[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[C. Motions to Lay on the Table]
[Â§ 12. As Related to Other Motions; Precedence]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4569-4572]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                     C. MOTIONS TO LAY ON THE TABLE
 
Sec. 12. As Related to Other Motions; Precedence

As Related to the Previous Question

Sec. 12.1 The motion to lay on the table takes precedence over the 
    motion for the previous question; pending the demand for the 
    previous question the motion to lay on the table is preferential 
    and in order.

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(8) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1306, asserting the privileges of the House relating to 
printing and publishing of a report of the Committee on Internal 
Security. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 41372-74, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman from Missouri moves 
    the previous question on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Stokes

        Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Stokes moves to lay the resolution on the table.

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ichord: This is a preferential motion to lay the previous 
    question on the table. What would be the parliamentary situation if 
    the previous question is laid on the table? This is not the 
    adoption of the resolution, but a motion with respect to the 
    previous question.
        The Speaker: If the motion to lay the resolution on the table 
    is not agreed to, then the question would be on ordering the 
    previous question. Then the next vote would be on the adoption of 
    the resolution.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Stokes) to lay the resolution on the table. . . .

[[Page 4570]]

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 55, nays 301, not 
    voting 77. . . .
        So the motion to table was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        Mr. Ichord: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 302, nays 54, not 
    voting 77.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        13, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.2 In response to parliamentary inquiries the 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, 1960,(11) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and 
Conduct, when Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, rose with a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is refused, is 
    it true that then amendments may be offered and further debate may 
    be had on the resolution?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the 
    resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
        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. 12.3 Following a negative vote on a motion to lay on the table a 
    motion to instruct conferees, the question next occurs on ordering 
    the previous question on the motion to instruct.

    On Aug. 8, 1961,(13) the House was considering H.R. 
7576, authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission, when 
the Speaker pro tempore, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, announced that the 
question was on the mo

[[Page 4571]]

tion offered by Mr. James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, to instruct 
conferees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 14957-59, 15001, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.
        Mr. Halleck: If the motion to table is voted down, will the 
    vote then come on the motion itself?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On ordering the previous question on 
    the motion.

As Related to the Motion to Dispense With Further Proceedings Under a 
    Call

Sec. 12.4 A motion to dispense with further proceedings under a call of 
    the House is not subject to a motion to table.

    On May 4, 1960,(14) following three separate quorum 
calls, motions to dispense with further proceedings under the call were 
made and the previous question demanded thereon. Motions to lay the 
motions for the previous question on the table were then offered. No 
point of order was raised against any of these motions to table. On the 
first two occasions the latter motions were entertained, voted upon, 
and defeated. On the third occasion, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
stated that the motion to dispense with further proceedings under a 
call of the House was neither debatable nor amendable; therefore, 
neither the demand for the previous question, nor the motion to lay on 
the table was applicable thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 9410-18, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Related to the Motion to Recommit

Sec. 12.5 A motion in the House that a Senate amendment be laid on the 
    table is of higher privilege than a motion to refer the amendment 
    to a committee.

    On June 17, 1936,(15) the House rejected the conference 
report on the bill H.R. 11663, to regulate lobbying. The Clerk had 
proceeded to report the Senate amendment when Mr. Earl C. Michener, of 
Michigan, rose to his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 9743-53, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Senate amendment be 
    laid on the table.

[[Page 4572]]

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion, that the conference report and the Senate 
    amendment be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rule is that 
    the motion suggested by the gentleman from New York is not 
    preferential.
        The Speaker: (16) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the motion made by the gentleman from Michigan has priority. The 
    question is on the motion of the gentleman from Michigan to lay the 
    Senate amendment on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the motion to table a Senate amendment 
prevails, it results in the final disposition of the bill as well as 
the Senate amendment.