[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[C. Motions to Lay on the Table]
[Â§ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------