[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[C. Veto Powers]
[Â§ 21. Motions Relating to Vetoes]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4943-4949]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 21. Motions Relating to Vetoes

    When a vetoed bill is laid before the House the question of 
passage, the objections of the President to the contrary 
notwithstanding, is pending, but motions to refer to 
committee,(11) to postpone to a day certain, or to lay on 
the table are in order. Motions of this nature are within the 
constitutional mandate that the House ``shall proceed to reconsider'' a 
vetoed bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 21.1, infra.
12. See U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2, and 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 1105, 1114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Motions to take from the table a vetoed bill, or to discharge a 
vetoed bill from a committee, are privileged.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3532, 3550; and 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 5439. See also Sec. 21.8, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Motion to Refer

Sec. 21.1 When a vetoed bill is laid before the House and read, a 
    motion to refer to committee takes precedence over the question of 
    passage over the veto.

    On Oct. 10, 1940,(14) the Speaker (15) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President of the bill (H.R. 
7179) providing for the naturalization of Louis D. Friedman. Mr. Samuel 
Dickstein, of New York, moved to refer the bill and veto message to the 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 13522, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, reserved the right to object, 
saying:

        This bill can only be referred to a committee by unanimous 
    consent.
        The Speaker: No; a motion is in order.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand [but is it privileged?] Any Member can 
    demand a vote on this at any time, on a President's veto.
        The Speaker: A motion to refer to a committee takes preference, 
    of course.

        Mr. Rankin: I did not think a motion to refer to a committee 
    was privileged. My understanding is that any Member can demand a 
    vote at any time.
        The Speaker: A motion to refer at this stage is a privileged 
    motion and has preference, under the rule.

Effect of Defeat of Motion to Postpone

Sec. 21.2 Where a motion to postpone further consideration

[[Page 4944]]

    of a veto message to a day certain is defeated, the question 
    recurs, in the absence of any other motion, on passing the bill 
    over the objections of the President.

    On Jan. 24, 1936,(16) the Speaker (1) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
9870) to provide for the immediate payment of world war adjustment 
service certificates and for the cancellation of unpaid interest 
accrued on loans secured by such certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 975, 976, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, moved that consideration of 
the President's message be postponed until the next Monday. After short 
debate Mr. Bankhead then moved the previous question on his motion. Mr. 
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to 
whether a vote on the veto message would be in order if the motion to 
postpone were defeated:

        Mr. Rankin: And a preferential motion will be in order for an 
    immediate vote on the veto?
        The Speaker: It will be the only motion before the House.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Alabama 
    [Mr. Bankhead] on the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question now recurs upon the motion of the 
    gentleman from Alabama that further consideration of the veto 
    message be postponed until Monday.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Bankhead) there were ayes 131 and noes 189.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House on reconsideration 
    agree to pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
    contrary notwithstanding?

Effect of Defeat of Motion to Refer

Sec. 21.3 When a motion to refer a vetoed bill to a committee is voted 
    down, the question recurs on the passage of the bill over the 
    objections of the President.

    On Oct. 10, 1940,(2) the Speaker (3) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President of the bill (H.R. 
7179) providing for the naturalization of Louis D. Friedman. Mr. Samuel 
Dickstein, of New York, moved that the bill and veto message be 
referred to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 13534, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4945]]

the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised a parliamentary inquiry 
as to whether the question before the House would be on the overriding 
of the veto if the motion to refer was voted down. The Speaker 
responded that the question of overriding the President's veto would 
recur if the motion to refer to committee was voted down.

Referral to Committee by Motion

Sec. 21.4 A veto message from the President may on motion be referred 
    to the originating committee and ordered printed.

    On Aug. 14, 1967,(4) the Speaker laid before the House 
the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 11089) to increase 
life insurance coverage for government employees, officials, and 
Members of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 22438, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Dominick V. Daniels, of New Jersey, moved that the bill and 
message be referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service 
and ordered to be printed.
    The motion was agreed to.

Referral to Committee by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 21.5 A veto message from the President was, by unanimous consent, 
    referred to a committee.

    On July 24, 1961,(5) the Speaker (6) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
4206) for the relief of Melvin H. Baker and Frances V. Baker. The 
Speaker stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 13151, 13152, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The objections of the President will be spread at large upon 
    the Journal, and, without objection, the bill and message will be 
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be 
    printed.
        There was no objection.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 21244, 21245, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
        23, 1965; and 105 Cong. Rec. 19697, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        14, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objections to Referral

Sec. 21.6 Where an objection is raised to a unanimous-consent request 
    to refer a veto message to a committee, and the House adjourns 
    without other disposition of the message, the request for referral 
    may be renewed.

[[Page 4946]]

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(8) the Speaker (9) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President of the United States 
on the bill (H.R. 3329) to incorporate the youth councils on civic 
affairs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 23623, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the bill and message will be referred to the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: To what does the gentleman object?
        Mr. Hall: I object to the reference of the veto message to the 
    committee.

    The House then adjourned without further action on the message.
    On Sept. 14, 1965,(10) the message and bill were, by 
unanimous consent, referred to the Committee on the District of 
Columbia and ordered to be printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 23628, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.7 A veto message from the President on a bill relating to 
    certain federal wages was referred to the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service.

    On Jan. 2, 1971,(11) the Speaker (12) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
17809) to fix the pay practices applied to federal ``blue collar'' 
employees. After the Clerk read the veto message, it was, without 
objection, referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service 
and ordered to be printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 44599, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: No member of the Committee on Post Office 
and Civil Service was available to move that the bill and message be 
referred to that committee. The Speaker therefore ordered the bill 
referred on his own initiative.

Motion to Discharge

Sec. 21.8 A motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a 
    vetoed bill presents a question of privilege, and such motion is 
    subject to a motion to table.

    On Sept. 7, 1965,(13) Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, 
addressed the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the highest privilege of 
    the House, based directly on the Constitution and precedents, and 
    offer a motion. . . .
        Resolved, That the Committee on Armed Services be discharged 
    from further consideration of the bill H.R. 8439, for military 
    construction, with the President's veto thereon, and that the same 
    be now considered.

[[Page 4947]]

    Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, moved to lay that motion 
on the table.
    Mr. Hall then raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Is a highly privileged motion according to the Constitution 
    subject to a motion to table?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) It is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Postpone

Sec. 21.9 By motion, the House may postpone to a day certain 
    consideration of a Presidential veto message transmitted from the 
    Senate.

    On Apr. 29, 1959,(15) the Speaker (16) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President of the bill (S. 144) 
entitled ``An Act to Modify Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1939 and 
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953,'' along with a message from the 
Senate that that body had passed the bill over the President's veto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 7027, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, moved that further 
consideration of the President's message be postponed until the next 
day.
    The motion was agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 105 Cong. Rec. 17397, 17398, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
        31, 1959 (postponement for two days by unanimous consent); and 
        94 Cong. Rec. 4133, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 6, 1948 
        (postponement by motion for eight days).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.10 The motion to postpone further consideration of a veto 
    message to a day certain is privileged and takes precedence over 
    the pending question of passing the bill notwithstanding objections 
    of the President.

    On Jan. 27, 1970,(18) the Speaker pro tempore 
(19) laid before the House the veto message from the 
President on the bill (H.R. 13111) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare for fiscal year 
1970. He then announced that the question before the House was ``Will 
the House on reconsideration pass the bill H.R. 13111, the objections 
of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 1365, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, moved that further consideration of 
the veto message from the President be postponed until the next day. 
The Speaker pro tempore recognized him to proceed on his motion.

Sec. 21.11 Objection having been raised to a unanimous-con

[[Page 4948]]

    sent request that a veto message be referred to committee, further 
    proceedings on the message were postponed pursuant to a previous 
    order of the House that the matter be put over until Thursday.

    On Tuesday, Oct. 5, 1965,(20) the Speaker pro tempore 
laid before the House the veto message from the President on the bill 
(H.R. 5902) for the relief of Cecil Graham:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 25940, 25941, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(21) The objections of the 
    President will be spread at large upon the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If there is no objection, the bill and message will be referred 
    to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa objects.

        Under the order of the House of October 1, (22) this 
    matter will be pending business on Thursday, October 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. On Oct. 1, 1965, the Majority Leader asked unanimous consent that 
        any roll call votes, other than on questions of procedure, 
        which might be demanded on either Tuesday or Wednesday, Oct. 5 
        or 6 (which were religious holidays), be put over until Oct. 7. 
        There was no objection. See 111 Cong. Rec. 25796, 25797, 89th 
        Cong. lst Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Motion

Sec. 21.12 Debate on a motion to refer a vetoed bill is under the hour 
    rule, and if the Member recognized yields back a part of his time 
    without moving the previous question another Member is recognized 
    for an hour.

    On Oct. 10, 1940,(1) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
was recognized to move to refer to committee a private bill (H.R. 7179) 
and the veto message thereon. He was recognized to debate his motion 
under the hour rule, and after he had consumed 10 minutes, during which 
he yielded to various other Members for comments and questions, he 
yielded back the balance of his time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 13523, 13524, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lee E.] Geyer of California: Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Dickstein: I yield to the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Geyer of California: Much has been said rather impugning 
    certain things that the committee has done. It has been stated that 
    the committee is probably too lenient. May I say that I have had 
    bills before that committee involving definite hardship cases on 
    American citizens, and I think the committee is entirely too 
    stringent.
        [Here the gavel fell.]

[[Page 4949]]

        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 
    for 2 additional minutes.
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Dickstein]?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the membership of 
    the House that I have tried the best way I can, as chairman of that 
    committee, to work with every Member of this House. I agree with my 
    good friend from California that sometimes the committee is too 
    strict, sometimes we may be a little lenient, but on the whole I 
    think we are a strict committee. . . . May I say that we should be 
    patient and reasonable. Let us look at it in the proper American 
    light and not from any other point of view.
        Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
    recognition.
        The Speaker: The time is in control of the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Dickstein]. Has the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Dickstein] yielded the floor?
        Mr. Dickstein: Yes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] is 
    recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Mississippi yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Rankin: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dickstein: The gentleman from Mississippi asked me to give 
    him time, which I was good enough to do. I said I would be glad to 
    do it. Had I known I was going to surrender the floor by that, I 
    would not have done it. I did not surrender it. I simply yielded 
    back the balance of my time, and the Record will bear me out.
        The Speaker: The Chair distinctly asked the gentleman from New 
    York if he yielded the floor, and his answer was in the 
    affirmative.
        Mr. Dickstein: I did not understand.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 1 
    hour, if he desires that time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had Mr. Dickstein moved the previous 
question after using his 10 minutes, and if that motion had been agreed 
to, no further debate would have been in order.