[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[B. Motions to Postpone]
[Â§ 6. When in Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4545-4546]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                         B. MOTIONS TO POSTPONE
 
Sec. 6. When in Order

Effect of Ordering Previous Question

Sec. 6.1 The motion to postpone further consideration of a matter is 
    not in order after the previous question has been ordered 
    thereon.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2616, 2617; and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5319-5321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Veto Message

Sec. 6.2 A privileged motion to postpone further consideration of a 
    veto message to a day certain was made immediately following the 
    reading of the message.

    On June 23, 1970,(3) the President's veto message on 
H.R. 11102, the medical facilities construction and modernization 
amendments of 1970, was laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 20876, 20877, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the House of Representatives:

        I am returning without my approval H.R. 11102, the Medical 
    Facilities Construction and Modernization Amendments of 1970. My 
    reason for this veto is basic: H.R. 11102 is a long step down the 
    road of fiscal irresponsibility, and we should not take that road. 
    . . .
        In these times there is no room in this massive program--or in 
    any other program--for the kind of needless and misdirected 
    spending represented in H.R. 11102. I again call upon the Congress 
    to join me in holding down Government spending to avoid a large 
    budget deficit in fiscal year 1971.
                                                      Richard Nixon.

        The White House, June 22, 1970.

        The Speaker: (4) The objections of the President 
    will be spread at large upon the Journal and the message and bill 
    will be printed as a House document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move that further consideration of the veto message of the 
    President be postponed until Thursday, June 25, 1970.
        Mr. Speaker, the reason I ask for this postponement is to serve 
    notice on all Members of the House and to give everyone an 
    opportunity to study the

[[Page 4546]]

    veto message and to participate in what I think is a highly 
    important matter.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The motion was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Postponement of Resolution of Disapproval

Sec. 6.3 A resolution disapproving a President's alternative pay plan 
    is subject to a motion in the House to postpone consideration 
    thereof.

    Parliamentarian's Note: 5 USC Sec. 5305(j) makes in order motions 
to postpone consideration of such disapproval resolutions, either to a 
day certain or indefinitely. A motion to postpone would be in order 
either (1) pending the initial motion to consider the disapproval 
resolution; (2) upon adoption of a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise; or (3) after the Committee had risen and reported the 
resolution back to the House.

Postponement of Motion to Discharge

Sec. 6.4 When a motion to discharge a committee under Rule XXVII clause 
    4 is called up a motion to postpone consideration thereof to a day 
    certain is not in order.

    On Dec. 18, 1937,(5) the House was considering the 
petitions on the Discharge Calendar. The following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 82 Cong. Rec. 1847, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel B.] Pettengill [of Indiana]: Assuming that the 
    gentleman from Indiana, or some other signer of the petition, were 
    to call it up, would a motion to postpone to a day certain, being a 
    second or fourth Monday, be in order?
        The Speaker: (6) Under the rules, it would not. The 
    Chair directs the attention of the gentleman from Indiana to the 
    discharge rule which clearly sets out that no intervening motion 
    may take place except one motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------