[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[Â§ 9. Demand for Division Vote]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11498-11508]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 9. Demand for Division Vote

By Speaker

Sec. 9.1 The Speaker may himself order a division vote, without waiting 
    for such a demand to be made from the floor.

    On July 9, 1940,(6) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, 
requested unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of House 
Resolution 547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 9359, 9360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas there have long existed historical ties of 
        friendship between the United States of America and Argentina; 
        and
            Whereas these ties, based on the respect and admiration of 
        two free and independent nations, happily grow firmer day by 
        day; and
            Whereas on July 4, 1940, the Chamber of Deputies of the 
        Argentine Congress graciously paid tribute to the anniversary 
        of the independence of the United States of America and to this 
        House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States 
        of America; and
            Whereas today, July 9, 1940, marks the anniversary of the 
        Declaration of Independence of the Argentine Republic, a 
        memorable day in the progress of democratic institutions; 
        therefore be it
            Resolved, That this House pay tribute to the Chamber of 
        Deputies of Argentina and to the great Argentine Nation on this 
        their anniversary of the signature by a group of 28 patriots in 
        the city of Tucuman on July 8, 1816, of the Declaration of 
        Independence of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata; 
        and be it further
            Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded 
        through the Secretary of State to His Excellency the Ambassador 
        of Argentina at Washington for transmission to the Chamber of 
        Deputies of the Argentine Republic.

    After some brief remarks by Mr. Bloom and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., 
of New York, the Speaker (7) put the question on agreeing to 
the resolution and simultaneously demanded a division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House divided, and the resolution passed by a vote of 350 yeas 
and no nays.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. It should be noted, parenthetically, that in the Senate the Chair 
        does not announce the number of Members voting ``aye'' or 
        ``nay.'' See 90 Cong. Rec. 398, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 19, 
        1944.

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

[[Page 11499]]

Chair May Order Division Vote

Sec. 9.2 The Chair may on his own initiative under Rule I clause 5, 
    order and conduct a division vote before entertaining a demand for 
    a recorded vote.

    Where the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole was unsure that a 
voice vote on an unexpected motion that the Committee rise expressed 
the will of the Committee, he directed that a division vote be taken on 
the motion, even though another Member had asked for a recorded vote. 
Following the division, the demand for a recorded vote was then 
entertained. The proceedings of Oct. 20, 1977,(9) which 
demonstrate the role of the Chair, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 34717, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           preferential motion offered by mr. edwards of alabama

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Edwards) has 
    offered a preferential motion that the Committee do now rise.
        The question is on the preferential motion that the Committee 
    do now rise offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Edwards).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair will first take this vote by division.
        The Committee divided; and there were--ayes 186; noes 93.
        The Chairman: The Committee will rise.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        The Chairman: A recorded vote has been demanded by the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer).
        So many as are in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote 
    will stand and remain standing until counted.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) has a 
    parliamentary inquiry, and the gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the motion is that 
    the Committee do now rise, but we only lack about a page and a half 
    of completing the reading of the bill.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Regular order.
        The Chairman: The regular order is being followed. The 
    gentleman from

[[Page 11500]]

    Texas (Mr. Mahon) has a parliamentary inquiry, and the gentleman is 
    being recognized for his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    Would it not be possible to read through the title? There is only 
    about half a page remaining. Then we would have this matter behind 
    us, and perhaps then we could rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair will make this statement: The Chair 
    first announced that the ayes had it on the preferential motion to 
    rise. Then there was a vote by division. The gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) has now demanded a recorded vote on the 
    preferential motion that the Committee do now rise. The Chair will 
    count all those Members standing on the demand for a recorded vote.
        Evidently a sufficient number have arisen.
        A recorded vote is ordered.

Sec. 9.3 A recorded vote may be demanded in the Committee of the Whole 
    after the Chair announces the result of a voice vote or states that 
    the Chair is in doubt.

    Where the Chair is in doubt of a voice vote, he may on his own 
initiative ask for a division. However, he can entertain a demand for a 
recorded vote without first conducting a division. The proceedings of 
May 6, 1992,(11) are illustrative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 138 Cong. Rec. 10515, 10516, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) Pursuant to the 
    provisions of clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair announces that 
    he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
    which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the 
    Gekas amendment, as amended by the Frank substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    222, noes 196, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], as amended.
        The question was taken.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Barney] Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Gerald B.H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, that is 
    premature. The Chair did not announce the vote.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will repeat himself.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11501]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the Chair announce 
    the yeas and nays, the result.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is in doubt on the voice 
    vote.
        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: This is a 5-minute vote.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yes 
    221, noes 196, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows: . 
    . .

Timeliness; Effect of Announcement of Voice Vote

Sec. 9.4 A demand for a division vote does not come too late following 
    the refusal to order tellers where the result of the voice vote has 
    not been announced by the Chair.

    On Nov. 9, 1971,(13) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 10729) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 40020, 40027, 40038, 40046, 40054, 92d Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Frank E. Evans, of 
Colorado, offered an amendment to a substitute amendment offered by Mr. 
John H. Kyl, of Iowa, for the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by Mr. John G. Dow, of New York.
    The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the Chair 
was in doubt. Mr. Evans then demanded tellers which were refused 
whereupon he immediately sought a division.
    This, in turn, prompted the following exchange between Mr. Gerald 
R. Ford, of Michigan, and the Chair:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I object. The gentleman did 
    not ask for the division timely.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair has not announced the 
    result of the vote, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans) can 
    demand a division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Recognition Sought Prior to Announcement of Voice Vote


Sec. 9.5 The announcement of a voice vote does not preclude a 
    subsequent demand for a division providing the proponent of the 
    request for division was on his feet seeking recognition at the 
    time of the announcement and no in

[[Page 11502]]

    tervening business has transpired.

    On Sept. 20, 1967,(15) the House resolved itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
6418) to amend the Public Health Service Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 26119, 26122, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of debate, Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, 
rose and moved that all debate on section 12 of H.R. 6418 conclude 
within 45 minutes. The Chairman put forth the Staggers motion; the 
question was taken, and the Chair announced that the ayes appeared to 
have it.
    Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then rose to demand a division whereupon 
Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, rose to a point of order culminating 
in the following exchange:

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's request comes too 
    late. There was intervening business, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (16) Was the gentleman from Iowa on 
    his feet at the time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jack Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was, at the time, and I turned 
    around to get to the microphone.
        The Chairman: Under those circumstances, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For similar rulings, see also 108 Cong. Rec. 772, 87th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Jan. 23, 1962; and 94 Cong. Rec. 922, 80th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 2, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.6 The Chair has stated that where there was doubt among the 
    membership as to whether a particular Member was on his feet 
    seeking recognition to demand a division vote as the voice vote was 
    being announced, the Chair would resolve the doubt in favor of the 
    Member.

    On Feb. 2, 1948,(18) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
4790) to reduce individual income tax payments. The Chairman 
(19) put the question on an amendment before the Committee, 
and subsequently announced that the ayes had it.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 888, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Charles B. Hoeven (Iowa).
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 922, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, requested 
a division.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division.
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the request 
    comes too late.
        Mr. Dingell: No; it does not come too late. Let the Chair rule 
    on that.
        The Chairman: Was the gentleman on his feet when he made the 
    request?

[[Page 11503]]

        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we have always been 
    very liberal in the House about the matter of votes or whether 
    Members were on their feet. We have always been very liberal in the 
    matter of allowing division votes. As far as I am concerned I do 
    not care anything about it.
        The Chairman: If there is any doubt in the minds of the 
    membership the Chair will resolve the doubt in favor of the 
    gentleman from Michigan.
        The question was taken; and there were--ayes 202, noes 37.
        So the committee amendment was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair's resolution of this matter, as 
well as the attitude expressed by Mr. Rayburn, reveal the disposition 
toward a Member who states that he was on his feet seeking recognition 
when the voice vote was announced. Such a declaration is normally all 
that is required to protect the right to press for a division, teller, 
or record vote.

Demand for Division Not Precluded by Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 9.7 Where the Chair's announcement of the result of a voice vote 
    had been followed by a parliamentary inquiry concerning the nature 
    of the amendment being voted on--whether it was a substitute or a 
    perfecting amendment to the text--the Chair held that it was not 
    too late to demand a division vote after the inquiry had been 
    answered.

    Where there was pending an amendment offered as a motion to strike 
out a paragraph of pending text and insert new language, another 
amendment was then offered as a perfecting amendment to the text 
proposed to be strick-en. While the second amendment could have been 
considered as a substitute for the first, the Chair treated it as a 
perfecting amendment. When the perfecting amendment had been disposed 
of, the Chair put the question on the original amendment to strike and 
insert and announced that question had been decided in the affirmative. 
A parliamentary inquiry then followed as to the nature of the amendment 
being voted on. The proceedings on Mar. 21, 1975,(1) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 7952, 7953, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    not sure but that I have let the time go by, but I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Page 11, strike out 
        lines 1 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof: . . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.

[[Page 11504]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 11, 
        line 1, strike out ``25'' and insert in lieu thereof ``30''.

    On page 11, line 3, insert ``with respect to existing units and'' 
immediately after ``use''.

        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill 
    and it will be voted on first. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Does the Chairman mean the amendment, as amended?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) was a 
    perfecting amendment to section 9(d) on page 11, line 1 through 
    line 8. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    (Mrs. Fenwick) is an amendment which would strike all of the 
    language in the paragraph of the bill and substitute her language.
        The Chair will now preserve the rights of Members who were 
    standing at the time of the vote when the Chair put the question 
    and stated that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) had carried.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) seek recognition?
        Mr. Ashley: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashley: It is on this basis, Mr. Chairman, that I 
    misunderstood the parliamentary situation. I had thought that the 
    gentleman's amendment was in the nature of a substitute. Inas-much 
    as the gentleman's amendment was adopted, is it also the fact that 
    the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) was 
    adopted?
        The Chairman: Yes, thereby deleting the language which 
    contained the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Oregon.
        Mr. Ashley: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a 
    division on the vote.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Bauman: It is too late. Other business had intervened.
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule that no further business had 
    intervened, that at the instant when the

[[Page 11505]]

    Chair was ready to declare the vote on the amendment of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) 
    was on his feet seeking recognition with respect to whether to ask 
    for a division vote on that amendment. The Chair has stated that he 
    would protect the rights of the gentleman from Ohio.
        The question is on the amendment of the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashley) there were--ayes 34, noes 60.

Parliamentary Inquiry Preceding Demand

Sec. 9.8 Recognition having been sought to demand a division prior to 
    the Chair's announcement of the voice vote, a parliamentary inquiry 
    which intervenes between the announcement and the Chair's 
    recognition of the division-seeking Member does not operate to 
    preclude the demand.

    On Apr. 29, 1947,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of further considering House 
Joint Resolution 153, providing for relief assistance to the people of 
countries devastated by war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 4214, 4217, 4218, 4222, 4233, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of debate, Mr. Lawrence H. Smith, of Wisconsin, 
offered an amendment to the resolution after which, Mr. William M. 
Colmer, of Mississippi, offered a substitute amendment therefor. This, 
in turn, led Mr. Karl E. Mundt, of South Dakota, to offer an amendment 
to the substitute amendment. And, upon the conclusion of debate, the 
Colmer substitute as amended by the Mundt amendment was agreed to.
    Following this sequence of events, the question then occurred on 
the Smith amendment as amended by the substitute. The question was 
taken; and the amendment was rejected. Mr. Mundt then rose to request a 
division vote whereupon Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, raised a 
point of order.
    Prior to addressing himself to the point of order, the Chairman 
(4) entertained a parliamentary inquiry from Mr. William C. 
Cole, of Missouri, and the following exchange transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. George B. Schwabe (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Cole of Missouri: I understand the amendment that was just 
    voted on, as amended by the Mundt amendment, was a substitute for 
    the Smith amendment. Then, why do we vote on the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: That was the original amendment.
        Mr. Cole of Missouri: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman.

[[Page 11506]]

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: I make a point of order against the request 
    for a division. It came too late. The vote was announced. The 
    result was announced and the decision of the Committee was 
    announced. Therefore, the request for a division comes too late. 
    That is my point of order.
        Mr. Mundt: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order I would like to 
    be heard. There was confusion all over the Chamber. I was seeking 
    recognition to ask for a division. The fact that it was announced 
    prior to that has no bearing upon the point at all.
        Mr. Bloom: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman was not recognized for 
    the purpose. The whole thing was decided and the vote was given and 
    there was a pause. The Chair did not recognize the gentleman for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. Marcantonio: May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    Chair paused for an appreciable period of time after the decision 
    of the Committee was announced by the Chairman, and no demand for a 
    division was made.
        The Chairman: The purpose of any vote is to ascertain fairly 
    the judgment of the parliamentary body and we have not passed on to 
    the consideration of any other business. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Demands as Untimely

Sec. 9.9 A demand for a division vote comes too late when a Member was 
    not on his feet seeking recognition at the time the Chair announced 
    the result of the voice vote.

    On July 30, 1971,(5) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
8432) to authorize emergency loan guarantees to major business 
enterprises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 28340, 28399, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of considering the bill, Mr. John D. Dingell, of 
Michigan, offered an amendment, shortly after which the Chairman 
(6) put the question, and the following exchange transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was rejected.
        The Chairman: Are there any further amendments?
        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, on that I ask 
    for a division.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) comes too late inasmuch as 
    the result of the vote had been announced to the committee.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As other precedents have 
indicated,(7) if Mr. Adams had been standing and seeking 
recognition in order

[[Page 11507]]

to demand a division at the time of the Chair's announcement, his 
request would have been timely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 9.10, 9.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.10 Where tellers were refused on an amendment and the Chair 
    announced that the amendment had been rejected, it was too late to 
    demand a division vote on the amendment if the Member had not 
    sought recognition prior to announcement of the result.

    On Sept. 24, 1970,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws so as to 
comprehensively deal with drug abuse prevention and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 33603, 33608, 33618, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of 
Florida, offered an amendment pertaining to central nervous system 
stimulants. The proposed amendment was debated after which the Chair 
(9) put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it. Mr. Pepper then demanded tellers. However, an 
insufficient number of Members supported this demand; so tellers were 
refused, and the Chair announced that the amendment was rejected.
    At this point, Mr. Pepper rose to a point of order, and the 
following colloquy ensued:

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.

        Mr. [William L.] Springer [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Springer: Is my understanding correct that the amendment 
    was defeated?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's understanding is correct.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet to demand a division 
    before the gentleman made a point of order that a quorum was not 
    present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    Chair had announced the noes appeared to have it on the amendment. 
    Tellers were requested, and an insufficient number supported the 
    demand for tellers, so tellers were refused.
        The Chair is presently in the process of counting to determine 
    whether a quorum is present.
        Mr. Hosmer: My inquiry is, Mr. Chairman: In either event, will 
    I still be recognized to demand a division?

[[Page 11508]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    amendment has been rejected. Therefore, a request for a division 
    comes too late.
        Mr. Hosmer: I thank the Chair.

    Immediately following the Chair's reply to the Hosmer inquiry, Mr. 
Pepper withdrew his point of order, and the Committee proceeded to the 
next section of the bill.

Sec. 9.11 When the Chair has announced that an amendment has been 
    rejected, and a Member makes the point of order that a quorum is 
    not present, it is too late, even prior to the point of no quorum, 
    to demand a division vote on the amendment.

    On Sept. 24, 1970,(10) the House resolved itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering certain drug 
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 33603, 33618, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the rejection of an amendment which he had offered, Mr. 
Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, raised the point of order that a quorum 
was not present. As the Chair (11) started to count, a 
parliamentary inquiry was posed by Mr. Craig Hosmer, of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Hosmer stated that he was on his feet to demand a division 
before Mr. Pepper had raised his point of order pertaining to the lack 
of a quorum. Accordingly, he inquired as to whether he would be 
recognized to demand a division.
    The Chair responded initially by reminding Mr. Hosmer that the 
Chair had already announced that the noes appeared to have it on the 
amendment; that tellers had been requested; that an insufficient number 
supported the demand for tellers, hence they were 
refused,(12) and that the amendment had been rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For the entire exchange, see Sec. 9.10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair further elaborated by stating that it was in the midst of 
counting to determine whether a quorum was present, and, finally, that 
the amendment having been rejected, the request for a division came too 
late.