There are many bills proposed by Congress. My understanding is that most of them get referred to committee, and no action is ever taken on them. Some make it out of committee but are never scheduled for a vote. Others are so innocuous or enjoy such broad support that they make it to the floor for a vote without any roadblocks, and pass by large majorities. Or at least, are uncontroversial enough within the majority party that they pass on a party-line vote.
Then there are bills which get scheduled for a vote that ends up never happening. In the House of Representatives, this seems to generally be because the Speaker (who sets the agenda) either changes his or her mind about whether/when the vote will happen, or because party leaders realize there wouldn't be enough votes to pass it.
Obviously, there are good political reasons not to call for a vote on a bill which will fail. But are there any procedural advantages to doing so in the House? Or is it always a purely political decision?
Some possible advantages I can envision (I don't know if any of them are real) include:
- Making the bill easier to take up again later.
- Preventing the need to create a new bill with the exact same text, if circumstances change such that it could muster the support to pass.
- Leaving it "on the table" for amendments, so it can keep being worked on until people are happier with it.
- Keeping a lower bill number, even if it later gets a total rewrite.
- Keeping the bill out of the Congressional Record.
Are any of these real factors? Are there other procedural advantages I didn't think of?