[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[Â§ 11. Objections to Division Vote: Lack of Quorum]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11511-11530]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 11. Objections to Division Vote: Lack of Quorum

Generally

Sec. 11.1 Objection to a voice vote for lack of a quorum having been 
    withdrawn and demand then being made for a division, an objection 
    to the division vote for lack of a quorum is in order.

[[Page 11512]]

    On Feb. 5, 1957,(2) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 4249) 
making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957. 
Discussion ensued, and the Committee eventually agreed to rise and to 
report the bill back to the House with various amendments and with the 
recommendation that the bill as amended, be passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 103 Cong. Rec. 1528, 1553, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the Speaker (3) inquired as to whether any 
Member demanded a separate vote on any amendment. In response thereto, 
Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, stated that he desired a separate 
vote on the amendment to Chapter III which had been adopted in the 
Committee. No other separate votes having been requested, the Chair put 
the remaining amendments en gros, and they were agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the Chair directed the Clerk to report the 
amendment on which a separate vote had been demanded. The Clerk read 
the amendment, after which Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, demanded the 
yeas and nays. This request having been refused, the question was put, 
taken, and agreed to by voice vote.

        At this point, Mrs. Green objected to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum was not present. After the Chair announced it would 
    count, Mrs. Green immediately withdrew the point of order and asked 
    for a division. The question was then taken on a division, and 
    there were--ayes 118, noes 46.

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present, and I make the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: The point of order is that that request 
    has already been made in reference to this vote, and the 
    gentlewoman withdrew it.
        The Speaker: The objection to the voice vote on the grounds 
    that a quorum was not present was withdrawn. The objection to the 
    vote by division, on the grounds that a quorum is not present, is 
    in order.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.

    The Speaker then directed the Clerk to call the roll.

Repeated Points of No Quorum

Sec. 11.2 While a division vote following a quorum call is 
    ``intervening business'' permitting an objection to the vote for 
    lack of a quorum under Rule XV clause 4, the Chair is not bound by 
    the result of

[[Page 11513]]

    the division but may count the House to determine whether a quorum 
    is in fact present.

    On Nov. 17, 1975,(4) the House was considering motions 
to suspend the rules. Pending the Chair's putting the question on one 
of these motions, a point of order was made that a quorum was not 
present:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 36914, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Evidently a quorum is 
    not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, a call of the House is ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The call was taken by electronic device, and the following 
    Members failed to respond: . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this rollcall 372 Members have 
    recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum.
        By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were 
    dispensed with. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Dominick V. Daniels) that the 
    House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 8618.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
    vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will point out to the 
    gentleman that the quorum has been established, and there has been 
    no intervening business.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I therefore demand the yeas 
    and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Ford 
    of Michigan) there were--ayes 115, noes 15.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present, as evidenced by the vote just cast.
        [After counting the House:]
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will point out to the 
    gentleman that a quorum had been established just prior to the 
    vote. The Chair determines that a quorum is still present.
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the bill was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

As Related to Adjournment

Sec. 11.3 A quorum not being required for purposes of adjournment, 
    objection to an affirmative division vote on a motion to adjourn--
    when based on the absence of a

[[Page 11514]]

    quorum--is not a proper point of order.

    On July 25, 1949,(6) the House met at 12 o'clock noon, a 
prayer was offered, and the Speaker (7) directed the Clerk 
to read the Journal of the last day's proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec.. 10092, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately following the Chair's instruction and before the Clerk 
proceeded, however, Mr. Ed Gossett, of Texas, moved that the House 
adjourn. This question was taken; and on a division there were--ayes 
46, noes 30.
    Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, then rose and the following exchange 
took place:

        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground there is no quorum present.
        The Speaker: That is not a proper point of order. The gentleman 
    may ask for the yeas and nays.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 102, nays 243, not 
    voting 87. . . .
        So the motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the absence of a quorum, only two 
motions are in order--a call of the House or a motion to 
adjourn.(8) In this particular instance, the motion to 
adjourn would have taken precedence over any simultaneously proposed 
motion for a call of the House; (9) hence no such motion was 
forthcoming despite the desire of the majority to avoid adjournment. 
Had the initial division vote been opposed to adjourning, however, an 
objection based on the lack of a quorum would have been in order, and--
assuming the point of order were sustained--an ``automatic'' roll call 
would have followed.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 769 (note); and Rule XV clause 
        2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 768 (1995).
 9. Id.
10. Rule XV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 773 (1995); see also 
        Sec. 11.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.4 While a quorum is not required to adjourn the House, a point 
    of no quorum following a negative division vote on adjournment, 
    when sustained, precipitates a call of the House under the rule 
    (Rule XV clause 4).

    On Dec. 11, 1963,(11) Mr. John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, sought unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk a 
bill (H.R. 4276) to provide for the creation of horizontal property 
regimes in the District of Columbia,

[[Page 11515]]

with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 24212, 24217, 24218, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the reading of the Senate amendment, Mr. Steven B. 
Derounian, of New York, rose to make the point of order that a quorum 
was not present. The Speaker (12) then asked the gentleman 
if he would withhold his point until the Chair could obtain the 
unanimous-consent request desired by Mr. McMillan. Mr. Derounian 
insisted on his point of order, however, whereupon Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, offered a preferential motion that the House adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of adjournment was taken; a division was demanded by 
Mr. Derounian and Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts; and, there 
were--ayes 60, noes 63. Immediately following the announcement of the 
vote, Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, objected to the vote on 
the ground that a quorum was not present. The Speaker sustained the 
point of order and ordered the Clerk to call the roll. The motion was 
agreed to, and the House adjourned.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For similar instances, see 97 Cong. Rec. 6621, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        June 15, 1951; and 97 Cong. Rec. 6097, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        June 4, 1951. For a comparable instance involving a point of no 
        quorum with respect to an affirmative division vote [on a 
        motion to adjourn] see Sec. 11.3, supra. And, for other 
        instances of objections to division votes precipitating 
        automatic roll calls, see Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.5 While a quorum is not required on an affirmative motion to 
    adjourn, a negative vote on that motion by division may precipitate 
    an ``automatic'' roll call pursuant to Rule XV clause 4.

    In the 100th Congress, on Nov. 2, 1987,(14) a similar 
instance occurred, where an automatic call pursuant to clause 4, Rule 
XV occurred when, following a vote by division, the House refused to 
adjourn but a quorum failed to respond on the vote. A quorum also 
failed to respond on the automatic vote, and the House found itself in 
that unenviable position where it could conduct no business and had 
only two alternatives, to persuade a majority to vote to adjourn in the 
absence of the required quorum or to obtain the presence of absentees 
so business could continue. A motion to direct the Sergeant at Arms to 
compel attendance of absent Members was also defeated, with a quorum 
still not responding on the vote. A sec

[[Page 11516]]

ond motion to adjourn was then made, the yeas and nays were taken, and 
the House continued to refuse to adjourn. Another yea and nay vote, on 
a motion to direct Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, who was 
presiding, to compel the attendance of absentees, was then adopted by 
less than a quorum; but under the operation of this order, additional 
Members finally entered the Chamber and recorded their presence. After 
some three hours, enough Members finally responded to make a quorum and 
a motion to adjourn taken by the yeas and nays was finally 
adopted.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 133 Cong. Rec. 30386-90, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The various steps taken to adjourn the House on Nov. 2, 1987, are 
        summarized above but annotations describing the various actions 
        in more detail are included here for clarity:
            The Speaker may in his discretion entertain parliamentary 
        inquiries relating to the pending parliamentary situation 
        during the pendency of a record vote although prior to the 
        announcement of the result where a quorum has not appeared.
            Where less than a quorum rejects a motion to adjourn, the 
        House may not consider business but may dispose of motions to 
        secure the attendance of absent Members.
            A privileged motion to compel the attendance of absent 
        Members is in order after the Chair has announced that a quorum 
        has not responded on a negative record vote to adjourn.
            Less than a quorum of the House rejected a motion directing 
        the Sergeant at Arms to arrest absent Members.
            Less than a quorum of the House rejected a second motion to 
        adjourn and then adopted a motion authorizing the Speaker to 
        compel the attendance of absent Members.
            The motion to compel the attendance of absent Members being 
        neither debatable nor amendable is not subject to a motion to 
        lay on the table.
            The House having authorized the Speaker to compel the 
        attendance of absent Members, the Speaker announced that the 
        Sergeant at Arms would proceed with necessary and efficacious 
        steps, and that pending the establishment of a quorum no 
        further business, including unanimous-consent requests for 
        recess authority, could be entertained.
            The House having authorized the Speaker to compel the 
        attendance of absent Members and having then obtained a quorum 
        by recording the names of additional Members who appeared 
        subsequent to the previous roll call on a negative motion to 
        adjourn, the motion to adjourn was then renewed and adopted by 
        roll call vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence Over Tellers

Sec. 11.6 An objection to a division vote on the ground that a quorum 
    is not present takes precedence over a demand for tellers on the 
    question.

    On June 18, 1953,(16) Mr. Robert B. Chiperfield, of 
Illinois,

[[Page 11517]]

moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of a bill (H.R. 5710) to amend further the Mutual 
Security Act of 1951, as amended. The question was taken; and Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, having demanded a division, there were--ayes 122, noes 
10. Immediately following the announcement of this result, Mr. Gross 
objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, then rose and demanded tellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 6840, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Faced with these two requests, the Speaker (17) stated 
that the point of order of Mr. Gross took precedence over Mr. Halleck's 
demand for tellers. The Chair then counted, and a quorum having been 
determined, the motion was agreed to.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
18. See also Sec. 15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Point of No Quorum Is in Order Where a Pending Question Is Put to a 
    Vote

Sec. 11.7 In the House, where the question of resolving into the 
    Committee of the Whole for consideration of a bill is taken by a 
    division vote, and the announcement of the result of the division 
    is followed by a point of order that a quorum is not present (but 
    not coupled with an objection to the vote for lack of a quorum 
    under Rule XV clause 4), the question is put de novo following the 
    quorum call.

    Rule XV clause 6(e) was adopted by the House in January 1977. It 
severely limited the right to make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present and specified that such a point of order can be made or 
entertained only when a pending question has been put to a vote. Since 
the adoption of this new rule, it has been the practice of the Speaker 
to put de novo a decisive question initially decided by fewer than a 
quorum, where the lack of a quorum was announced by the Chair in 
response to a point of order that a quorum was not present and a call 
of the House was thereafter ordered and taken, producing a quorum. This 
practice is disclosed by the proceedings of Sept. 22, 
1977,(19) which were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 30289, 30290, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7073) to 
    extend the Federal Insecticide,

[[Page 11518]]

    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la Garza).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, so that we 
    may have some record of the attendance of the House, as the 
    Constitution requires, in order to do business, I demand a 
    division.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) demands a division.
        Those in favor of the motion will rise and remain standing 
    until counted. The Chair will count all Members standing.
        The ayes will be seated and the noes will rise.
        On this vote, there are 18 ayes and no noes.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman object to the vote 
    on the ground that a quorum is not present?
        Mr. Bauman: No, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman allow the Chair, 
    then, to announce the vote?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman insists on his point of 
    order, and hopes that the point will be entertained by the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) desire an automatic rollcall?
        Mr. Bauman: No, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland simply 
    makes the point of order that a quorum is not present and the 
    Constitution does require a quorum to do business in the House.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) objecting to a quorum not being present or to the vote 
    as announced by the Chair?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Chair 
    was in the process of announcing the vote and that the Chair did 
    not count for a quorum. The Chair was simply taking count of the 
    Members who were standing. It was the Chair's understanding that 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) in making his point of 
    order that a quorum was not present, was doing so in order that a 
    quorum be called in order to establish the presence of a quorum.
        Will the gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza, withdraw his 
    motion and move a call of the House?
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Speaker, if it is permissible to withdraw 
    my motion without asking unanimous consent then I will do so, and 
    if it is not, then I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
    motion.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11519]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, has the Chair entertained my point of 
    order of no quorum?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is in the process of 
    entertaining the gentleman's point of order.
        Mr. Bauman: I object to the withdrawal of the motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: While the motion may be withdrawn if 
    the gentleman from Texas asks, the House having taken no final 
    action on the motion, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) must 
    in the meantime decide within his own mind--and the Chair will 
    protect the gentleman's rights, and is so doing--whether the 
    gentleman from Maryland wants to object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present or the Chair would recognize someone 
    for a motion for a call of the House. If the Chair sustains the 
    point of order, the gentleman from Maryland may have one but he may 
    not have both.
        Mr. Bauman: The only point of order that the gentleman from 
    Maryland has made is that a quorum is not present, and there is 
    pending a motion at this time regarding resolving into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House, if a 
    quorum is not present, the motion on a call of the House would 
    still take precedence over the pending motion to resolve into 
    Committee.
        The gentleman from Maryland makes the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present and evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move a 
    call of the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.
        The call was taken by electronic device, and the following 
    Members failed to respond: . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this rollcall 286 Members have 
    recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum.
        By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were 
    dispensed with.

     federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act authorization

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The pending business is the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la Garza) that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 7073, on 
    which the Chair will again put the question.
        The motion was agreed to.

                       in the committee of the whole

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill H.R. 7073, with Mr. Danielson in the chair.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The practice was otherwise before the 
adoption of clause 6(e), Rule XV. A division vote having been taken on 
an amendment pending in the House, even though immediately followed by 
a point of no quorum and a call of the House, a second

[[Page 11520]]

demand for a division would not have been entertained. While the yeas 
and nays or a recorded vote could yet be demanded after the call of the 
House, the issue could be decided by the division vote unless so 
challenged.

Practice Before 1977; Precipitation of Automatic Roll Calls

Sec. 11.8 A point of no quorum, following announcement of the result of 
    a division vote on an amendment as to which less than a quorum 
    voted, does not precipitate an automatic roll call under the rules; 
    and unless objection to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
    present is made and such objection sustained, a call of the House 
    solely on the point of order that a quorum is not present precludes 
    a vote de novo on agreeing to the amendment.

    On Feb. 21, 1967,(1) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 83 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution authorized 
the Committee on Agriculture to investigate and make studies into a 
variety of matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 4137, 4139, 4140, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate, the Chair (2) put the question on 
agreeing to the committee amendments. The question was taken; and, Mr. 
Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, having demanded a division, there were--
ayes 34, noes 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately following the announcement of the vote, Mr. Jones rose 
to make a point of order, and the following colloquy ensued:

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman make the straight point of 
    order that a quorum is not present?
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes the 
    point of order. I want to get a quorum here and then I will have a 
    division.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri makes the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chair will state that the vote is automatic at this point.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: The vote on the resolution is not 
    automatic. At this point we are only voting on the amendments.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Missouri make the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present and objects to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present?
        Evidently, a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 11521]]

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is whether or 
    not the gentleman from Missouri did object to the vote on the basis 
    that a quorum was not present as was stated by the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to understand clearly what 
    the gentleman from Missouri is demanding.
        Is the gentleman from Missouri demanding a straight quorum 
    call?
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: I was demanding a straight quorum call, 
    and then I am going to ask for a division when we come to adopting 
    the resolution.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move a call of 
    the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.

    Over 300 Members having answered to their names, a quorum was 
established,(3) and pursuant to unanimous consent, further 
proceedings under the call were dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. It should be noted that Mr. Jones intended to demand a second 
        division vote on the amendments following the quorum call. 
        During the call, however, he was advised that a vote de novo 
        would not be in order. Accordingly, when the call established 
        the presence of a quorum, Mr. Jones did not choose to press the 
        point. The gentleman could have obtained a second vote on 
        agreeing to the amendments through the automatic roll call 
        provision of Rule XV clause 4 [Rule XV clause 4, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 773 (1995)], if he had not decided to pursue a 
        ``straight quorum call'' under Rule XV clause 2(b) [Rule XV 
        clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 771b (1995)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker put the question on agreeing to the 
resolution as amended. The question was taken; and on a division 
demanded by Mr. Jones, there were--ayes 128, noes 25.
    At this point, Mr. Jones rose again, prompting the following 
exchange and resultant roll call:

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present, and make the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri objects to the vote on 
    the ground that a quorum is not present, and makes the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 306, nays 18, not 
    voting 108.

Sec. 11.9 In Committee of the Whole, only one demand for a vote by 
    division on a pending question is in order.

    In the 98th Congress, during consideration of the Education 
Amendments of 1984 (H.R. 11) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman 
Abraham Kazen, Jr., of

[[Page 11522]]

Texas, put the question on a pending amendment offered by Mr. Pat 
Williams, of Montana. On a division vote, the Chair announced the 
result to be 19 in the affirmative, 21 in the negative. After 
intervening business--a quorum call and an unsuccessful attempt to get 
a recorded vote on the amendment--a second request for a division vote 
was denied. The proceedings of July 26, 1984,(4) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. 21259, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Williams of Montana) there were--ayes 19, noes 21.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is 
    not present.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. Forty-four 
    Members are present, not a quorum.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, 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 pending question following the quorum call. Members 
    will record their presence by electronic device.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Three hundred and ninety-six Members 
    have answered to their names, a quorum is present, and the 
    Committee will resume its business.
        The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from 
    Montana [Mr. Williams] for a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        So the amendment was rejected.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, may I request the yeas 
    and nays on that last vote?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: A recorded vote had been requested 
    and refused.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: May I ask for the yeas and nays?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Not at this time.

        The Chair will tell the gentleman from Montana that that would 
    not be permitted in the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry; may I ask for a division?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: There has already been one.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: I understand that. My question is, May 
    I ask for another?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: No.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: I thank the Chairman.

    A similar sequence of events occurred in the Committee of the Whole 
in the 103d Congress. On June 29, 1994,(5) the House had

[[Page 11523]]

under consideration the Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 
1995. Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney, of New York, offered an amendment which 
was debated. When the question on adoption of the amendment was put by 
the Chair it appeared that the amendment was rejected on a voice vote. 
Mrs. Maloney then asked for a recorded vote and made a point of order 
that a quorum was not present. The Chair counted the Committee and 
announced that a quorum was present in the Chamber. Mrs. Maloney did 
not renew her demand for a recorded vote at this point, but instead 
asked for a division. After counting those standing in support of and 
in opposition to the amendment, the Chair announced that the ayes were 
20, the noes 69. Mrs. Maloney again made a point of no quorum and the 
Chair announced that after again counting the Members present a quorum 
was still present.(6) When Mrs. Maloney again asked for a 
vote by division, the Chair ruled that a second request was not in 
order. Mrs. Maloney then renewed her demand for a recorded vote but an 
insufficient number of Members rose to second her demand. The amendment 
was thus rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. In response to Mrs. Maloney's argument that the Chair should have 
        called for a quorum call when the vote by division showed less 
        than a quorum voting, she was advised that a vote by division 
        takes no cognizance of Members present but not voting, and 
        consequently the number of votes counted by division has no 
        tendency to establish a lack of quorum. See House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 630a (1995), June 29, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     amendment offered by mrs. maloney

        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney: Page 14, strike lines 4 
        through 22.

        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to cut the 
    single most ridiculous item in the budget.
        Let me make this simple and quick. Three simple facts: The 
    Civilian Marksmanship Program is obsolete. Created in 1903 during 
    the Spanish-American War, it is no longer needed to train men and 
    women to shoot straight. It is time to declare victory and cut this 
    boondoggle out of the budget. It is a boondoggle.
        It hands out millions of rounds of ammunition to private gun 
    clubs. The Army does not want it. The Department of Defense does 
    not want it. The Office of Management and Budget does not want the 
    money.
        If we cannot cut here, where? Where are we going to cut?
        Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask 
    for a vote on the amendment.

[[Page 11524]]

        The Chairman: (7) Do other Members seek to be 
    recognized for debate on the amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Robert G. Torricelli (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and I 
    make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman from New York has requested a 
    recorded vote.
        Those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and remain standing 
    until counted. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I note the absence of a quorum.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman makes a point of order that a 
    quorum is not present. The Chair will count for a quorum.
        A quorum is present.
        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman from New York has demanded a 
    division.
        Those in favor of the amendment will rise and remain standing 
    until counted.
        Those opposed will rise and remain standing until counted.
        On this vote, in the affirmative: 20; opposed: 69.
        Mrs. Maloney: In the absence of a quorum, I asked for a quorum.
        Mr. Murtha: Regular order.
        Mrs. Maloney: Notice of a quorum.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman has made a point of order of no 
    quorum. The Chair must again count for a quorum since there has 
    been a division vote.
        The Chair has counted more than 100 Members for a quorum. A 
    quorum is present.
        Mrs. Maloney: Division; I ask for a division.
        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman is not able to ask for a division 
    again. A division vote has been conducted.
        Mr. Murtha: Regular order.

Sec. 11.10 Objection to a voice vote taken in the House for lack of a 
    quorum having been withdrawn and demand then being made for a 
    division, an objection to the division vote for lack of a quorum is 
    in order and, if a quorum is not present the roll call is 
    automatic.

    On Feb. 5, 1957,(8) the House entertained consideration 
(9) of an amendment to a bill (H.R. 4249) making 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957. The amendment 
having been agreed to by voice vote, Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, ob

[[Page 11525]]

jected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. The 
Speaker (10) then announced he would count, after which Mrs. 
Green immediately withdrew her point of order and asked for a division. 
The division then being taken, there were--ayes 118, noes 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 1553, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. For greater detail see Sec. 11.1, supra.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, the following discussion ensued:

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present, and I make the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: The point of order is that that request 
    has already been made in reference to this vote, and the 
    gentlewoman withdrew it.
        The Speaker: The objection to the voice vote on the grounds 
    that a quorum was not present was withdrawn. The objection to the 
    vote by division, on the grounds that a quorum is not present, is 
    in order.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

Sec. 11.11 An objection to a division vote taken in the Committee of 
    the Whole and based on the absence of a quorum may not precipitate 
    an ``automatic'' roll call under the rules; ``automatic'' roll 
    calls are not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

        On June 7, 1973,(11) the House resolved itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 
    7446) to establish the American Revolution Bicentennial 
    Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 18509, 18518, 18521, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Lawrence G. 
Williams, of Pennsylvania, offered several amendments en bloc and, 
following debate on these amendments, the Chair (12) put the 
question before the Committee. The question was taken; and the Chair 
announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. Williams then demanded 
a recorded vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Henry B. Gonzalez (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the following discussion ensued:

        The Chairman: A recorded vote has been demanded.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that. I make the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present, and I object to the vote on 
    that basis.
        The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    that that procedure is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. I object 
    to the

[[Page 11526]]

    vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and I request a 
    rollcall vote.
        I can object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
    present, and insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: Not in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
    wishes to advise.
        The gentleman may be advised that he may wish to raise a point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Williams: That is exactly what I have done.
        The Chairman: But the gentleman must be advised that during 
    proceedings of the Committee of the Whole, an automatic vote is not 
    a proper request.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    vote previously taken on the basis that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania raises the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present. Is that what the gentleman 
    wishes? (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Since an objection to a division vote in the Committee of the Whole 
        on the ground of no quorum will not lie, the only proper way to 
        obtain a record vote under the circumstances would have been to 
        raise a point of no quorum pending a demand for a recorded 
        vote.
            For additional information as to points of no quorum, see 
        Ch. 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Williams: No. I demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair will remind the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that that demand has been withdrawn.
        Mr. Williams: I did withdraw it before. I am now requesting a 
    recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania now demands a 
    recorded vote on his amendments.
        Mr. Williams' request for a recorded vote was refused, and the 
    amendments were rejected.

Where Parliamentary Inquiry Precedes Objection

Sec. 11.12 Although preceded by a parliamentary inquiry, an objection 
    to a division vote in the House on the ground that a quorum was not 
    present, does not come too late and is in order.

    On Mar. 7, 1956,(14) the House entertained consideration 
of a bill (H.R. 9739) making appropriations for various executive 
bureaus and bodies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 4215, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of debate, it was agreed that one of the proposed 
amendments to the bill would be voted on separately. The Chair being in 
doubt upon the taking of the question, a division was had, and there 
were ayes 17, noes 31.
    Immediately following the Chair's announcement to that effect, Mr. 
Gordon Canfield, of New Jersey, propounded a parliamen

[[Page 11527]]

tary inquiry asking if it were too late to request that that amendment 
be read to the House. The Speaker Pro Tempore (15) informed 
Mr. Canfield that the amendment having been read, the Chair assumed 
that every Member was aware of its content. Hence, the amendment was 
not reread by the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the Chair's ruling on the Canfield inquiry, Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, rose to object to the vote on the ground that a quorum 
was not present. Mr. Gross' objection prompted the following exchange:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman's point comes too late. There was a 
    parliamentary inquiry submitted since the division.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
    Canfield] addressed the Chair on a point of order. The gentleman 
    from Iowa [Mr. Gross] was justified in waiting until that point of 
    order had been determined by the Chair. Immediately upon that 
    determination the gentleman from Iowa made the point of order that 
    a quorum was not present and objected to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum was not present. The Chair feels that the gentleman 
    from Iowa exercised his rights under the rules in such manner that 
    a point of order against his point of order would not lie.

Where Yeas and Nays Refused

Sec. 11.13 Less than a quorum having voted on a division and a yea and 
    nay vote having been refused, it is not too late to object to the 
    division vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.

    On June 1, 1942,(16) Mr. Joseph J. Mansfield, of Texas, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 6999) to authorize the 
construction and operation of a pipe-line and a navigable barge canal 
across Florida, among other things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 4767, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate, the Speaker (17) put the 
question.(18) The question was taken; and Mr. John D. 
Dingell, of Michigan, having demanded a division, there were 85 ayes 
and 121 noes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 4774, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Mansfield thereupon requested the yeas and nays-prompting the 
Speaker to count those Members in favor. An insufficient number having 
arisen, the yeas and nays were refused.
    Mr. Herman P. Kopplemann, of Connecticut, then commenced the 
following discussion:

        Mr. Kopplemann: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order that 
    there is no quorum present, and I object to the vote on that 
    ground.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count.

[[Page 11528]]

        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman's point of order comes too late.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hold that it does not come too 
    late. The Chair will count. [After counting.] More than 218 Members 
    are present, a quorum.

    Two-thirds of those present not having voted in favor thereof, the 
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was rejected.

Objection Resulting in Postponement of Roll Call Vote

Sec. 11.14 Objection having been raised to a division vote on the 
    ground that a quorum was not present, the point of order that a 
    quorum was not present was made and further proceedings were 
    postponed pursuant to a previous unanimous-consent agreement that 
    any roll call votes would be put over until a later day.

    On Oct. 5, 1965,(19) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint 
resolution (S.J. Res. 106) to allow the showing in the United States of 
the U.S. Information Agency film ``John F. Kennedy-Years of Lightning, 
Day of Drums.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 25941, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After some discussion pertaining to the precedential nature of such 
an authorization as well as certain other concerns of various Members, 
the Speaker Pro Tempore (20) put the question. It was taken; 
and, on a division demanded by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, there were--
ayes 55, noes 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Gross then rose immediately to object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum was not present.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 25944, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response thereto, the Chair stated that pursuant to the order of 
the House of Oct. 1, 1965, further proceedings on the Senate joint 
resolution would be put over until Oct. 7, 1965.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The postponement of such proceedings was a result of a unanimous-
        consent agreement reached on Oct. 1, 1965. In light of 
        impending religious holidays, the House agreed that any roll 
        call votes, other than on questions of procedure, would be put 
        over until October 7. See 111 Cong. Rec. 25797, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 1, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Untimely

Sec. 11.15 Objection to a division vote on the ground that a

[[Page 11529]]

    quorum was not present comes too late after the vote has been 
    announced, the bill passed, and a motion to reconsider has been 
    laid on the table.

    On Sept. 17, 1962,(3) Mrs. Gracie B. Pfost, of Idaho, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 12761) to provide 
relief for residential occupants of unpatented mining claims. The 
Speaker Pro Tempore (4) following debate, put the question. 
Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, having demanded a division, the 
question was taken, and there were 49 ayes and 13 noes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 19650, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker Pro Tempore then announced that two-thirds having voted 
in the affirmative, the rules were suspended and the bill passed. He 
further stated that if there were no objection, a motion to reconsider 
would be laid on the table. The Record indicates there was no immediate 
objection.
    Shortly thereafter, however, Mr. Dingell objected to the vote on 
the ground that a quorum was not present. In response thereto, Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, rose to a point of order that the 
Dingell objection came too late. The Speaker Pro Tempore concurring in 
that conclusion, Mr. Dingell withdrew the point of order.

In the Committee of the Whole

Sec. 11.16 In the Committee of the Whole, objection will not lie to a 
    division vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.

    On Aug. 1, 1966,(5) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
14765) to assure nondiscrimination in federal and state jury selection, 
to facilitate desegregation of public education and other public 
facilities, to provide judicial relief against discriminatory housing 
practices, to prescribe penalties for certain acts of intimidation, and 
for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 112 Cong. Rec. 17831, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of 
Colorado, moved that all debate on title II and all amendments thereto 
terminate at 4 o'clock that day.(6) The Chair (7) 
put the question; it was taken, and on a division demanded by Mr. Joe 
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, there were-ayes 51, noes 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 17844.
 7. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John V. Dowdy, of Texas, thereupon rose to object, as follows:

[[Page 11530]]

        Mr. Dowdy: Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that such an 
    objection is not valid in the Committee of the Whole.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A point of order that a quorum is not 
present will lie in the Committee of the Whole; however, objection will 
not lie to any vote in the Committee on the ground that a quorum is not 
present. See, for example, the proceedings of Dec. 17, 
1970,(8) where the Chairman ordered a quorum call following 
a point of order that a quorum was not present, but ruled an objection 
to a voice vote on the same ground to be out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 42232, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------