[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[Â§ 10. Interruption of Division Vote]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11508-11511]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 10. Interruption of Division Vote

For Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 10.1 A Member may not interrupt the actual count on a division 
    vote by a parliamentary inquiry.

    On Feb. 13, 1946,(13) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
offered

[[Page 11509]]

a privileged resolution (H. Res. 523) which called for the striking 
from the Record of all the matter spoken and inserted by the Member 
from Washington (Mr. Charles R. Savage) on page 1267 of the [daily] 
Record of Tuesday, Feb. 12, 1946. Mr. Smith's resolution stated that 
the insertion of extraneous matter in the Record, without previous 
specific authorization from the House constituted a violation of the 
rules, thereby mandating the removal of such matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 1274, 1275, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of a brief parliamentary inquiry posed by Mr. 
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, Mr. Smith held the floor until such 
time as he moved the adoption of the resolution. The Speaker 
(14) then put the question, immediately, and the question 
having been taken, he announced that the ayes seemed to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, Mr. Smith demanded a division, and the House 
proceeded to divide. In the midst of that procedure, Mr. Hugh De Lacy, 
of Washington, addressed the Chair, and the following exchange 
transpired:

        Mr. De Lacy (interrupting the division): Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The House is dividing now. Nothing else is in 
    order now.
        Mr. De Lacy: Are there not two sides to a debate, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The Chair is putting the question. The Chair is 
    going to be fair to everybody in this House; the Chair wants the 
    gentleman from Washington and everybody else to understand that. 
    The Chair has always thought that each man, being elected by his 
    own State has a right to speak.
        The division was concluded.
        The Speaker: On this vote by division the ayes are 74 and the 
    noes are 2.
        So the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 10.2 A parliamentary inquiry may not interrupt a division; but 
    such inquiries are entertained until the Chair asks those in favor 
    of the proposition to rise.

    On Sept. 29, 1966,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
met to further consider the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1966 
(H.R. 15111), Mr. John N. Erlenborn, of Illinois, offered an amendment 
to an amendment offered by Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon. Following 
some discussion of the Erlenborn proposal, the Chair (16) 
put the question, it was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
Chair was in doubt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 24455-57, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following discussion took place:

[[Page 11510]]

        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division.
        Mr. William D. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. William D. Ford: In the event that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Erlenborn] which is offered to the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green] is 
    defeated at this time and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from Oregon [Mrs. Green] is also defeated, would the Erlenborn 
    amendment then be in order if offered separately?
        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. Is a parliamentary inquiry in order at this time during the 
    vote?
        The Chairman: The parliamentary inquiry was made before the 
    Chair put the question pursuant to the demand of the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Erlenborn] for a division.
        In response to the parliamentary inquiry by the gentleman from 
    Michigan, the Chair will state that the amendment may be offered 
    later as a separate amendment.

    Having permitted the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair then put the 
question on the Erlenborn proposal, it was taken; and on a division 
demanded by Mr. Erlenborn, there were--ayes 69, noes 27.

To Demand Yeas and Nays

Sec. 10.3 A demand for the yeas and nays is not in order while the 
    Chair is counting on a division vote.

    On June 10, 1937,(17) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
6391) to authorize the prompt deportation of [alien] criminals and 
certain other aliens, and for other purposes. Following considerable 
discussion of the bill, the Committee rose and its Chairman 
(18) reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
agreed to in committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 5547, 5573, 5574, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. William B. Umstead (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker (19) put the question on 
the passage of the bill, whereupon Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, 
offered a motion to recommit. The following colloquy then ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins].
        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio demands a division. All 
    those in favor of the motion will rise and stand until counted.
        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio (interrupting the count): Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's request is not in order while the 
    House is dividing.

[[Page 11511]]

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it has discretion to conclude the 
    count on a division before entertaining another request.
        Mr. Mapes: I never knew the Chair to make such a ruling before.
        The Speaker: The Chair now makes it.

    The Chair continued his count and announced the totals in both the 
affirmative and negative columns (20) before entertaining 
another demand for the yeas and nays from Mr. Jenkins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. It should be noted, parenthetically, that in the Senate the Chair 
        does not announce the number of Members voting ``aye'' and 
        ``no'' on a division vote. See Sec. .14.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Demand for Record Vote

Sec. 10.4 Where a vote by division is in progress, it cannot be 
    interrupted by a demand for a recorded vote.

    On June 10, 1975,(1) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole, William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, had put the question on a 
pending amendment and being in doubt as to the result of a voice vote, 
he directed a division vote. While the Members in the affirmative were 
standing to be counted, Mr. Sam Gibbons, of Florida, asked for a 
recorded vote. The Chair declined to interrupt his count and the 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 18048, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided.
        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair is counting, and a division vote in 
    progress cannot be interrupted by a demand for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman having announced that he was in doubt, and the 
    Committee having divided, there were--ayes 77, noes 66.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.