourn offered by Mr. Finis J. Garrett (Tenn.) stated: ``In 
        deciding what is dilatory the Chair thinks he should be very 
        careful, because his decision is final; but, on the other hand, 
        he does not think there can be any question in the minds of any 
        of the Members of the House present that the purpose of the 
        gentleman from Tennessee in making this motion is delay, and 
        not the expectation or intention of accomplishing any other 
        result by the motion. Therefore the Chair thinks that the 
        motion is dilatory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is familiar with the rulings made by 
    Speaker Gillett to which the gentleman from Massachusetts refers. 
    One of the greatest responsibilities any occupant of the Chair 
    could assume would be to hold that motions are dilatory. However, 
    that is not to say that the present occupant of the Chair will not, 
    under certain circumstances, hold motions to be dilatory. In the 
    weeks to come and for the remainder of this day the Chair will 
    scrutinize very carefully motions that are made.
        The Chair is going to put the motion to adjourn.

Sec. 4.5 The first having been withdrawn, a second motion that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill back to the House 
    with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken was 
    held in order and not dilatory.

    On May 3, 1949,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2032, the National Labor Relations Act of 1949. The 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 5531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boggs of Louisiana moves that the Committee do now rise 
        and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that 
        the enacting clause be stricken out.

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that that motion has just been voted down.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman is mistaken. The 
    previous motion was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order it is dilatory. Is the gentleman going to 
    press his motion?
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 4.6 The Speaker has, on a Calendar Wednesday, recog

[[Page 4542]]

    nized the chairman of a committee to call up a bill in spite of 
    repeated motions to adjourn, thereby inferentially holding such 
    motions to be dilatory.

    On Feb. 15, 1950,(8) the Clerk was calling the roll of 
the committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule. The following took 
place immediately after the rejection of several motions to adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 1811, 1812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The Clerk will call the committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not yield to the gentleman for a 
    parliamentary inquiry at this time.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The Clerk has called the Committee on the District 
    of Columbia. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina 
    [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do 
    now adjourn. That motion is always in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Repeated roll calls were sought on this day 
in an effort to delay business under the Calendar Wednesday rule and 
thus delay the call of the Committee on Education and Labor on the 
following Wednesday when a fair employment practice bill was to be 
called up.

Demand for Division

Sec. 4.7 A demand for a division vote after a voice vote was held not 
    to be dilatory.

    On May 14, 1930,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
debating H.R. 2152, when a motion was offered to close all debate on a 
particular section and all amendments thereto in five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 72 Cong. Rec. 8958, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The question now is on the motion 
    of the gentleman from Michigan to close all debate on this section 
    and all amendments thereto in five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Scott Leavitt (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin 
    demanded a division.

[[Page 4543]]

        Mr. [C. William] Ramseyer [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ramseyer: I make the point of order that the motion is 
    dilatory.
        The Chairman: What motion does the gentleman refer to? The 
    matter before the House is whether there shall be a division.
        Mr. Ramseyer: It can be contended as dilatory. I refer the 
    Chair to page 346 of the House manual, paragraph 10. Vote after 
    vote has been taken here on these minor matters, and each has 
    turned out about 2 to 1. [Cries of ``Oh, no!'']
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Why, a change of 10 
    votes would have made the committee rise on the last vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Mr. Ramseyer: I do not care to take up the time of the Chair to 
    read the various decisions, but it covers almost everything--time 
    to fix debate, a motion to rise, a motion to adjourn, demand for 
    tellers. That has been held dilatory also, and so on through. I am 
    not going to argue this particular point, but I shall insist on the 
    Chair enforcing the rule against dilatory motions.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be 
    heard upon the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: The request for a division is 
    certainly not dilatory, particularly in view of the fact that on 
    the vote by ayes and noes it would seem to any fair-minded person 
    paying attention that there was a very close division in the 
    committee. Furthermore, this is not a trivial matter. These motions 
    have been made in order to close debate. Many statesmen or would-be 
    statesmen talk much about freedom of speech when they are running 
    for office, and then come here and try to cut off reasonable 
    debate, in this important legislation, with steam-roller tactics.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair finds 
    nothing in the precedents to hold that a request for a division is 
    dilatory. He does find a demand for tellers to have been held to be 
    dilatory, but not a division. The point of order is overruled.

Time for Objection

Sec. 4.8 After the Speaker has entertained a motion that the House 
    adjourn, it is too late to make the point of order that the motion 
    is dilatory on the ground that the House rejected such a motion an 
    hour previously.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(12) the House was proceeding with 
business under the Calendar Wednesday rule when Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes, 
of Florida, moved that the House adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Sikes] moves that the House do now adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 4544]]

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order on the motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I submit the motion to adjourn is 
    dilatory. While I recognize that intervening business has been 
    transacted, such as voting on the motion to dispense with Calendar 
    Wednesday business, it seems to me that the House has expressed its 
    will on this matter about an hour ago and the House refused to 
    adjourn. I think it is obvious to the Speaker that the House has 
    refused to adjourn and the motion, therefore, is dilatory.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already entertained the motion. The 
    question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also Chapters 18, 21, and 17, supra, 
for discussion of prohibition against dilatory motions under the 
discharge rule (Rule XXVII clause 4), motions to suspend the rules 
(Rule XVI clause 8), and motions pending reports from the Committee on 
Rules (Rule XI clause 4(b)).