[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 1. Introduction]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11425-11437]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 1. Introduction


    The legislative power vested in the Congress by Article I of the 
Constitution (1) is implemented by the Members of the House 
and Senate by the act of voting. There are various ways in which votes 
are cast: the Constitution specifies that the ``yeas and nays'' shall 
be taken on any issue if desired by one-fifth of the Members of either 
House who are present when a question is put.(2) When the 
yeas and nays are ordered, the names of all Members responding to the 
vote are recorded in the Journal of the House or Senate, as the case 
may be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 1.
 2. Id. at Sec. 5, clause 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The yeas and nays are in the modern House taken by electronic 
means, each Member inserting his own coded card into one of the voting 
stations installed in the Chamber. They were formerly taken by a call 
of the roll, Members names being called by the Clerk, alphabetically. 
This system is still utilized on occasion when the electronic system is 
inoperable and can be specified as the method to be used on a 
particular vote by the Speaker, who is given the discretion to choose 
the voting method by a House rule.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XV clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 774b (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The roll is in special circumstances called ``by states'': on 
opening day of a new Congress, for example, a House rule requires the 
Clerk to call the roll in this fashion to determine the presence of a 
quorum.(4) Under the 12th amendment, if the House were 
called upon to choose a President, votes would be cast by states. 
Proposals to govern the conduct of this vote have been 
introduced.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Rule III clause 1 directs the Clerk to ``call the roll of Members 
        by States in alphabetical order.'' Since the advent of 
        electronic voting, this quorum call is normally, by unanimous 
        consent, conducted by the electronic device. See, e.g., 139 
        Cong. Rec. 45, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
 5. See Sec. 1.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Obviously, while critical questions usually do become the subject 
of votes of record, not every vote is taken by the constitutional 
method: many issues are decided

[[Page 11426]]

by unanimous consent or by other methods of voting prescribed by the 
rules adopted in each body. In the House of Representatives, a vast 
amount of the business, from procedural motions to amendments to the 
third reading and passage of bills, is disposed of by unanimous-consent 
requests. The Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
routinely entertain requests for legislative action phrased as 
unanimous-consent requests which are finalized ``without objection.'' 
For example, unanimous consent may be asked to ``consider'' a measure, 
in which case a vote may be demanded later when the appropriate motion 
for disposition of the matter is made. More frequently, the request may 
be to ``pass'' a bill, ``agree'' to a resolution, or ``concur'' in a 
Senate amendment. These requests may accomplish the legislative result 
without a vote, since the failure of any Member to object results in 
the adoption of the matter which is the subject of the 
request.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. An example of this principle: a unanimous-consent request to concur 
        in a Senate amendment to a House bill on the Speaker's table 
        with an amendment is not subject to a vote, the failure of any 
        Member to object resulting in the automatic adoption of the 
        proposed Senate amendment with the stated modification. See 
        Sec. 1.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the foundations of parliamentary procedure in the House is 
that the Presiding Officer, the Speaker or the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole, or Members appointed to preside ``pro 
tempore,'' will be impartial in conducting votes. Whether taken by 
voice, by division, or by one of the various forms of taking a roll 
call, the Chair's call of the result and his utilization of the voting 
mechanism must be even-handed and carried out without partisanship. 
When there is a perception that the Chair has deviated from these 
standards, Members may take great offense.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 31.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This chapter explains how the Members cast their many votes, 
including those constitutionally mandated,(8) as well as 
those prescribed (9) or permitted by House

[[Page 11427]]

rules.(10) It describes the procedures used in taking a vote 
by voice, division, tellers with clerks, and the yeas and nays as well 
as the proper parliamentary foundation which must be laid to demand a 
particular type of vote.(11) The chapter also addresses the 
priorities or precedence of certain votes,(12) the finality 
of a vote once cast,(13) and methods used to bring a vote to 
final conclusion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The only type of vote which is constitutionally mandated is the yea 
        and nay vote. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 5. The vote on sustaining 
        or overriding a Presidential veto must be taken by the yeas and 
        nays. Id. at Sec. 7.
 9. The House rules mandate a yea and nay vote where a quorum is not 
        present, an objection to a vote is made for that reason, and 
        the House does not choose to adjourn. See Rule XV clauses 4 and 
        6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 773 (1995). See also Sec. 1.3, 
        infra, for an example of a statutory requirement for a yea and 
        nay vote. A provision of law enacted as an exercise of 
        rulemaking authority can mandate the taking of a vote in a 
        prescribed manner.
10. Voice votes, division votes, and recorded votes are permitted under 
        the rules: see Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 
        (1995). Teller votes, where Members filed up the center aisle 
        of the Chamber between Members appointed to ``tell'' the vote, 
        were dropped from Rule I in the 103d Congress. Tellers with 
        clerks, a method of taking a recorded vote by depositing red, 
        green, or orange preference cards with employees of the Clerk, 
        remains as a method of voting but is normally not utilized 
        since the installation of the electronic voting system.
11. For example, demands for recorded votes and the yeas and nays 
        require ``support'' before the votes will be ordered. See 
        Sec. Sec. 23.1, 34.1, infra.
12. A demand for the yeas and nays took precedence over a demand for 
        tellers, for example. See Sec. 24.1, infra. And yet, the former 
        demand cannot interrupt a vote by division which is in 
        progress; see Sec. 10.3, infra.
13. A vote once given cannot be changed. However, a vote incorrectly 
        recorded, as on a roll call where the Clerk hears the response 
        incorrectly, may be corrected if the error in recording the 
        vote is demonstrably clear. See Sec. 6; Sec. Sec. 31.16 and 
        38.1, infra.
14. When votes were taken by a call of the roll, the possibilities for 
        error in recording a Member's vote were manifest. Close votes 
        were sometimes ``recapitulated'' to insure accuracy. See 
        Sec. 27, infra. The procedure is rarely used today, since the 
        purpose of this procedure is to guard against error on a close 
        roll call determination by allowing and encouraging Members to 
        check whether they are properly recorded. Id. On electronic 
        votes Members can see how they are recorded without repeating 
        the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also included in the chapter are precedents explaining a Member's 
responsibility to vote,(15) ethical

[[Page 11428]]

questions concerning the sanctity of the vote and new rules addressing 
the problem of ``ghost'' voting in the House (16) and the 
Speaker's authority to schedule the timing of taking a vote. Since the 
advent of electronic voting,(17) various new procedures have 
been put in place to allow the Speaker to postpone votes to a scheduled 
time and to certain voting times when votes occur ``back to back'' 
without intervening business.(18) The chapter also addresses 
the topic of dividing the question for separate votes where more than 
one topic or proposition is inherent in the question.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule VIII, Duties of the Members, specifies that ``[e]very Member 
        shall be present within the Hall of the House during its 
        sittings . . . and shall vote on each question put, unless he 
        has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of 
        such question.'' House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995). It 
        should be noted that since the advent of electronic voting and 
        the practice of permitting recorded votes in a Committee of the 
        Whole (a practice begun in 1974), the frequency of yea and nay 
        votes, recorded votes, and quorum calls has increased. Few 
        Members can claim to have responded to every such vote. On May 
        3, 1978, both the Speaker and the Minority Leader commented on 
        the unbroken record of Rep. Bill Natcher (Ky.) who on that date 
        cast his 10,000th vote without missing a quorum call or roll 
        call in his 24 years in the House. 124 Cong. Rec. 12473, 95th 
        Cong. 2d Sess. Because of illness, Rep. Natcher failed to 
        respond to a roll call on Mar. 3, 1994. His final unbroken 
        string of consecutive votes totaled 18,401. 140 Cong. Rec. p. 
        ________, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1994.
16. Rule VIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 660(b) (1995).
17. Rule I clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1995).
18. Rule I clause 5(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 631 (1995).
19. Rule XVI clause 6, provides that a ``question shall be divided if 
        it includes propositions so distinct in substance that one 
        being taken away a substantive proposition shall remain . . 
        .''. House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most issues that come before the House are decided by a majority 
vote, a concept which normally implies one-half plus one of the number 
voting.(20) In a strict sense, of course, the majority for 
legislative action is a majority of those voting, a quorum being 
present.(1) Occasionally, a law having the status of a House 
rule will specify that the majority necessary to a legislative action 
is measured against the authorized membership of the 
House.(2) There are exceptions where a super ma

[[Page 11429]]

jority is required. Most obvious is the vote on reconsideration of a 
bill following a Presidential veto, where the Constitution specifies 
that a two-thirds vote is required for passage over the 
veto.(3) Amendments to the Constitution also require the 
support of two-thirds for passage (4) as does the vote on 
expulsion of a Member.(5) In the 14th amendment, there is 
the little-noticed and largely obsolete requirement of a two-thirds 
vote to remove a political disability; (6) and in the 25th 
amendment, a similar vote is required to determine that the President 
is disabled and unable to carry out the responsibilities of his 
office.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jefferson's Manual states: ``. .  . The voice of the majority 
        decides; for the lex majoris partis is the law of councils, 
        elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided.'' 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 508 (1995).
 1. Rule XV clause 3 specifies the necessity of a quorum for a 
        challenged vote: ``On the demand of any Member, or at the 
        suggestion of the Speaker, the names of Members sufficient to 
        make a quorum in the Hall of the House who do not vote shall be 
        noted by the Clerk and recorded in the Journal, and reported to 
        the Speaker with the names of the Members voting, and be 
        counted and announced in determining the presence of a quorum 
        to do business.'' House Rules and Manual Sec. 772 (1995).
 2. See Sec. 8.2, infra.
 3. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7. For an interesting precedent involving a 
        House determination as to the vote-majority or two-thirds-
        required to extend the time for state ratification of a 
        constitutional amendment, see Sec. 1.5, infra.
 4. Id. at art. IV.
 5. Id. at art. I, Sec. 5.
 6. Id. at Sec. 3.
 7. Id. at Sec. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the parliamentary history of the House, certain rules have 
required a two-thirds vote for a variety of decisions. The rule 
providing for motions to suspend the rules, a special procedure now 
permitted on certain days of each week to expedite consideration of 
measures, has its origins in a rule first adopted in 
1822.(8) Other motions to disturb the established order of 
business also require two-thirds for adoption: to dispense with 
Calendar Wednesday (9) or the call of the Private 
Calendar,(10) to call up a special order on the same day 
reported from the Committee on Rules.(11) More recently, in 
the 104th Congress, the House adopted a new rule requiring a three-
fifths vote for passage of a measure containing an income tax rate 
increase (12) and put in place a Corrections Calendar (to 
replace the Consent Calendar) which specifies that a bill considered 
under this new procedure requires the approval of three-fifths of the 
Members voting, a quorum being present, for passage.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The development of the motion to suspend the rules is discussed in 
        the annotation following Rule XXVII clause 1, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 902 (1995).
 9. Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1995).
10. Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995).
11. Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729a (1995).
12. Rule XXI clause 5(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 846c (1995).
13. Rule XIII clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of the House do not specifically prescribe rules for vot

[[Page 11430]]

ing in its committees. However, since House rules are made applicable 
to its committees by the current Rule XI clause 1,(14) so 
far as applicable, it has been accepted practice to consider that the 
constitutional requirement (15) is applicable therein and to 
permit the yeas and nays to be ordered by one-fifth of those present. 
Indeed, the right to demand the yeas and nays in committee was well-
established in the 19th century.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 703 (1995).
15. Article I Section 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 75 (1995).
16. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the modern House, since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970, committees have been required to adopt written rules and to 
publish them in the Congressional Record.(17) An examination 
of those rules (18) show that committees differ as to how a 
roll call vote is ordered: in some, one Member can demand a roll call; 
in others, one-fifth of those present; in still others, one-fifth of a 
quorum. Some committee rules are silent, implicitly following the 
general rule described above. As in the House, many issues are decided 
by unanimous consent, by division, or voice votes. A bill can be 
ordered reported to the House by a non-record vote, a quorum being 
present; (19) but since the adoption of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970, the House rules now require a record of all 
roll call votes to be available for public inspection (20) 
and also mandate that ``with respect to each roll call vote on a motion 
to report any measure or matter of a public character, and on any 
amendment offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes 
cast for and against, and the names of those Members voting for and 
against, shall be included in the committee report on the measure or 
matter.'' (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XI clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1995).
18. See ``Rules Adopted by the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives,'' compiled by the Committee on Rules and 
        republished each Congress.
19. Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713c (1995).
20. Rule XI clause 2(e), House Rules and Manual Sec. 706a (1995).
 1. Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(B), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713d 
        (1995).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting by States; Election of President by House

Sec. 1.1 A Member announced his introduction of a resolution amending 
    the rules of the House to provide for open recorded votes within 
    each

[[Page 11431]]

    state delegation when choosing a President under the 12th amendment 
    to the Constitution.

    On May 28, 1992,(2) Mr. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., of 
Wisconsin, took a special order to address his concerns regarding the 
process of ``voting by states'' under the 12th amendment.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 138 Cong. Rec. 12855, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. See 3 Hinds' Precedents, Chapter LXII, ``Election and Inauguration 
        of President,'' Sec. 1981 for the constitutional provision, 
        Article XII; Sec. Sec. 1982, 1983 for rules adopted by the 
        House in 1801, when Jefferson was chosen; Sec. 1984, 1985 when 
        President John Quincy Adams was chosen by the House in 1825.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Madam Speaker, the time has come for the 
    House of Representatives to seriously consider adopting procedures 
    should the selection of the next President of the United States 
    fall to the House of Representatives under the 12th amendment to 
    the U.S. Constitution.
        Today, I have introduced a resolution amending the permanent 
    rules of the House of Representatives to open up the process for 
    the election of a President should the House be called upon to do 
    this duty. The resolution that I have introduced is rather 
    straightforward. It adopts a new rule 54 of the Rules of the House, 
    entitled ``Procedures for Choosing a President,'' and it says:

            Whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon the House, 
        any vote of a Member from a state in determining the vote of 
        that state to choose a President shall be recorded by the Clerk 
        in open session.

        The last time the House of Representatives had to select a 
    President was in 1825 following the failure of all four candidates 
    to obtain a majority in the Electoral College in the Presidential 
    election of 1824. In looking at the precedents that were 
    established in the 1825 election of the President, it is clear that 
    two things happened.
        First, the House met in closed session with everybody except 
    House Members, stenographers, officers of the House, and Senators 
    being excluded; and second, the votes cast in each State delegation 
    were done in secret, so not only did the public not know how every 
    Representative voted in the selection of the President, but they 
    did not know how each State's vote was cast.
        At the end of the process, the Speaker of the House just 
    announced which candidates had how many States' votes and declared 
    John Quincy Adams elected President of the United States.
        Obviously, this secrecy will not do should the new House of 
    Representatives be called upon to select a President beginning 
    January 6, 1993, due to the failure of the three Presidential 
    candidates to achieve a majority in the Electoral College.
        It is incumbent upon this House of Representatives to set up 
    the ground rules now before anybody can accuse the House of trying 
    to engineer those rules to favor one candidate or the other, so 
    that the most important vote that is cast by those Representatives 
    who are elected on November 3, that is

[[Page 11432]]

    the election of the President of the United States, will be open to 
    the public and on the record.
        My resolution proposes to do that. It opens up the process so 
    that Members of the House can be accountable on how they cast this 
    very important vote should the House be called upon under the 12th 
    amendment to perform this very important function.

    Mr. Sensenbrenner's resolution (H. Res. 472) was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration but was not reported to the House.

Sec. 1.2 A unanimous-consent request to concur in Senate amendments to 
    a House bill on the Speaker's table with amendments is not subject 
    to a vote, the failure of any Member to object resulting in the 
    automatic adoption of the proposed amendments.

    On July 2, 1980,(4) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Science and Technology, Mr. Don Fuqua, of Florida, asked to take a 
House bill (H.R. 7474) with Senate amendments thereto, from the 
Speaker's table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 126 Cong. Rec. 18273, 18275, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's 
    desk the bill (H.R. 7474), providing for a research, development, 
    and demonstration program to achieve early technology applications 
    for ocean thermal energy conversion systems, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, concur in the Senate amendment to the title, and concur in 
    the Senate amendment to the text with an amendment.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Ocean Thermal Energy 
        Conversion Research, Development, and Demonstration Act''. . . 
        .

        The Clerk read the House amendment to the text of the Senate 
    amendment, as follows:

            Strike out section 10 on page 13, line 19 through page 14, 
        line 12 of the engrossed Senate amendment and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Is there objection to 
    the initial request of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Loeffler: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to ask for a vote at 
    this time? It is hard to hear.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This was just a unanimous-consent 
    request

[[Page 11433]]

    to amend the Senate amendment and there is no vote on that request.

Sec. 1.3 The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (2 USC 198) 
    requires that the concurrent resolution providing for the August 
    recess in odd-numbered years be adopted by roll call vote in each 
    House.

    Section 132(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 
provides as follows:

        Unless otherwise provided by the Congress, the two Houses 
    shall--
        (1) adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each year; or
        (2) in the case of an odd-numbered year, provide, not later 
    than July 31 of such year, by concurrent resolution adopted in each 
    House by rollcall vote, for the adjournment of the two Houses from 
    that Friday in August which occurs at least thirty days before the 
    first Monday in September (Labor Day) of such year to the second 
    day after Labor Day.
        (b) This section shall not be applicable in any year if on July 
    31 of such year a state of war exists pursuant to a declaration of 
    war by the Congress.

Sec. 1.4 The Senate, having passed by voice vote a concurrent 
    resolution providing for an August adjournment, by unanimous 
    consent reconsidered that action and the concurrent resolution was 
    subsequently adopted by roll call vote in both Houses in compliance 
    with the statute.

    In the first session of the 94th Congress, the Senate passed Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 54 by voice vote, ignoring the statutory rule 
(6) requiring a roll call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. .1.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On July 22, 1975,(7) the Senate remedied the 
    omission by reconsidering its action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 24028, 24109, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mike] Mansfield [of Montana]: Mr. President, yesterday the 
    Senate passed an adjournment resolution, Senate Concurrent 
    Resolution 54. It was my intention at that time to ask for a 
    rollcall vote. I forgot it. So I ask unanimous consent at this time 
    that the matter be reconsidered.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: (8) Without 
    objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Dale Bumpers (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mansfield: I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: Is there a sufficient second? 
    There is a sufficient second.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. Mansfield: And that the vote occur at the hour of 12 
    o'clock noon.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: Without objection, it is so 
    ordered. . . .
        Under the previous order, the Senate will now vote on Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 54. On this question the yeas and nays have 
    been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 11434]]

        The legislative clerk called the roll.
        Mr. Robert C. Byrd [of West Virginia]: I announce that the 
    Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Eastland), the Senator from Hawaii 
    (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Pell), are 
    necessarily absent.
        I also announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Hart), is 
    absent because of illness.
        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: I announce that the 
    Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Bartlett), is absent due to a death in 
    the family.

    On July 28, 1975,(9) the House took action on the Senate 
concurrent resolution and followed the statutory mandate that the 
decision be reached by a yea and nay vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 25220, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    take this time to advise the House that the Speaker will lay before 
    the House Senate Concurrent Resolution 54, providing for an 
    adjournment of the two Houses from Friday, August 1, 1975, until 
    Wednesday, September 3, 1975.
        The Senate adopted this concurrent resolution on July 22 and 
    under section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as 
    amended, both Houses must vote by rollcall to adjourn for this 
    period. Since under the precedents an adjournment resolution of 
    this sort is not debatable, I have taken this time for the 
    convenience of the Members to notify them of the forthcoming vote.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    majority leader yield?
        Mr. O'Neill: I yield to the minority leader.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I support the Senate concurrent 
    resolution. . . .
        The Speaker laid before the House the Senate concurrent 
    resolution (S. Con. Res. 54) providing for a conditional 
    adjournment of the Congress from August 1, 1975, until September 3, 
    1975.
        The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:

                              S. Con. Res. 54

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Friday, August 
        1, 1975, they stand adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on 
        Wednesday, September 3, 1975, or until 12 o'clock noon on the 
        second day after their respective Members are notified to 
        reassemble in accordance with section 2 of this resolution, 
        whichever event first occurs.
            Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
        President pro tempore of the Senate shall notify the Members of 
        the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever 
        in their opinion the public interest shall warrant it or 
        whenever the majority leader of the House and the majority 
        leader of the Senate, acting jointly, or the minority leader of 
        the House and the minority leader of the Senate, acting 
        jointly, file a written request with the Clerk of the House and 
        the Secretary of the Senate that the Congress reassemble for 
        the consideration of legislation.
            Sec. 3. During the adjournment of both Houses of Congress 
        as provided in section 1, the Secretary of the Senate and the 
        Clerk of the House, respectively, be, and they hereby are, 
        authorized to receive messages, including veto messages, from 
        the President of the United States.

[[Page 11435]]

        The Speaker: (10) Under the law, the vote on this 
    Senate concurrent resolution must be taken by the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    293, nays 109, not voting 32, as follows: . . .

Sec. 1.5 The House laid on the table a resolution called up under a 
    question of the privileges of the House declaring that a two-thirds 
    vote was necessary to pass a joint resolution extending the 
    ratification period for a constitutional amendment previously 
    submitted to the states; and in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    on the vote required to pass a joint resolution extending the 
    period for state ratification of a constitutional amendment, the 
    Speaker stated that the House had determined that a majority vote 
    was required, by laying on the table a (privileged) resolution 
    asserting that a two-thirds vote was required.

    Section 508, Jefferson's Manual, states ``The voice of the majority 
decides; for the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, 
elections, &c., where not otherwise express-ly provided.'' A super-
majority is required in article V: ``The Congress, whenever two thirds 
of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to 
this Constitution. . . .'' Since 1917 Congress has, when proposing a 
constitutional amendment, provided in the joint resolution a time limit 
within which the requisite number of states must ratify; in four cases 
since that date the time limit has appeared in the text of the 
constitutional amendment, but since the 23d amendment has appeared 
independently in the proposing clause (with the apparent intent of not 
``cluttering'' the Constitution with irrelevant past time limits). 
Early in the 95th Congress the Parliamentarian's office began receiving 
inquiries, principally from the Subcommittee on Civil and 
Constitutional Rights, as to the required vote on a joint resolution to 
extend the time limit for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment 
(submitted to the states in March 1972), where the joint resolution 
referred to the joint resolution proposing the amendment but neither 
amended it nor the text of the constitutional amendment.
    The report of the Committee on the Judiciary (11) stated 
that the joint resolution extending the ratification period could be 
adopted

[[Page 11436]]

by a majority vote, but the issue was one on which the House was 
clearly divided. On Aug. 15, 1978, Mr. James H. Quillen, of Ten-nessee, 
offered House Resolution 1315, as a question of privilege. The 
proceedings were as indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Rept. No. 95-1405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Quillen: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks I 
    shall offer a resolution involving a question of the privileges of 
    the House and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. Speaker, the ``Resolved'' clause of my resolution demands a 
    two-thirds vote on final passage of the constitutional resolution 
    extending the ERA. At the appropriate time I will offer my 
    privileged resolution.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen) that now is the time for the 
    gentleman to offer his resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Quillen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the 
    privileges of the House and offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 
    1315) involving a question of the privileges of the House, and I 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        First, the Chair will state that he has had an opportunity to 
    examine the resolution as offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
    (Mr. Quillen), and in the opinion of the Chair the resolution 
    presents a question of the privileges of the House and may be 
    considered under rule IX of the rules of the House.
        The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1315

            Whereas H.J. Res. 638 of this Congress amends H.J. Res. 208 
        of the 92nd Congress, proposing an amendment to the 
        Constitution;

            Whereas H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd Congress was passed by an 
        affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members present and 
        voting, as required by Article V of the Constitution, and 
        submitted for ratification on March 22, 1972;
            Whereas the integrity of the process by which the House 
        considers changes to H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd Congress would 
        be violated if H.J. Res. 638 were passed by a simple majority 
        of the Members present and voting; and
            Whereas the constitutional prerogatives of the House to 
        propose amendments to the Constitution and to impose necessary 
        conditions thereto in accordance with Article V of the 
        Constitution would be abrogated if H.J. Res. 638 were passed by 
        a simple majority of the Members present and voting;
            Resolved, That an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
        Members present and voting, a quorum being present, shall be 
        required on final passage of H.J. Res. 638.

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to table 
    the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Quillen: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    230, nays 183, not voting 19, as follows: . . .

[[Page 11437]]

        So the motion to table was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Edwards) to offer a motion.
        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Speaker, upon the conclusion of our 
    consideration of House Joint Resolution 638, including the adoption 
    of any amendments to it, when the question is put on the final 
    passage of that resolution, must the vote of the House to adopt the 
    joint resolution be by a simple majority of those present and 
    voting or by two-thirds of those present and voting?
        The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry raised by 
    the gentleman from California, the Chair feels that the action of 
    the House in laying on the table House Resolution 1315 was an 
    indication by the House that a majority of the Members feel a 
    majority vote is required for the final passage of House Joint 
    Resolution 638. The Chair would cite the precedent contained in 
    Cannon's VIII, section 2660, that affirmative action on a motion to 
    lay on the table, while not a technical rejection, is in effect an 
    adverse disposition equivalent to rejection.
        The Chair, by ruling that House Resolution 1315 properly raised 
    a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX, believed 
    it essential that the question of the vote required to pass House 
    Joint Resolution 638 be decided by the House itself. The House now 
    having laid that resolution on the table, the Chair feels that the 
    result of such a vote, combined with the guidance on this question 
    furnished by the Committee on the Judiciary on page 6 of its 
    report, justifies the Chair in responding that, following the 
    expression of the House, House Joint Resolution 638 will be 
    messaged to the Senate if a majority of those present and voting, a 
    quorum being present, vote for passage.
        Mr. Wiggins: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wiggins: Do I understand the ruling of the Chair correctly 
    to be that a vote not to consider a privileged resolution is 
    equivalent to a rejection of the text of the resolution itself?
        The Speaker: The vote was not on the question of consideration. 
    The Chair will state that he believes he has answered the question 
    raised in the gentleman's original inquiry. The Chair has stated 
    that a motion to table is an adverse disposition.
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Speaker, I understood the answer, then, to be 
    ``Yes''?
        The Speaker: The answer is ``Yes.''