[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[F. Motions to Reconsider]
[Â§ 34. Purpose and Effect; Pro Forma Motion]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4720-4725]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 34. Purpose and Effect; Pro Forma Motion

    The most common usage of the motion to reconsider is its 
perfunctory disposal by a Member simultaneously entering the motion and 
moving to lay it on the table. One Member may move to reconsider and 
another may move to lay that motion on the table, or both motions may 
be entered by the same Member. Usually, after the Clerk has announced 
the result of a vote, the Speaker will declare, ``Without objection, a 
motion to reconsider is laid on the table.'' This precludes subsequent 
motions for reconsideration.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 34.5, infra. In practice, one of the Members managing the 
        bill under consideration will move that the motion to 
        reconsider be laid on the table, thereby precluding 
        reconsideration. Floyd M. Riddick, Congressional Procedure, 
        Chapman and Grimes (Boston, 1941) p. 237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pro forma motion is generally accepted as the method of making 
a decision of the House final.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The pro forma use of the motion is generally proposed by Members 
        who agree with the decision reflected in the vote that is the 
        subject of the motion. It is interesting to note that after 
        Thaddeus Stevens had successfully sponsored the House 
        resolution that President Andrew Johnson be impeached Mr. 
        Stevens moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution 
        was agreed to, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider 
        on the table. The later motion was agreed to, this being the 
        parliamentary mode of making a decision final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the prerogative of reconsideration is to be preserved a Member 
must object to the pro forma motion in a timely manner and may be well 
advised to notify the Speaker in advance of his intention to seek 
genuine reconsideration.                          -------------------

Tabling of Motion to Reconsider

Sec. 34.1 A motion to reconsider and a motion to table that motion may 
    be made from the floor and agreed to by unanimous consent.

    On July 18, 1962,(12) the House voted to recommit the 
conference report on S. 167, relating to the enforcement of the 
antitrust laws. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then rose to his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 13997, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Was the vote by which the motion to recommit carried 
    recon

[[Page 4721]]

    sidered and that motion laid on the table?
        The Speaker: It has not been yet.
        Mr. Gross: I so move, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Without objection the motion to reconsider will be 
    laid on the table.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 34.2 Following inquiry from the floor, a motion to reconsider the 
    vote whereby a conference report was recommitted was laid on the 
    table.

    On the legislative day of Dec. 20, 1963,(14) the House 
voted to recommit Conference Report No. 1091, on House Resolution 9499 
(foreign aid appropriations). Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, rose 
with the following inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 25423, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 1963 (Calendar 
        Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker:(15) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, was a motion to reconsider the vote 
    just taken on the motion to recommit tabled?
        The Speaker: The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        A motion to reconsider the vote by which action was taken on 
    the motion to recommit the conference report on H.R. 9499 making 
    appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for other 
    purposes, was laid on the table.

Who May Offer

Sec. 34.3 After a recapitulation confirmed that a proposition had been 
    passed by a single vote, the Speaker, by unanimous consent, laid a 
    motion to reconsider that vote on the table, despite a later 
    objection from a Member who had voted on the losing side and who 
    had sought the recapitulation.

    On Aug. 12, 1941,(16) the House approved by one vote 
House Joint Resolution 222, to amend the Selective Service Act of 1940. 
Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, who had voted against the bill, first 
sought and obtained a recapitulation, and then attempted to have the 
vote reconsidered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 7075, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) . . . [T]he vote stands and the 
    bill is passed and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid 
    on the table. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet.
        The Speaker: The Chair announced the vote before the 
    recapitulation. There were no changes whatsoever and the Chair 
    announced that the vote stood and the bill was passed, and without 
    objection a motion to reconsider was laid on the table, and there 
    was no objection.
        Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I object, and I demand recognition. I 
    wanted to move to recapitulate the vote by which the bill was 
    passed.
        The Speaker: That has already been done.

[[Page 4722]]

        Mr. Short: I mean to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 
    passed.
        The Speaker: The vote has been recapitulated.
        Mr. Short: I meant to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 
    passed.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener (of Michigan): Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, there is no use getting excited 
    about this.
        The Speaker: The Chair trusts the gentleman from Michigan does 
    not think the Chair is excited.
        Mr. Michener: The only thing that would make me think it was 
    the speed with which the Speaker passed the bill and refused to 
    recognize the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Short), who was on the 
    floor.
        The Speaker: The gentleman did not state for what purpose. Mr. 
    Short: Mr. Speaker, I did not have time. I wanted to move to 
    reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
        The Speaker: The gentleman, in the first place, is not eligible 
    to make that motion.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For eligibility requirements to offer the motion to reconsider, see 
        Sec. 35, infra. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Effect of Objection to Request to Table

Sec. 34.4 Where objection was raised to the pro forma unanimous-consent 
    request stated by the Speaker that a motion to reconsider be 
    tabled, the Chair announced that the objection was heard and then, 
    since no Member sought recognition to make a motion relating to the 
    pending bill, recognized another Member to call up the next item of 
    scheduled business.

    On Oct. 9, 1969,(19) after the House agreed to a 
conference on H.R. 11612 (Department of Agriculture appropriations for 
1970) Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a motion to 
instruct the House conferees to insist on a certain provision therein. 
The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 29315, 29316, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves to lay on the table the motion offered by 
        the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).

        The Speaker: (20) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 181, nays 177, not 
    voting 73. . . .
        So the preferential motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair appoints the following conferees: 
    Messrs. Whitten, Natcher, Hull, Shipley, Evans of Colorado, Mahon, 
    Langen, Michel, Edwards of Alabama, and Bow.
        Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

[[Page 4723]]

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

    The Speaker then recognized another Member to call up a special 
rule for the consideration of a bill seeking to limit the number of 
hours of work permitted for railroad employees. The motion to 
reconsider was not entered or called up on the next legislative day, so 
the matter became moot.

Tabling of Motion to Reconsider as Affecting Second Motion to 
    Reconsider

Sec. 34.5 The tabling of a motion to reconsider by the Speaker has 
    precluded a Member from subsequently offering a motion to 
    reconsider the same question.

    On June 20, 1967,(21) the House voted approval of H.R. 
10480, a bill prohibiting desecration of the flag. After announcement 
of the result of the vote, a motion to reconsider was laid on the table 
by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 113 Cong. Rec. 16497, 16498, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, Mr. Theodore R. Kupferman, of New York, sought to 
have the vote reconsidered, but the Speaker ruled that motion out of 
order.

        The Speaker: (1) The question is on the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 387, nays 16, not 
    voting 30. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, I voted for this bill believing 
    that the word ``knowingly'' had been included at line 8 on page 1. 
    It was adopted in committee on the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Biester]. I am now told 
    informally--and that is the basis for my parliamentary inquiry--
    that the provision is not included in the bill we voted for because 
    of the adoption in the committee, also, of the amendment of the 
    gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Wyman], which was later defeated 
    in the House itself. So my parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Speaker, 
    is the word ``knowingly'' included on line 8, page 1, of the bill 
    that has just been adopted by the House?
        The Speaker: In reply to the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair 
    will state that the word ``knowingly'' is not included.
        Mr. Kupferman: Then I make a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: As the Chair understands the situation, the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Corman], in the

[[Page 4724]]

    Committee of the Whole offered an amendment to strike out the last 
    two lines on page 1 and the first two lines on page 2 and insert 
    new language. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Biester] then 
    offered a substitute for the Corman amendment. The substitute, 
    which proposed to insert the word ``knowingly'' after the word 
    ``whoever'' in the first line of the section, was agreed to; and 
    the Corman amendment, as amended, was then agreed to.
        Subsequently, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Wyman] 
    offered an amendment to strike out the last two lines on page 1 and 
    the first line on page 2 and insert new language. This amendment 
    was adopted in the Committee of the Whole and was then reported to 
    the House. The only amendment to this part of the bill reported to 
    the House by the Committee of the Whole was the so-called Wyman 
    amendment.
        The House, on a separate vote, then rejected the Wyman 
    amendment. The net result was that the language of the original 
    bill was then before the House. The language of the original bill 
    was thus what the House passed.
        Mr. Kupferman: Even though, Mr. Speaker, we had adopted the 
    word ``knowingly'' as proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Biester].
        In other words, Mr. Speaker, I must make a point of order 
    because I believe--and I know that a great many other Members of 
    the House believe--that they voted for this bill on the basis that 
    the word ``knowingly'' was included. My vote might very well have 
    been otherwise had it not been included, and I must make the point 
    of order that the vote was taken on a false premise.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that there is no point of 
    order involved. The Chair has undertaken to answer a parliamentary 
    inquiry proposed by the gentleman from New York. As a result of the 
    various motions and the actions of the Committee of the Whole or, 
    rather, the action of the House, the original language of the bill 
    has been restored and the original language of the bill is the 
    language that finally passed the House.
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Colorado will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, that also includes the 
    word ``burning'' which was a committee amendment; is that correct?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Colorado that the two words ``knowingly'' and ``burning'' were 
    eliminated by the action of the House.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: I thank the distinguished Speaker.
        Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. 
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask is it in order for 
    reconsideration of the vote on the ground that there was a 
    misconception at the time of the vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair will reply to the gentleman from New 
    York that a motion to reconsider was laid on the

[[Page 4725]]

    table and that a motion to reconsider at this point is not in 
    order.