[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[C. Motions to Lay on the Table]
[Â§ 11. When in Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4567-4569]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                     C. MOTIONS TO LAY ON THE TABLE
 
Sec. 11. When in Order

Offering Motion to Table Prior to Debate

Sec. 11.1 The motion to lay a resolution on the table may be made when 
    the resolution is under consideration but before the Member 
    entitled to recognition on the resolution has obtained the floor 
    for debate.

    On Jan. 17, 1933,(2) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of 
Pennsylvania, offered a resolution proposing an investigation into the 
possible impeachment of President Herbert Hoover. After the reading of 
the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 76 Cong. Rec. 1965-68, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4568]]

resolution had been interrupted by several parliamentary inquiries, and 
after Mr. McFadden had sought to determine whether his hour's time for 
debate would be protected, the following occurred:

        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: (3) The gentleman from Illinois moves 
    to lay the resolution of impeachment on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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.

Sec. 11.2 A motion to table is a preferential motion, and is in order 
    before a Member begins debate on a motion to expunge from the 
    Record words ruled out of order.

    On June 16, 1947,(4) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
demanded that certain words read from a telegram by Mr. Chet Holifield, 
of California, be taken down. After the Speaker ruled the words out of 
order as being unparliamentary, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the entire statement 
    from the Record, and on that I ask for recognition.
        Mr. [Vito]) Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    lay that motion on the table.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I have already been recognized.
        The Speaker: (5) A motion to table is preferential 
    and not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is upon the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Marcantonio] that the motion be tabled. . . .
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Marcantonio) there were--ayes 10, noes 147.
        So the motion to table was rejected.

Application to Resolution Disapproving Reorganization Plan

Sec. 11.3 A motion to proceed to the consideration of a resolution 
    disapproving a reorganization plan is not subject to the motion to 
    table.

    On June 8, 1961,(6) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, had moved 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4569]]

the state of the Union for the consideration of House Resolution 303, 
disapproving a reorganization plan transmitted to the Congress by the 
President. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, rose to his feet with a 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, is a motion to lay this 
    motion on the table in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would not be in order at this time.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa [Mr. Gross].
        The motion was rejected.