[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[Â§ 18. Ordering Tellers]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11562-11567]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 18. Ordering Tellers

Generally

Sec. 18.1 Tellers were ordered by one-fifth of a quorum--20 Members in 
    the Committee of the Whole (44 Members in the House).

    On Jan. 23, 1968,(1) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 8696) to 
amend section 408 of the National Housing Act, as amended, to provide 
for the regulation of savings and loan holding companies and subsidiary 
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 694, 705, 706, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Del M. Clawson, of 
California, offered an amendment and, following debate on the

[[Page 11563]]

measure, the Chairman (2) put the question; and on a 
division demanded by Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, there were--ayes 18, 
noes 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Del Clawson demanded tellers which were 
refused, thereby prompting the following exchange:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: The Chair stated that there were 18 Members 
    who rose in favor of tellers, and that that was not a sufficient 
    number. I would ask the Chairman, is that not a sufficient number 
    of the Members on the floor?

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that 20 Members are required 
    in order that tellers be ordered.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, is that 20 Members, 
    regardless of the number of Members on the floor?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the number required is 
    one-fifth of a quorum in the Committee of the Whole. This would 
    then represent 20 Members, since 100 Members constitute a quorum. 
    Therefore, tellers are refused.

Sec. 18.2 Tellers have been ordered on the question of the passage of a 
    bill where a demand for the yeas and nays had been refused.

    On May 8, 1963,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 5555) to 
amend title 37, United States Code, to increase the rates of basic pay 
for members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 8044, 8082, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following extensive consideration of the bill, the Committee rose, 
the Speaker (4) resumed his chair; and the Chairman 
(5) of the Committee reported the bill back to the House 
with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee. A motion to recommit 
having been rejected, the Speaker put the question on the passage of 
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 5. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: (after counting). The yeas and nays are refused.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Rivers of South Carolina and Mr. Curtis.
        The House divided, and the tellers reported that there were--
    ayes 293, noes 10.

[[Page 11564]]

        So the bill was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 18.3 Where a point of no quorum was made in the Committee of the 
    Whole and the roll was called as a demand for tellers on an 
    amendment remained pending, the question of ordering tellers was 
    put immediately after the Committee resumed its sitting, and a 
    division vote taken prior to the demand for tellers was not final.

    On May 10, 1946,(6) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6335) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 92 Cong. Rec. 4827, 4833, 4834, 4837, 4840, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Henry C. Dworshak, 
of Idaho, offered an amendment to an amendment offered by Mr. J. W. 
Robinson, of Utah. The Chairman (7) subsequently put the 
question; it was taken; and, on a division demanded by Mr. John J. 
Rooney, of New York, there were--ayes 41, noes 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, demanded 
tellers whereupon Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, made the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. The Chair then counting only 87 
Members present, the Clerk was directed to call the roll.
    A quorum having responded to the roll call, the Committee rose; the 
Chairman submitted the absentees' names to be spread upon the Journal; 
and, the Speaker (8) directed the Committee to resume its 
sitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, the following exchange took place:

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demands 
    tellers on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
    Dworshak] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
    Robinson].
        Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Granger: As I understood the situation when the quorum was 
    called, the Chair had already announced that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Idaho to the amendment had been agreed to; 
    and the request comes too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair had announced that on a division the 
    amendment to the amendment had been agreed to. Thereupon, the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demanded tellers. At that 
    point a point of

[[Page 11565]]

    order was made that a quorum was not present.
        The gentleman's demand for tellers is now pending.

    The Chairman then proceeded to order tellers, and the amendment to 
the amendment was subsequently rejected.

In Committee of the Whole; Effect of Motion To Rise

Sec. 18.4 The Committee of the Whole having ordered tellers on a 
    proposition, a motion to rise remained in order following their 
    appointment providing the tellers had not taken their places and 
    the count had not begun.

    On Mar. 12, 1942,(9) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6709) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2345, 2374, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Everett M. 
    Dirksen, of Illinois, offered an amendment to lower one portion of 
    the appropriation by $10 million. Immediately thereafter, Mr. 
    Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, offered a substitute amendment to 
    lower the same portion of the appropriation by $20 million. The 
    following proceedings then occurred:
        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 84, noes 88.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Case of South Dakota and Mr. Tarver.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: The gentleman cannot interrupt a 
    vote.
        The Chairman: The vote has not started.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: We had already started to vote on 
    the substitute and the Chair had announced the vote as 84 to 88.
        The Chairman: The tellers had not taken their places.
        The point of order is overruled.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, we had started the 
    vote when the first voice vote was taken.
        The Chairman: The point of order is overruled.
        The gentleman from Georgia moves that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The question is on the motion.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For a similar ruling, see 88 Cong. Rec. 5169, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 11, 1942.

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

[[Page 11566]]

Sec. 18.5 Where the Committee of the Whole had ordered tellers on an 
    amendment and then risen, the order for tellers could be vacated 
    and the vote taken de novo only by unanimous consent when the 
    Committee again resumed consideration of the matter.

    On July 2, 1947,(12) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
4002) making appropriations for civil functions administered by the War 
Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948. Immediately after 
the Committee sat, Mr. George A. Dondero, of Michigan, asked the Chair 
(13) whether a particular item dealing with flood control 
had been discussed as yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 8136, 8137, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair replied in the negative, and then summarized the 
situation, as follows:

        When the Committee rose yesterday, the so-called Rankin 
    amendment was pending. A voice vote had been taken. Tellers were 
    demanded and ordered.
        Without objection, the Clerk will again read the so-called 
    Rankin amendment.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, is it not in order to vacate or 
    disregard the standing vote and take the standing or voice vote 
    again?

        The Chairman: Tellers have already been ordered.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that 
    where a vote is not completed on one day it is taken again when the 
    question again comes up for consideration.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's inquiry is: Can the order for 
    tellers be vacated, and the Committee proceed de novo on the 
    amendment? That can be done by unanimous consent.

Sec. 18.6 Where the Committee of the Whole refused to rise on a teller 
    vote and the question recurred on the adoption of an amendment 
    which was then agreed to by division vote, the Chair held that 
    after the seconding of a demand for tellers on the amendment (and 
    the ordering of tellers with respect thereto), a motion that the 
    Committee rise was still in order; and, a teller vote on that 
    motion would take precedence over a teller vote on the amendment.

    On Mar. 23, 1944,(14) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee

[[Page 11567]]

of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 4443) making 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 2969, 2999, 3005, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Forest A. Harness, 
of Indiana, offered an amendment prohibiting the use of the 
appropriated funds for the salaries or expenses of certain persons. 
Discussion ensued with respect to this proposal until the Chair 
(15) announced that the time allotted for debate had 
expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, moved that the 
Committee rise. The question was taken; and on a division demanded by 
Mr. Tarver, there were-ayes 58, noes 96.
    Mr. Tarver thereupon demanded tellers. Tellers having been ordered 
and appointed, the Committee again divided; and the tellers reported 
that there were-ayes 65, noes 88. So, the motion was rejected.
    The question then recurred on Mr. Harness' proposed amendment. The 
question was taken; and on a division demanded by Mr. Tarver, there 
were-ayes 89, noes 69.
    At this point, Mr. Tarver was recognized again, and the following 
exchange transpired:

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    motion is not in order after the direction for the vote.
        The Chairman: Under the previous ruling of the Chair, the point 
    of order is overruled.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Georgia 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Tarver) there were-ayes 70, noes 88.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Tarver and Mr. Dirksen.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were-ayes 65, noes 90.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Harness]. Tellers have been ordered.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were-ayes 93, noes 65.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to rise may be repeated after 
intervening business. Here, the division vote on the amendment was 
intervening business.

[[Page 11568]]