[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[Â§ 13. Division Vote as Related to Demand for Tellers]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11531-11539]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 13. Division Vote as Related to Demand for Tellers

Where Tellers Refused Prior to Division

Sec. 13.1 The House has agreed to adjourn by division vote after 
    refusing both the yeas and nays and a teller vote on the motion.

    On May 15, 1946,(18) Mr. Graham A. Barden, of North 
Carolina, was recognized and moved that the House adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 5067, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, and Mr. 
Andrew J. Biemiller, of

[[Page 11532]]

Wisconsin, demanded the yeas and nays.
    The yeas and nays having been refused, Mr. Marcantonio then 
demanded tellers which were also refused. The latter refusal prompted 
him to seek a division. This request was subsequently honored following 
a brief, intervening inquiry from Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts. The Speaker (19) put the question; it was 
taken; (20) and there were--ayes 99, noes 81. Accordingly, 
the House adjourned until the following day, May 16, 1946, at 12 
o'clock noon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 5068, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.2 A demand for a teller vote in the Committee of the Whole 
    having been refused, a second demand for such a vote following a 
    division vote on the pending question was not in order.

    On June 13, 1957,(1) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6127) to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil 
rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 9018, 9030, 9034, 9035, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. William M. Tuck, of 
Virginia, offered an amendment. Following debate, the Chair 
(2) put the question, and the Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it. Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of Michigan, was 
recognized immediately thereafter, and demanded tellers. This request 
having been refused, Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, then rose to 
ask for a division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following a brief discussion between the Chair and two Members as 
to whether a division was permissible, the Chair held Mr. Keating was 
within his rights. Accordingly, the Committee divided; and there were--
ayes 106, noes 114.
    This turn of events prompted the following colloquy:

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Colmer: Would it be in order to have tellers?
        The Chairman: Tellers have been refused.
        Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, the tellers were refused 
    after the Chair had ruled and said that the amendment was agreed 
    to. Then tell

[[Page 11533]]

    ers were demanded, and those people who now want tellers felt that 
    the amendment was agreed to, so they did not rise to ask for 
    tellers; and I can get the House to agree with me. I make that 
    point of order and ask the Chair to rule on it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule that on the demand for 
    tellers an insufficient number of Members rose to their feet.

        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I disagree with the ruling of the Chair 
    and ask for a vote on the ruling of the Chair. I say that he had 
    already ruled on the vote.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman appeal from the ruling of the 
    Chair?
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. [William J.] Green [Jr.] of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Green of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, it is too late for the 
    gentleman to appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has appealed from the ruling of the 
    Chair.
        The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
    judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes apparently had it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
        The Committee divided; and there were--ayes 222, noes 4.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, is it now in order to ask for 
    tellers after the rising vote?
        The Chairman: It is not in order. The question was taken on the 
    amendment and the question was decided.

    Accordingly, the amendment was rejected.

Where Tellers Sought Following Division and Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 13.3 A demand for tellers did not come too late where the Member 
    was on his feet when the division was announced but first 
    propounded a parliamentary inquiry before making the demand.

    On Sept. 20, 1967,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of further considering a bill 
(H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health Service Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 26119, 26120, 26130, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John Jarman, of 
Oklahoma, offered a perfecting amendment to section 12 of the bill. Mr. 
Jarman's amendment was discussed, and upon the expiration of the time 
allotted for its consideration, the Chairman put

[[Page 11534]]

the question, the question was taken, and, on a division demanded by 
Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, there were--ayes 43, noes 102. 
Thereafter, the following discussion transpired:

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, was that vote on the Jarman 
    perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that is correct.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Mr. [James J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    demand comes too late; the Chairman had already announced the vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the point of order is 
    overruled.

    Accordingly, tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed Mr. 
Jarman and Mr. William L. Springer, of Illinois, as tellers.

Where Tellers Sought Following Division and Point of No Quorum

Sec. 13.4 The right to demand tellers was not prejudiced by the fact 
    that a point of no quorum and a call of the House intervened 
    following a division vote on the question on which tellers were 
    requested.

    On Sept. 25, 1969,(4) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 12884) to 
amend title 13, United States Code, to assure confidentiality of 
information furnished in response to inquiries of the Bureau of the 
Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 27018, 27036, 27041, 27042, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Jackson E. Betts, of 
Ohio, offered an amendment, and the question was subsequently put by 
the Chair.(5) The question was taken; and, Mr. Betts 
demanding a division, there were--ayes 32, noes 22. Mr. Thaddeus J. 
Dulski, of New York, then raised a point of no quorum. The Chair's 
count revealing only 75 Members present, the Clerk was directed to call 
the roll; the Committee rose, and the Speaker (6) resumed 
the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. George W. Andrews (Ala.).
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a quorum responded to the call, the Committee resumed its 
sitting, and the following discussion then ensued:

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson [of California]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: The Committee will be in order.

[[Page 11535]]

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    California rise?
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, on the Betts amendment I 
    demand tellers.
        Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the demand for tellers is out of order. The 
    time is past for that. The Chair asked for a division vote and the 
    vote was 32 to 22, and the amendment was agreed to. The Chairman 
    announced that the amendment was agreed to. Then the chairman of 
    the full Committee on Post Office and Civil Service made the point 
    of order that a quorum was not present and there was a call of the 
    House.
        My point of order is that when the chairman of the Committee on 
    Post Office and Civil Service made the point of order that a quorum 
    was not present, that that cut off the teller vote.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I just ask for tellers and 
    I assume I am following the correct procedure in asking for 
    tellers. There has been no intervening business, and it is my 
    understanding that----
        Mr. Montgomery: There was intervening business. There was a 20-
    minute delay.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on this point of order?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: May I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: There was no intervening business between 
    the division vote and the point of order being made that a quorum 
    was not present. We went through the quorum call immediately, and 
    subsequently the gentleman from California asked for tellers.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that is the way the Chair 
    recalls the procedure.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Missouri to be heard on the point of order.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the point of order should 
    not be sustained inasmuch as the record will indicate that the 
    Chair had announced the division vote, but it had not said that the 
    amendment was agreed to. The Chair had not made the final decision. 
    The right of any Member of the House to ask for a teller vote, to 
    ask for a reconsideration, or to ask for any other privileged 
    motion had not inured; therefore the request, because the quorum 
    call could not be interrupted, to ask for tellers is quite in 
    order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair again 
    recognize me for one other observation?

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan 
    on the point of order.

[[Page 11536]]

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet awaiting the 
    opportunity to ask for tellers at the time the gentleman from New 
    York made the point of order that a quorum was not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Missouri is 
    correct in his recollection. The Chair had not said that the 
    amendment was agreed to, therefore no intervening business had 
    taken place when the point of order of no quorum was made.
        The Chair will read from Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
    Representatives, volume 8, page 646, section 3104:

            The right to demand tellers is not prejudiced by the fact 
        that a point of no quorum has been made against a division of 
        the question on which tellers are requested.

        That precedent was established on December 13, 1917.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. It should also be noted that where a division vote has been 
        followed by a point of no quorum which, in turn, is followed by 
        agreement to a privileged motion that the Committee rise, 
        neither of the foregoing constitutes ``intervening business'' 
        which would preclude a demand for tellers on the pending 
        question immediately following the resumption of business in 
        the Committee. Generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.5 Where a point of no quorum was made and withdrawn immediately 
    after a division vote, it was not then too late to demand a teller 
    vote on the pending proposition.

    On Mar. 8, 1946,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
5605) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 2061, 2081, 2084, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John W. Heselton, of 
Massachusetts, offered an amendment pertaining to the distribution of 
funds for soil conservation in accordance with the conservation needs 
of the particular states.
    Mr. Heselton's amendment was debated, and subsequently put before 
the Committee for a vote. The question was taken; and on a division 
demanded by Mr. Heselton, there were--ayes 42, noes 28.
    Mr. Reid F. Murray, of Wisconsin, then rose to make the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. As the Chairman (9) 
announced his intent to count, Mr. Murray rose again to withdraw his 
point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, was then prompted to advance the 
following parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11537]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, is it too late to ask for tellers on 
    this vote?
        The Chairman: No; it is not too late to ask for tellers.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.

    Tellers having been ordered and appointed, the Committee again 
divided; and the tellers reported that there were--ayes 30, noes 43. 
Accordingly, the amendment was rejected.

Where Tellers Demanded Following Division and Point of No Quorum in the 
    Committee of the Whole

Sec. 13.6 Where a point of no quorum was made in the Committee of the 
    Whole and the roll was called as a demand for tellers on an 
    amendment remained pending, the question of ordering tellers was 
    put immediately after the Committee resumed its sitting, and a 
    division vote taken prior to the demand for tellers was not final.

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

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Henry C. Dworshak, 
of Idaho, offered an amendment to an amendment offered by Mr. J. W. 
Robinson, of Utah. Mr. Dworshak's proposal sought to decrease certain 
expenditures contained within the Robinson amendment, and was 
ultimately embraced by Mr. Robinson prior to the vote.
    The Chairman (11) subsequently put the question; it was 
taken; and, on a division demanded by Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, 
there were--ayes 41, noes 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, demanded 
tellers whereupon Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, made the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. The Chair then counting only 87 
Members present, the Clerk was directed to call the roll.
    A quorum having responded to the roll call, the Committee rose; the 
Chairman submitted the absentees' names to be spread upon the Journal; 
and the Speaker (12) directed the Committee to resume its 
sitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, the following exchange transpired:

[[Page 11538]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demands 
    tellers on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
    Dworshak] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
    Robinson].
        Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Granger: As I understood the situation when the quorum was 
    called, the Chair had already announced that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Idaho to the amendment had been agreed to; 
    and the request comes too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair had announced that on a division the 
    amendment to the amendment had been agreed to. Thereupon, the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demanded tellers. At that 
    point a point of order was made that a quorum was not present.
        The gentleman's demand for tellers is now pending.

    Having clarified the situation, the Chairman proceeded to order 
tellers, and the amendment to the amendment was subsequently rejected.

Sec. 13.7 The demand for tellers on an amendment did not come too late 
    where the absence of a quorum had prevented the Chair from 
    announcing the adoption of the amendment by division vote.

    On Sept. 24, 1970,(13) 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 in 
order to deal more comprehensively with the problems attendant upon 
drug abuse prevention and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 33603, 33628, 33634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Richard H. Poff, of 
Virginia offered an amendment. Following debate, the question was taken 
on the amendment, and, on a division demanded by Mr. Robert C. 
Eckhardt, of Texas, there were--ayes 35, noes 22. This result prompted 
Mr. James C. Corman, of California, to raise the point of order that a 
quorum was not present. The Chair (14) then counting only 71 
Members, a quorum call was ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A quorum having responded, the Committee rose; the Chairman 
reported the results to the Speaker,(15) and the Committee 
resumed its sitting. Thereafter, a subsequent demand for tellers was 
honored as the following excerpt reveals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: When the point of order was made on the absence 
    of a quorum, the Chair had just announced the vote by division on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Poff)--35 
    ayes, 22 noes.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

[[Page 11539]]

        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Poff and Mr. Eckhardt.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 147, noes 61.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 13.8 Where the Chair had announced the result of a division vote 
    on an amendment but was precluded from announcing the adoption of 
    the amendment by a point of order of no quorum, it was in order to 
    demand tellers on the amendment upon the resumption of proceedings 
    in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 24, 1970,(16) the House having 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, an 
amendment was offered and, subsequently, put to a vote by the 
Chairman.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 33634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
17. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A division having been demanded, there were--ayes 35, noes 22. 
Before the Chair could announce the adoption of the amendment, however, 
a point of order of no quorum was raised whereupon the Chair was 
obliged to count.
    The count revealing the absence of a quorum, the Clerk was directed 
to call the roll, and 335 Members responded to their names. The 
Committee rose; the Chairman informed the Speaker (18) of 
the preceding events--entering the names of absentees on the Journal--
and, in accordance with the rules,(19) the Committee resumed 
its sitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
19. See Rule XXIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 863 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas, demanded 
tellers which were ordered as requested.