[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[F. Motions to Reconsider]
[Â§ 39. Scope and Application of Motion]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4733-4744]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 39. Scope and Application of Motion

Use in Committee

Sec. 39.1 A motion to reconsider may be used in a committee, when a 
    quorum is present, to report out from that committee bills approved 
    earlier that day in the absence of a quorum.

    On July 9, 1956,(10) John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, Chair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 102 Cong. Rec. 12199, 12200, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4734]]

man of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called up for 
consideration H.R. 4697, to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 
the District of Columbia. Mr. Albert P. Morano, of Connecticut, rose to 
a point of order:

        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    consideration of this bill on the ground that when the committee 
    considered this bill there was not a quorum present to report it to 
    the House.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, may I be 
    recognized on the point of order?
        The Speaker: (11) Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, there is great difficulty, 
    it is true, in getting a quorum of the District Committee, but I 
    was personally present when this bill was voted out, and there was 
    a quorum of the committee present. And, in order to be sure that 
    there was no such question as this raised on the floor of the 
    House, I myself made a motion, when a quorum was present, to 
    reconsider all of the bills that had been considered and voted them 
    out again, which was done.
        The Speaker: Does the chairman of the Committee of the District 
    of Columbia desire to be heard on the point of order? . . .
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the gentleman 
    from Virginia [Mr. Smith] is correct. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair must know whether the gentleman says 
    that there was a quorum present or not, to his knowledge.
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there was a quorum present part of 
    the time and part of the time there was not.
        The Speaker: That is not an answer to the query of the Chair.
        Mr. [Sidney E.] Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, would the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I yield.
        Mr. Simpson of Illinois: I will say for the benefit of the 
    House that I was at the committee meeting when the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Smith] brought up the point of no quorum; and there 
    was a quorum present.
        The Speaker: That is what the Chair is trying to ascertain from 
    the chairman of the committee.
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct.
        The Speaker: That is the point that is involved here.
        Mr. McMillan: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] made that 
    motion and there was a quorum present. . . .
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I press my point of order. I would 
    like to know whether or not there was a quorum present when this 
    bill was reported, not when the gentleman from Virginia made his 
    motion.
        The Speaker: The chairman of the legislative committee has just 
    stated to the Chair that there was a quorum present when this bill 
    was reported. The Chair is going to take the word of the chairman 
    of the committee, because that is according to the rules and 
    practices of the House.
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I understood the chairman to say that 
    when the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] made his motion there 
    was a quorum present. But I did not understand the chairman of the 
    committee

[[Page 4735]]

    to say that when this bill was reported there was a quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. McMillan] that question now.
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Virginia 
    made his motion he stated that he wanted all bills that were 
    considered that day passed with a quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman again if a 
    quorum was present, to his certain knowledge, when this bill was 
    reported.
        Mr. McMillan: There was not when this bill was passed.
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be heard 
    further, because I think it is important to straighten this 
    question out.
        The Speaker: It is.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Not from the standpoint of this bill, 
    but as a parliamentary question. Frequently bills are discussed and 
    voted upon when a quorum is not present. It is the custom, at the 
    conclusion of the discussion, when a quorum is present, to move a 
    reconsideration of all the bills that have been passed, and to move 
    to report them out. That is what was done in this matter. I think 
    it is important for the House to know just how strict this rule is 
    and how it is to be applied, because I think every bill that was 
    passed upon this morning came here under the same conditions as 
    this bill.
        Mr. Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I yield.
        Mr. Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to verify what 
    Judge Smith is saying. That was exactly the procedure in this 
    matter in the House Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: On this proceeding of the committee, I 
    think we ought to be straightened out on it for the future.
        The Speaker: This has come up many times and it has always been 
    decided by the Chair on the statement of the chairman of the 
    legislative committee concerned. The gentleman from South Carolina 
    said that when this bill was reported there was not a quorum 
    present. Is the Chair quoting the gentleman from South Carolina 
    correctly?
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: That really is not the question I am 
    trying to get determined for the benefit of the House and other 
    committees. It is true, I believe, there was not a quorum present 
    when any one of these bills was considered, but before the session 
    adjourned a quorum did appear, and then a blanket motion was made 
    to reconsider all of the bills that had previously been passed upon 
    and to vote them out, which motion was carried. May I ask the 
    chairman of the committee if that is a correct statement of what 
    occurred?
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct.
        The Speaker: A quorum was present at that time?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: At that time a quorum was present. That 
    was the reason the motion was made. That is the only way we can 
    operate in that committee, I might add.

        Mr. [Henry O.] Talle [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, may I say as a 
    member of the District Committee that I was present

[[Page 4736]]

    at the meeting. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] has 
    recorded the proceedings accurately.
        Mr. Morano: There is obviously a contradiction here, Mr. 
    Speaker. The chairman of the committee said there was not a quorum 
    present when this bill was considered. The issue before the 
    Speaker, as I understand it, is a ruling on this bill, not on other 
    bills that were considered en bloc.
        The Speaker: That is correct, but the gentleman from South 
    Carolina said that on the last action on the bill in the committee 
    a quorum was present.
        The Chair under the circumstances must overrule the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Connecticut.

Sec. 39.2 A point of order against one motion to reconsider the actions 
    whereby a committee reported out several bills in the absence of a 
    quorum should be made in the committee and not in the House.

    On July 9, 1956,(12) Mr. John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, called up H.R. 4697, to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control 
Act of the District of Columbia of 1954. Mr. Albert P. Morano, of 
Connecticut, raised a point of order against the consideration of this 
bill on the ground that the Committee on the District of Columbia had 
considered this bill in the absence of a quorum. A dialogue ensued and 
established the following facts: The committee adopted this and several 
other bills in the absence of a quorum; however, before the committee 
adjourned a quorum appeared, and a motion was then adopted to 
reconsider all the bills which had been approved in the absence of a 
quorum and report them to the House. The Speaker thereupon overruled 
the point of order. Mr. John Taber, of New York, then posed a 
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 102 Cong Rec. 12199, 12200, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, is it proper to consider by a single 
    vote a reconsideration of the votes by which several bills have 
    been reported, and then make a single omnibus motion by which all 
    those bills that have been so reconsidered would be reported?
        The Speaker: (13) If, as seems to be true in this 
    instance, no point of order was made, then the action of the 
    committee is presumed to have been in accordance with parliamentary 
    procedure of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, the thing that would occur to me with 
    reference to that is that if it may be that an omnibus motion is 
    made to report bills that instead of the bills being considered on 
    their merits and by themselves separately, it would be very 
    unfortunate for us to treat bills in that way.
        The Speaker: Of course, if any point was made in the committee, 
    they would be compelled to consider them separately. But if no 
    point was made, it is assumed that the committee was acting in 
    proper parliamentary fashion.

[[Page 4737]]

Application to Motion to Table

Sec. 39.3 A motion to reconsider may be applied to a vote on a motion 
    to lay on the table (except to a vote to table another motion to 
    reconsider).

    On Oct. 9, 1968,(14) the House had adopted a motion 
offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to table an appeal from a 
decision of the Chair sought by Mr. Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio. The 
following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 30215, 30216, 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. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: 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. . . .
        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 135, nays 104, not 
    voting 191, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Application to Conference Reports


Sec. 39.4 The House may reconsider the vote whereby a conference report 
    was rejected.

    The House may reconsider the vote on a conference report, as 
illustrated by the proceedings of May 5, 1943,(16) dealing 
with the War Overtime Pay Act of 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 4001, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    rule 18, I call up for consideration the motion to reconsider the 
    vote whereby the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1860) to 
    provide for the payment of overtime compensation to Government 
    employees, and for other purposes, was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: (17) . . . The question is: Will the 
    House reconsider the vote whereby the conference report on the bill 
    (H.R. 1860) to provide for the payment of overtime compensation to 
    Government employees, and for other purposes, was rejected? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question recurs on the motion to reconsider.

[[Page 4738]]

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Vorys of Ohio) there were--ayes 169, noes 82.
        So the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the conference 
    report.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Clerk called the roll; and there were--yeas 275, nays 119, 
    not voting 40.

Application to Vote to Recommit


Sec. 39.5 The motion to reconsider has been applied to the vote whereby 
    a conference report was recommitted.

    On the legislative day of Dec. 20, 1963,(18) after the 
House voted to recommit the conference report on H.R. 9499 (foreign aid 
appropriations for 1964), the following occurred on the floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: (19) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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. 39.6 It is in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House 
    recommitted a joint resolution to a committee.

    On July 14, 1932,(20) after the House voted to recommit 
Senate Joint Resolution 169 (for relocation of the unemployed), a 
motion was entered to reconsider this vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 15391, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Luther A.] Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I voted for the 
    motion to recommit, and I make the motion to reconsider the vote by 
    which the bill was recommitted, and spread that motion upon the 
    Journal.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Texas . . . 
    moves to reconsider the vote by which the Senate Joint Resolution 
    was recommitted. The motion will be spread upon the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 16, 1932,(2) this motion was called up for 
consideration, and laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 75 Cong. Rec. 15725, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4739]]

        Mr. Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I call up my motion to 
    reconsider the vote whereby Senate Joint Resolution 169 was 
    recommitted to the Committee on Labor.
        Mr. [Charles] Adkins [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay 
    that motion on the table.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Illinois.
        The question was taken; and on a division [demanded by Mr. 
    Connery], there were 147 ayes and 29 noes.
        Mr. [William P.] Connery [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts demands the yeas 
    and nays. Eleven Members have arisen, not a sufficient number, and 
    the yeas and nays are refused.
        So the motion to lay the motion of Mr. Johnson of Texas on the 
    table was agreed to.

Use of Motion to Vote on Motion to Expunge Remarks in Record

Sec. 39.7 The motion to reconsider may be used to reopen the 
    proceedings whereby the House voted to expunge certain proceedings 
    from the Congressional Record, including a speech made on the floor 
    by a Member.

    On Feb. 11, 1941,(3) the House agreed to a motion 
offered by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, to expunge from the 
Record a speech made that day by Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York 
(criticizing the House Committee on Un-American Activities). A point of 
order raised by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, against this speech 
and the Speaker's response thereto, both of which occurred during the 
speech, were also removed from the Record as a result of this motion. 
On Feb. 13, 1941,(4) Mr. Hoffman, who wished to have the 
alleged offensive speech and his point of order against it preserved in 
the Record, rose to a question of privilege of the House, contending 
that by expunging from the Record those proceedings of Feb. 11, the 
House had abridged the first amendment. He offered a resolution to have 
the expunged proceedings included in the Record. The issue was resolved 
in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 932, 933, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Id. at pp. 979, 980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: I raised a question of the privilege of the House. 
    The House has not passed upon that question raised by the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker: (5) The House would have to decide 
    that, and, in the opinion of the Chair, the House did decide the 
    matter when it expunged the remarks from the Record. The Chair 
    thinks, under the circumstances, that the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4740]]

    proper way to reopen the question would be by a motion to 
    reconsider the vote whereby the motion of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] was adopted. The Chair is of the opinion 
    that inasmuch as the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    was decided by a vote of the House on a proper motion, that he does 
    not now present a question of privilege of the House or of personal 
    privilege.

Senate Practice

Sec. 39.8 A motion to reconsider its action in passing a House bill may 
    be entered in the Senate; when this occurs, the Senate requests the 
    House to return the papers.

    On May 8, 1967,(6) the following occurred on the floor 
of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 11868, 11918, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen J.] Ellender [of Louisiana]: Mr. President, I enter 
    a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill [H.R. 3399 to 
    amend section 2 of Public Law 88-240] to extend the termination 
    date for the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission was passed on 
    Thursday, May 4, 1967.
        The Presiding Officer: (7) The motion will be 
    entered and placed on the calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Birch Bayh (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Motion for House to Return to the Senate the Papers on H.R. 3399

        Mr. Ellender: Mr. President, I move that the House of 
    Representatives be requested to return to the Senate the papers on 
    H.R. 3399, to amend section 2 of Public Law 88-240, to extend the 
    termination date for the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission.
        The Presiding Officer: The motion will be stated.
        The Assistant Legislative Clerk: The Senator from Louisiana 
    [Mr. Ellender] moves that the House of Representatives be requested 
    to return to the Senate the papers on H.R. 3399, to amend section 2 
    of Public Law 88-240, to extend the termination date for the 
    Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission.
        The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the 
    motion of the Senator from Louisiana.
        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 3399, extending the termination date 
for the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission, was adopted by the 
Senate on May 4, 1967. By the time the message arrived from the Senate 
on May 8, requesting the return of the papers to the Senate, the 
enrolled bill was on the Speaker's table awaiting his signature. After 
consultations with the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
the Speaker withheld his signature until the chairman could ascertain 
the reason for the Senate's request and recommend appropriate action in 
response thereto.

Sec. 39.9 A motion to reconsider two Senate bills having been

[[Page 4741]]

    entered, the Senate [by motion] requested the House to return the 
    bills.

    On Aug. 26, 1963,(8) a motion to reconsider certain 
votes was made on the floor of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 15849, 15850, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael J.] Mansfield [of Montana]: Mr. President, I enter 
    a motion to reconsider the votes by which the bills, S. 1914 to 
    incorporate the Catholic War Veterans of the United States of 
    America, and S. 1942 to incorporate the Jewish War Veterans of the 
    United States of America, were passed on August 20. . . .
        The President Pro Tempore: (9) The Senator has a 
    right to enter the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Hayden (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. President, I move that the House of 
    Representatives be requested to return the papers on the bill S. 
    1914 to incorporate the Catholic War Veterans of the United States 
    of America, and on the bill S. 1942, to incorporate the Jewish War 
    Veterans of the United States of America.
        The President Pro Tempore: The question is on agreeing to the 
    motion of the Senator from Montana. . . .
        The motion was agreed to.

Use in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 39.10 A motion to reconsider is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

    On May 24, 1967,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7819, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
amendments of 1967. A motion regulating the time for debate had been 
approved when the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 13824, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman from Illinois will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Chairman, is a motion to reconsider the last 
    motion in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Pucinski] that such motion is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 39.11 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by motion, agreed to 
    limit debate on a pending amendment, a motion to reconsider its 
    action is not in order.

    On Aug. 5, 1966,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, when Mr. William 
L. Dickinson, of Alabama, rose to a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 18416, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4742]]

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, we were 
    granted 2 hours in which to submit amendments. One hour and 45 
    minutes has been used up. We have 15 minutes remaining. Did the 
    Chair just rule that it would be inappropriate, and this Committee 
    would be unable to reconsider, the fixing of this time? Was that 
    the ruling of the Chair?
        The Chairman: A motion to reconsider is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 39.12 A request to reconsider a vote on an amendment is not in 
    order in the Committee of the Whole, even by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 4, 1963,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6196--on the revitalization of cotton industry--when 
the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 23322, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, would it now be in order to reconsider 
    by unanimous consent the amendment I previously offered?
        The Chairman: A motion to reconsider is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 39.13 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole held out of order 
    a motion to reconsider the vote by which an amendment was adopted, 
    but allowed a unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings 
    whereby that amendment was adopted.

    On Mar. 12, 1945,(16) while Mr. Brent Spence, of 
Kentucky, was controlling debate in the Committee of the Whole on H.R. 
2023 [to continue the Commodity Credit Corporation] he inadvertently 
permitted adoption of an amendment offered by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of 
Michigan. Upon realizing his mistake, Mr. Spence sought to reconsider 
the vote on this amendment, and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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: (17) Such a motion is not in order in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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?

[[Page 4743]]

        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order, and the Chair 
    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.

Question of Consideration

Sec. 39.14 It is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House 
    has declined to consider a proposition since the question of 
    consideration can be raised again at a subsequent time.

    On Apr. 7, 1937,(18) the issue before the House was 
whether to consider H.R. 2251, an antilynching bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3252-54, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I raise 
    the question of consideration.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from New York raises 
    the question of consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is, will the House consider the bill [H.R. 2251] 
    to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the 
    equal protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching? 
    . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 123, nays 257, not 
    voting 50, as follows: . . .
        So the House refused to consider the bill. . . .
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
    the House refused to consider the bill and lay that motion on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the motion is not in order 
    on a vote of this character.

Second Motion

Sec. 39.15 After a motion to reconsider has been laid on the table a 
    second motion to reconsider is not in order.

    On June 20, 1967,(2) the House had just adopted H.R. 
10480, to prohibit desecration of the flag, when confusion arose as to 
the effect of House action on amendments reported out by the Committee 
of the Whole. Mr. Theodore R. Kupferman, of New York, stated that his 
vote had been based on a misconception of the exact wording of the 
bill, and raised the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 16497, 16498, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: (3) The Chair will reply to the 
    gentleman from New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4744]]

    that a motion to reconsider was laid on the table and that a motion 
    to reconsider at this point is not in order.

Sec. 39.16 After one motion to reconsider has been acted on, a second 
    motion to reconsider is not in order.

    On May 6, 1964,(4) the Senate rejected amendments 
proposed by Senator Thruston B. Morton, of Kentucky, to amendments 
offered by Senator Herman E. Talmadge, of Georgia, to H.R. 7152, the 
Civil Rights Act of 1963. Senator Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, 
moved to reconsider the vote on the Morton amendments, with the 
following results:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 10201-03, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Acting President Pro Tempore: (5) The question 
    is on agreeing to the motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
    Morton amendments to the Talmadge amendments were rejected. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The results was announced--yeas 46, nays 45, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Morton 
    amendments to the Talmadge amendments were rejected was agreed to.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: The question now is on 
    agreeing to the amendments, of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Morton] to the Talmadge amendments. . . .
        The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. . . .
        The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 46, as follows: . . .
        So Mr. Morton's amendments to the amendments of Mr. Talmadge 
    were rejected.
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: The motion is not in order.