[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[F. Motions to Reconsider]
[Â§ 38. As Related to Other Motions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4729-4733]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 38. As Related to Other Motions

Motion to Lay on the Table

Sec. 38.1 The motion to reconsider may be applied to a vote to lay a 
    matter on the table (except to a vote to table a motion to 
    reconsider) and conversely, a motion to reconsider may be laid on 
    the table.

    On Oct. 9, 1968,(14) Mr. Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio, 
sought to appeal a ruling of the Chair, and Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, moved to lay that appeal on the table. After the House voted 
to table the appeal the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged motion.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from California will 
    state his privileged motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
    motion to lay the appeal from the Chair on the table.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion be laid on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California moves to reconsider 
    the vote on the motion to lay the appeal from the decision of the 
    Chair on the table, and the gentleman from Oklahoma moves that that 
    motion be laid on the table.
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma to lay my motion on the table 
    because that motion does not lie.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that a motion to lay on the 
    table, on a motion to reconsider, is a recognized motion. . . .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma [Mr. Albert], that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 
    table.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 136, nays 104, not 
    voting 191. . . .

        So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Sec. 38.2 A motion to reconsider and a motion to table the mo

[[Page 4730]]

    tion to reconsider were made from the floor and agreed to by 
    unanimous consent.

    On July 18, 1962,(16) after the House adopted a motion 
to recommit the conference report on S. 167 relating to the enforcement 
of antitrust laws, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 13997, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Was the vote by which the motion to recommit carried 
    reconsidered 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. 38.3 After a Member inquired as to whether a motion to reconsider 
    a vote on a motion to recommit had been tabled, the motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.

    On the legislative day of Dec. 20, 1963,(18) the House 
voted to recommit Conference Report No. 1091 on H.R. 9499, dealing with 
foreign aid appropriations for fiscal 1964. The following then took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 25423, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 1963 (Calendar 
        Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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 the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, was laid on the 
    table.

Sec. 38.4 Where objection was raised to a unanimous-consent request 
    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,(2) after the House agreed to a 
conference on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 29315, 29316, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4731]]

H.R. 11612 relating to agriculture appropriations for fiscal 1970, Mr. 
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a motion to instruct the 
House conferees to insist on a certain provision of the bill. The 
following then occurred:

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

        So the preferential motion was agreed to [and the Chair 
    appointed managers on the part of the House].
         Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the 
    table.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: 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 another bill. The motion to reconsider 
was neither entered nor called up the next legislative day, so the 
matter became moot.

Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 38.5 A unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings whereby 
    a conference report was agreed to and a motion to reconsider laid 
    on the table, was entertained by the Chair but objected to.

    On May 22, 1968,(4) the House was considering the 
conference report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, when the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 14396, 14398, 14402, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The conference report was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. [William T.] Cahill [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cahill: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for a Member to 
    move to rescind the action heretofore taken by the House?
        The Speaker: A motion would not be in order. But it would be in 
    order for a unanimous-consent request to be made. . . .
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to vacate the proceedings by which the House adopted the 
    conference report on the bill (S. 5) to assist in the promotion of 
    economic stabilization by requiring the disclosure of finance 
    charges in connection with extension of credit.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?

[[Page 4732]]

        Mr. [William L.] Hungate [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, all Members were notified this measure would 
    be before the House today as the first order of business. This 
    legislation has been before this body for 8 years. Objection should 
    have been made before the vote was taken.
        Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Sec. 38.6 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole allowed a 
    unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings whereby an 
    amendment was adopted, after he held out of order a motion to 
    reconsider the vote by which that amendment was adopted.

    On Mar. 12, 1945,(6) Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, who 
was in charge of debate in the Committee of the Whole on H.R. 2023 (to 
continue the Commodity Credit Corporation), inadvertently permitted an 
amendment offered by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, to be adopted. 
Mr. Spence realized his mistake, and sought to have that proceeding 
reconsidered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 2042, 2043, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the action of 
    the Committee by which the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (7) Such a motion is not in order in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wolcott: Inasmuch as business has been transacted since the 
    original request was submitted by the gentleman from Kentucky, 
    would it be in order for me to propound a consent request that the 
    proceedings by which the amendment was adopted be vacated?
        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order, and the 
    Chairman recognizes the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Wolcott: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    the proceedings by which the amendment was adopted reducing the 
    amount from $5,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000 be vacated. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.

Motion for the Previous Question

Sec. 38.7 A motion to reconsider is debatable when a resolution 
    [providing for the order of business] has been agreed to without 
    debate and without the ordering of the previous question.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(8) after adoption of House Resolution 
506 providing for consideration of H.R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4733]]

10065 (the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1965), the following 
discussion on the relationship between the motion to reconsider and the 
previous question took place:

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, was the previous question ordered 
    on the question to adopt the resolution that has just been voted 
    on?
        The Speaker: It was not.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, having voted in the affirmative, I 
    now move that the vote by which House Resolution 506 was adopted be 
    now reconsidered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that that 
    motion be laid upon the table.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert].
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair is in the process of counting.
        Evidently a sufficient number have risen, and the yeas and nays 
    are ordered.
        Mr. Laird: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquirry

        Mr. Laird: Mr. Speaker, on the resolution just passed no one 
    was allowed to debate that resolution on behalf of the minority or 
    the majority. If this motion to table, offered by the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert] is defeated, then there will be time to 
    debate the resolution just passed.
        The question of reconsideration is debatable, and it can be 
    debated on the merits of the legislation which has not been debated 
    by the House.
        The Speaker: What part of the gentleman's statement does he 
    make as a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Laird: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to table is defeated, the 
    motion to reconsider will give us an opportunity to debate the 
    question on the resolution.
        The Speaker: Under the present circumstances, the motion to 
    reconsider would be debatable.