[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[C. Yeas and Nays and Other Votes of Record]
[Â§ 33. Demand for Vote]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11666-11695]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 33. Demand for Vote

    While the mechanics of taking a recorded vote by electronic device 
are the same as those required for taking a vote by the yeas and nays, 
the process for ordering the two votes is different. The demand for the 
yeas and nays is constitutional in origin (4) while the 
recorded vote is a creature of the House rules.(5) While the 
yeas and nays are in order only in the House, a recorded vote can be 
demanded both in the House and in the Committee of the 
Whole.(6) The yeas and nays are ordered by one-fifth of 
those present (so if only ten Members are in attendance, two can order 
the yeas and nays) whereas one-fifth of a quorum (44 in the House) is 
required to get a recorded vote. In Committee of the Whole, the number 
for a recorded vote is fixed by rule.(7) Originally set at 
one-fifth of a quorum (20 in Committee), the requirement for a second 
was changed in the 96th Congress to the fixed number of 
25.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. .5.
 5. Rule I clause 5(a); Rule XXIII clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 629 and 864 (1995).
 6. Id.
 7. Id.
 8. Rule XXIII clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 864 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the House, a demand for a recorded vote can be made following a 
demand for the yeas and nays which does not receive a sufficient 
second. But where a vote is taken in the House by one method and 
concluded, either positively or negatively, the other method can no 
longer be demanded.(9) Where, on the other hand, an 
amendment is adopted by a recorded vote in Committee of the Whole, and 
is reported back to the House where it is subject to a demand for a 
``separate vote,'' that separate vote can be concluded by either a 
recorded vote or the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule I clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 629 (1995), as 
        amended by H. Res. 5, 105th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 7, 1997. The 
        following sentence was added to Rule I clause 5(a): ``A 
        recorded vote taken pursuant to this paragraph shall be 
        considered a vote by the yeas and nays.'' This amendment was 
        inserted to prevent an issue decided by a recorded vote from 
        being revisited by a demand for the yeas and nays on the same 
        question.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single-Step Demands; Nonelectronic ``Backup'' Procedure

Sec. 33.1 In the 92d Congress, the rules were amended to pro

[[Page 11667]]

    vide for a ``back-up'' nonelectronic procedure for recorded votes 
    by which clerk tellers may be appointed under a single-step demand 
    for a ``recorded vote.''

    On Oct. 13, 1972,(10) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 1123 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution read, in 
part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 118 Cong. Rec. 36005, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That (a) clause 5 of Rule I of the Rules of the 
        House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:

        ``5. He shall rise to put a question, but may state it sitting; 
    and shall put questions in this form, to wit: `As many as are in 
    favor (as the question may be), say ``Aye''.'; and after the 
    affirmative voice is expressed, `As many as are opposed, say 
    ``No''.'; if he doubts or a division is called for, the House shall 
    divide; those in the affirmative of the question shall first rise 
    from their seats, and then those in the negative; if he still 
    doubts, or a count is required by at least one-fifth of a quorum, 
    he shall name one or more from each side of the question to tell 
    the Members in the affirmative and negative; which being reported, 
    he shall rise and state the decision. However, if any Member 
    requests a recorded vote and that request is supported by at least 
    one-fifth of a quorum, such vote shall be taken by electronic 
    device, unless the Speaker in his discretion orders clerks to tell 
    the names of those voting on each side of the question, and such 
    names shall be recorded by electronic device or by clerks, as the 
    case may be, and shall be entered in the Journal, together with the 
    names of those not voting. Members shall have not less than fifteen 
    minutes to be counted from the ordering of the recorded vote or the 
    ordering of clerks to tell the vote. . . .'' (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Other segments of the resolution pertaining to electronic voting 
        may be found in Sec. .31.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, Mr. Sisk explained some of 
the procedural changes being proposed as well as the nature of the 
``backup'' procedures, as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 36006, 36007, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I would briefly like to comment in connection with the fallback 
    or fail-safe position with regard to the voting and other matters 
    contained in the resolution.
        In brief we propose that machinery be used in all appropriate 
    voting situations, that is, whenever names of Members are to be 
    recorded. We also propose to put in the rules substitution of 
    present procedures as a backup in case the machinery becomes 
    unavailable for whatever the reason may be. We also propose that we 
    use the backup procedures at the discretion of the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        We also are suggesting two additional changes in the backup 
    proce

[[Page 11668]]

    dure. The first occurs in the procedure for tellers with clerks or 
    what is called the recorded teller vote.
        I want to emphasize that the amendments we offer do not in any 
    way alter the basic substance of that procedure. What we are trying 
    to do is to simplify the process.
        I might add what we propose is substantially the way the 
    Democratic caucus asked for during the past year. As the rules now 
    stand a Member must make two separate requests to get a recorded 
    teller vote, and we know the procedures.
        We propose that that two-step procedure be dropped and that a 
    single-step procedure be substituted therefor. A Member will simply 
    request a recorded teller vote, and that will take care of any 
    situation.
        We further propose doing away with the time-consuming process 
    of making Members act as tellers in the recording of the teller 
    votes. There is no reason why Members must be found to stand at the 
    head of the aisle to record the vote. Clerks will simply be 
    required to do that in the future in the event that there are 
    teller votes.
        Mr. Speaker, we are also proposing a new method for recording 
    Members during quorum calls. At the present time, as you know, the 
    Clerk calls the roll twice and recognizes Members in the House in a 
    time-consuming process. Again we have a recommendation from the 
    caucus in connection with this matter. In effect this method would 
    have the Clerks tell the Members just as they do in a recorded 
    teller vote, for instance, in recording the presence of the 
    Members.
        Instead of calling the roll, the Clerks would merely record the 
    names of the Members as they came up the aisle in the Chamber, or 
    in any other fashion that the Speaker made known.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Sisk: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
        Mr. Hays: You could use the electronic system for a quorum 
    call.
        Mr. Sisk: Certainly. In almost all cases I think the electronic 
    system will be used. What I am explaining is the so-called backup 
    procedure in the event that we did not desire to use the electronic 
    system.

    Discussion proceeded after which Mr. Sisk yielded his remaining 
time to Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, who summarized those changes 
in the rules which would be brought about by passage of House 
Resolution 1123. In the course of doing so, he stated, in part: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 36008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the purpose of House Resolution 1123 is to make 
    the changes in the House rules which will be required in order to 
    use the electronic voting equipment installed in the House Chamber. 
    Changes are made at four different points in the rules.
        The first change [is] in rule I, clause 5, which deals with how 
    votes may be taken in the House. House Resolution 1123 adds 
    language, which provides that a recorded vote may be taken by 
    electronic device. The procedure would be as follows: A Member may 
    request a recorded vote at any time after the

[[Page 11669]]

    question has been put by the Speaker. The intent is that a request 
    for a recorded vote shall be in order before or after a voice vote, 
    a division vote or a teller vote. If a Member requests a recorded 
    vote and is supported by one-fifth of a quorum, the vote will be 
    taken by electronic device. A Member may no longer demand a vote by 
    tellers with clerks. However, once a recorded vote is ordered, the 
    Speaker in his discretion may order a recorded vote with clerks. 
    This would be similar to the present vote by tellers with clerks, 
    except that the Speaker will appoint clerks to count, rather than 
    Members. A Member shall have not less than 15 minutes to be 
    counted. The time begins to run from the ordering of the recorded 
    vote or the ordering of clerks to tell the vote. . . .
        Mr. Sisk later offered an amendment (14) providing 
    that the resolution would become effective immediately before noon 
    on Jan. 3, 1973. The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution, 
    as amend-ed, was also agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 36012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Related to Demand for Yeas and Nays

Sec. 33.2 A demand for a recorded vote may be made following a demand 
    for the yeas and nays, providing the latter demand is first 
    withdrawn.

    On June 28, 1972,(15) following discussion of a motion 
to concur in a Senate amendment with a House amendment to a bill (H.R. 
13955) pertaining to legislative branch appropriations, the Speaker 
(16) put the question on the motion, it was taken; and the 
Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 22981, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Immediately thereafter, the following discussion ensued:

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to ask that we have tellers 
    with clerks to record this vote? (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Tellers with clerks--the original formulation for what has become 
        ``the recorded vote''--were first adopted in the 92d Congress. 
        (See H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: It is in order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I ask that we have the vote by tellers 
    with clerks.
        The Speaker: It would be necessary first to withdraw the demand 
    for yeas and nays.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand that the vote be 
    taken by the call of the yeas and nays, and demand that this vote 
    be taken by tellers.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. If Mr. Yates' initial demand for the yeas and nays had been 
        seconded by one-fifth of those present, it would have been 
        procedurally impermissible for him to withdraw the demand in 
        the absence of unanimous consent. See Sec. 24.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Tellers were ordered.

[[Page 11670]]

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I demand tellers with clerks.
        Tellers with clerks were ordered; and the Speaker appointed as 
    tellers Messrs. Casey of Texas, Stratton, Cederberg, and Yates.

Where Yeas and Nays Refused

Sec. 33.3 Where one-fifth of the Members present have refused to order 
    the yeas and nays on a motion, a recorded vote remains a viable 
    option.

    Where the question is put on a motion, and the yeas and nays are 
refused, one-fifth of those present not supporting the demand, a 
request that the vote be taken by a record vote may still be made and 
such a vote can be ordered if seconded by one-fifth of a quorum of the 
House, or 44 Members. This situation frequently arises when the yeas 
and nays are refused, the vote is then objected to under Rule XV clause 
4, on the ground that a quorum is not present and the vote is then 
postponed by the Chair. When the bill is thereafter taken up at the 
appointed time, a recorded vote is often the best option for getting 
Members on record. The proceedings of Sept. 21, 1976,(19) 
are illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 31640, 31641, 31668, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers) that the House 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 12048, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: Twelve Members have arisen, an insufficient 
    number.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I could not 
    hear what the Speaker said.
        The Speaker: I said that 12 Members have arisen, an 
    insufficient number.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: 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: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule 
    XXVII, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on 
    this motion will be postponed.
        Does the gentleman from Wisconsin withdraw his point of order 
    that there is no quorum?
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of 
    order. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The unfinished business 
    is the question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 
    12048, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers) that the House suspend 
    the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 12048, as amended.

[[Page 11671]]

        The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Speaker, on the last recorded vote there were 
    400 Members present. Twenty percent of that would be 80.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that on recorded vote the rules require one-fifth of a quorum, 
    which is 44.
        A recorded vote is ordered.

Sec. 33.4 After withdrawing a demand for the yeas and nays on an 
    amendment in the House, a Member may request that the vote be taken 
    by a recorded vote.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(2) Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, 
demanded a separate vote on an amendment to a committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute to a bill (H.R. 7248) to amend and extend 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts relating to higher 
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 39352, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As soon as the Speaker (3) put the question on the 
amendment, Mrs. Green demanded the yeas and nays, and the following 
exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, when we are in the House, is 
    it possible to ask for tellers with clerks?
        The Speaker: It is.
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Then, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the other 
    request.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. As one-fifth of those present had not yet seconded Mrs. Green's 
        demand for the yeas and nays when she withdrew it, she was not 
        obliged to seek unanimous consent in order to do so. See 
        Sec. 24.8, supra, for an instance in which a Member was not 
        permitted to withdraw his demand for the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I demand tellers.

    Tellers having been ordered, Mrs. Green then demanded tellers with 
clerks (5) which were also ordered; and the Speaker 
appointed Mrs. Green and three other Members to serve as tellers for 
the recorded vote.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 39353, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. See Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1995); see 
        also Sec. 30.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counting Those Standing To Demand Recorded Vote

Sec. 33.5 The Chair's count of Members standing to support

[[Page 11672]]

    the demand for a recorded vote is not subject to appeal.

    During consideration of an appropriation bill in Committee of the 
Whole on June 24, 1976,(7) a vote was taken on an amendment. 
The Chair announced that on a voice vote, the amendment was rejected. A 
Member then demanded a record vote and pending that, made a point of 
order that a quorum was not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 20390, 20391, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A quorum not being present, a call of the Committee was taken by 
electronic device; and pursuant to the rule, the Chair announced that 
he would vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum appeared. When 
100 Members had responded, the Chair terminated the call and asked 
those desiring a recorded vote to stand.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Scheuer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Clement J. Zablocki (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [James H.] Scheuer [of New York]: 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. Thirty-four 
    Members are present, not a quorum.
        The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, he 
    will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum of the 
    Committee appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: One hundred Members have appeared. A 
    quorum of the Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to rule 
    XXIII, clause 2, further proceedings under the call shall be 
    considered as vacated.
        The Committee will resume its business.
        The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Scheuer) for a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            national institute of child health and human development

            To carry out, except as otherwise provided, titles IV and X 
        of the Public Health Service Act with respect to child health 
        and human development, $140,343,000.

        Mr. Scheuer: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Scheuer: Mr. Chairman, under the set of facts which took 
    place a few minutes ago, would it be possible to appeal the ruling 
    of the Chair on the count of the Members standing? It was the 
    impression of many Members on this side that we had substantially 
    more Members than 19 standing.

[[Page 11673]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: An appeal from the Chair's count is 
    not in order.

Repeated Requests for Recorded Vote

Sec. 33.6 A request for a recorded vote, having been made and refused, 
    may not be made again on the same question.

    In Nov. 18, 1975,(9) during consideration of H.R. 30 (to 
establish the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 37061, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Duncan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Morgan F. Murphy (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count. One hundred and five 
    Members are present, a quorum.
        Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Symms) there were--ayes 27, noes 43.
        So the amendments were rejected.
        Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, can I still get a recorded 
    vote on that?
        The Chairman: A recorded vote has been refused.

Sec. 33.7 A request for a recorded vote on a pending question having 
    been refused, a second request is not in order following a division 
    vote on that question.

    On Jan. 21, 1976,(11) the Chair had put the question on 
an amendment under consideration in Committee of the Whole and had 
announced that on a voice vote the ``ayes had it'' and that the 
amendment was agreed to. A recorded vote was then ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 508, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a division.
        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ruppe: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this, did 
    not the Chairman announce that he thought there was an insufficient 
    number of Members who had risen for a recorded vote, and that, 
    therefore, the amendment had been agreed to?

[[Page 11674]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that in the meantime, before 
    the Chair had announced the vote, a division was demanded and the 
    Chair has instructed those Members in favor of the amendment to 
    stand and remain standing until counted.
        Those Members against the amendment will stand and remain 
    standing until counted.
        On this vote by division the ayes are 14 and the noes are 17.
        Mr. [Joe] Skubitz [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: A recorded vote has been refused.
        Mr. Ruppe: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ruppe: Is it not possible to call for a recorded vote 
    inasmuch as we did call for one previous to that and an 
    insufficient number of Members stood? In his decision, the Chair 
    stated it was agreed to, and then changed it. Would we not have a 
    change as well as far as having the opportunity to have a recorded 
    vote?
        The Chairman: A recorded vote had already been refused, and it 
    is not possible on the same amendment to have a second request for 
    a recorded vote.
        The amendment is, therefore, rejected.

Sec. 33.8 A request for a recorded vote, if not supported by 25 Members 
    in Committee of the Whole, cannot be repeated following a quorum 
    call; but a division and/or teller vote may be demanded if the 
    Chair has not finally announced the result of the voice vote on the 
    question.

    On July 22, 1980,(13) the State, Justice, Commerce, and 
Judiciary appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of 
the Whole. The following sequence of votes and quorum calls illustrate 
the options available where a demand for a recorded vote fails to 
achieve a sufficient second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 19067, 19068, 19070, 19071, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conable: Page 38, line 22, strike 
        out ``$321,300,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$312,700,000.''. . .

        Amendment offered by Mr. Huckaby as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Conable: On page 38, line 22, strike out 
    ``$321,300,000.'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$300,000,000:''. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Conable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Huckaby) there were--yes 24, noes 10.

[[Page 11675]]

        So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable), as amended.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair has already announced that an 
    insufficient number of Members arose to order a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) still insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I still insist on my 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman insists on his point of order.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division, too, and 
    pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: A quorum call is ordered.
        Mr. Huckaby: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

        The Chairman: The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, 
    rule XXIII, he will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum 
    of the Committee appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: A quorum of the Committee of the Whole has not 
    appeared.
        The Chair announces that a regular quorum call will now 
    commence. Members who have not already responded under the noticed 
    quorum call will have a minimum of 15 minutes to record their 
    presence. The call will be taken by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device, and the following 
    Members responded to their names: . . .
        The Chairman: Three hundred and fifty-six Members have answered 
    to their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume 
    its business.
        When the point of no quorum was made the Chair had announced 
    the result of the voice vote on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable), as amended by the substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby), and had 
    stated that the ayes prevailed.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a division.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, pending the outcome of the division, 
    will it be possible at that time to request a recorded vote?
        The Chairman: The request for a recorded vote has already been 
    made and rejected for lack of a sufficient number standing. It 
    cannot be repeated.

[[Page 11676]]

        Mr. Huckaby: Does not the request for a recorded vote in the 
    hierarchy precede a division and, hence, the Chairman is reverting 
    back to a division, since the Chairman has already denied a request 
    for a recorded vote and the Chair has ruled upon that?
        The Chairman: Regardless of the type of vote requested, a 
    request for a recorded vote cannot be repeated. It has already been 
    rejected. However, a division may now be requested.
        Mr. Huckaby: Would a request for a teller vote be in order?
        The Chairman: A request for a teller vote would be in order.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Smith of Iowa) there were--ayes 
    107, noes 110.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair please repeat the 
    numbers?
        The Chairman: The ayes were 107 and the noes were 110.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, 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 Chairman: The gentleman makes a point that a quorum is not 
    present and objects to the vote. That is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Smith of Iowa and Mr. Conable.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 134, noes 116.
        So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Renewed Requests for Recorded Vote

Sec. 33.9 Where the Committee of the Whole has refused a request for a 
    recorded vote on an issue, the request cannot be renewed, even 
    following a quorum call and a vote by division on the issue, except 
    by unanimous consent.

    The proceedings of June 2, 1977,(15) when the House had 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole the Department of Energy 
Reorganization Act, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 17292, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The question is on the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count. Eighty-one Members are 
    present, not a quorum.
        The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, he 
    will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum of the 
    Committee appears.

[[Page 11677]]

        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: One hundred Members have appeared. A quorum of 
    the Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to clause 2, rule 
    XXIII, further proceedings under the call shall be considered as 
    vacated.
        The Committee will resume its business.
        At the time the point of order of no quorum was made, the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) was before the Committee, a recorded 
    vote had been refused, and in the opinion of the Chair the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute had not carried.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) rise?
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, on the question of my amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, I demand a division.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Erlenborn) there were--ayes 29, 
    noes 51.
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, on that I ask 
    unanimous consent for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Idaho?
        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to ask for 
    the yeas and nays at this point?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the 
    gentleman's parliamentary inquiry that it is not in order to ask 
    for the yeas and nays in Committee of the Whole.
        Are there amendments to title I?

Sec. 33.10 A recorded vote having been refused in Committee of the 
    Whole, a point of no quorum may lie under Rule XXIII clause 2 if 
    the pending question has not been disposed of by a division (or 
    teller) vote, but a demand for a recorded vote cannot be renewed.

        On May 27, 1982,(17) during consideration of the 
    First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal 1983, a 
    closely contested amendment was pending in the Committee of the 
    Whole. After the Chair announced that the amendment was agreed to 
    on a voice vote, a recorded vote was demanded and refused for lack 
    of a sufficient second. When a Member then made a point of no 
    quorum, and pending that, again asked for a recorded vote, the 
    Chair explained the parliamentary situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 12470, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) The question is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mis

[[Page 11678]]

    sissippi (Mr. Whitten) to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Leo C. Zeferetti (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore:  A recorded vote is demanded.
        All those in favor of taking this vote by a recorded vote will 
    rise and be counted.
        Twenty-four Members, an insufficient number.
        So a recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Regula: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present, and pending that, I demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore:  The Chair has already announced an 
    insufficient number.
        The gentleman can make a point of order but he cannot ask for a 
    recorded vote.

        Mr. Regula: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Regula) there were--ayes 42, 
    noes 43.
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered and the Chairman pro tempore appointed as 
    tellers Mr. Whitten and Mr. Jones of Oklahoma.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 72, noes 72.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair votes ``aye.''

Sec. 33.11 A request for a recorded vote on an amendment once denied 
    may not be renewed in Committee of the Whole, even where the 
    absence of a quorum is disclosed immediately following the refusal 
    to order the recorded vote.

    On June 6, 1979,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Housing and Community Development Act of 1979, 
and Chairman George E. Brown, Jr., of California, had put the question 
on a pending amendment. On a voice vote, the Chair announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it. A recorded vote was then requested, and when 
an insufficient number stood to second the demand, a recorded vote was 
refused. A point of order was then made that a quorum was not present, 
and on a count the Chair found only 77 Members in attendance, not a 
quorum. When Mr. J. William Stanton, of Ohio, understood that he could 
not renew his request for a recorded vote, even if a call of the 
Committee produced a quorum, he moved that the Committee rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 13648, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    South Carolina (Mr. Campbell).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 11679]]

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        The Chair has already ruled that an insufficient number stood 
    for a recorded vote. A separate point of order has been made that 
    no quorum is present, and the Chair is counting; 77 Members are 
    present, not a quorum.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stanton: Under the rules of the House, is it applicable to 
    make this point of order after the vote has been over with?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman it is 
    always in order to make a point of order of no quorum. The Chair 
    has already ruled, however, that there was an insufficient number 
    standing to order a recorded vote. If the chairman of the committee 
    desires to call for a separate vote in the House after the bill is 
    disposed of, he may do so.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, then no vote can be taken at this 
    particular time?
        The Chairman: A recorded vote on the amendment is not in order.
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair has already announced that a quorum is 
    not present.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, could I move that the Committee do 
    now rise?
        The Chairman: It would be in order to do so.
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The motion was agreed to.

    When the Committee resumed its consideration on the following 
day,(20) the Chair stated the pending business, and the 
Committee then took first a division vote on the amendment, then a 
teller vote.(1) The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 13925, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 7, 1979.
 1. Teller votes were eliminated from the menu of choices for voting in 
        the 103d Congress, with the adoption of H. Res. 5 on Jan. 5, 
        1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill, H.R. 3875, with Mr. Brown of California 
    in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
    Wednesday, June 6, 1979, title IV had been considered as having 
    been read and open to amendment at any point. Pending was an 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
    Campbell). The Chair had announced that on a voice vote the ayes

[[Page 11680]]

    appeared to have it and a recorded vote had been refused.
        The Chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley).
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if before we take this vote 
    we could have complete order in the House, because some will want 
    to stand for an aye vote and some will want to sit, so if we could 
    start off with the House in order, I would appreciate it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will call attention to the fact that on 
    this very important vote which occurred last evening, there was 
    considerable debate as to which side actually prevailed. It is very 
    important that all Members understand the situation and be prepared 
    to vote in accordance with their own wishes. The Committee will be 
    in order. The gentleman from Ohio has demanded a division.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stanton: Is it the understanding of the Chair that we are 
    taking a vote on the Campbell amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Stanton: Those in favor, then, of the procedural vote, who 
    are in favor of the Campbell amendment, will then rise first as 
    those who are in favor of it?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    South Carolina (Mr. Campbell).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashley), there were--ayes 106, noes 61.
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Ashley and Mr. Campbell.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 129, noes 73.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 33.12 A request for a recorded vote, if not supported by the 
    required second, cannot be repeated following a quorum call on the 
    pending question, but a division vote may yet be had if the Chair 
    has not finally announced the voice vote on the question.

    In one instance in the 96th Congress, when teller votes were still 
permitted under Rule I, both a division and a teller vote were taken 
following the initial refusal to order a recorded vote. The proceedings 
of July 22, 1980,(2) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 19067, 19068, 19070, 19071, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conable: Page 38, line 22, strike 
        out ``$321,300,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$312,700,000.'' . . .

[[Page 11681]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Huckaby as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Conable: On page 38, line 22, strike 
        out ``$321,300,000.'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$300,000,000:''. . . .

        The Chairman: (3) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Conable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. George J. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Huckaby) there were--ayes 24, noes 10.
        So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable), as amended.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair has already announced that an 
    insufficient number of Members arose to order a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) still insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I still insist on my 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman insists on his point of order.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division, too, and 
    pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: A quorum call is ordered.
        Mr. Huckaby: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, 
    rule XXIII, he will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum 
    of the Committee appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: A quorum of the Committee of the Whole has not 
    appeared.
        The Chair announces that a regular quorum call will now 
    commence. Members who have not already responded under the noticed 
    quorum call will have a minimum of 15 minutes to record their 
    presence. The call will be taken by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device, and the following 
    Members responded to their names: . . .
        The Chairman: Three hundred and fifty-six Members have answered 
    to their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume 
    its business.
        When the point of no quorum was made the Chair had announced 
    the result of the voice vote on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable), as amended by the substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby), and had 
    stated that the ayes prevailed.

[[Page 11682]]

        For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a division.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, pending the outcome of the division, 
    will it be possible at that time to request a recorded vote?
        The Chairman: The request for a recorded vote has already been 
    made and rejected for lack of a sufficient number standing. It 
    cannot be repeated.
        Mr. Huckaby: Does not the request for a recorded vote in the 
    hierarchy precede a division and, hence, the Chairman is reverting 
    back to a division, since the Chairman has already denied a request 
    for a recorded vote and the Chair has ruled upon that?
        The Chairman: Regardless of the type of vote requested, a 
    request for a recorded vote cannot be repeated. It has already been 
    rejected. However, a division may now be requested.
        Mr. Huckaby: Would a request for a teller vote be in order?
        The Chairman: A request for a teller vote would be in order.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Smith of Iowa) there were--ayes 
    107, noes 110.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair please repeat the 
    numbers?
        The Chairman: The ayes were 107 and the noes were 110.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, 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 Chairman: The gentleman makes a point that a quorum is not 
    present and objects to the vote. That is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Smith of Iowa and Mr. Conable.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 134, noes 116.
        So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Point of No Quorum Takes Precedence of Demand for Recorded Vote

Sec. 33.13 In Committee of the Whole, where there is a demand for a 
    recorded vote and a point of order that there is no quorum present, 
    the point of order must be disposed of first.

    During consideration in Committee of the Whole of H.R. 25, the 
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, 1975, a Member desired to have a 
record vote on a pending amendment. The proceedings on Mar. 14, 
1975,(4) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 6707, 6708, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Neal Smith (Ia.).

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

[[Page 11683]]

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a 
    recorded vote and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: I am told Mr. Chairman, that you are 
    not honoring my point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair has counted 21 Members to this point.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: The Members will be seated. The Chair is counting 
    for a quorum.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, another point of order. I 
    do not want to confuse anyone here. I would ask the Chair this: Is 
    it true that if 21 Members are standing, that is a sufficient 
    number on which to base a rollcall vote and we would then avoid the 
    necessity of demanding a quorum? It obviously is not here anyway.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Arizona withdrawing his 
    point of no quorum?
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: No. I am just asking if there are 21 
    Members who responded to my demand for a rollcall, which I coupled 
    very cleverly with a point of order that a quorum was not present, 
    that is sufficient if 20 were standing, but the Chair announced 
    that 21 were standing.
        The Chairman: The point of no quorum must be disposed of first.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Even though the demand preceded the 
    point of order?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: This is very interesting. I want all 
    the Members to remember that.
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    gentleman will yield, I ask him to withdraw it and I will support 
    his request for a vote and we will thereby save time.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: All right. I think it is going to work 
    out.
        The Chairman: Sixty-eight Members are present, evidently not a 
    quorum.
        The Chair announces that he will vacate proceedings under the 
    call when a quorum of the committee appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: One hundred and two Members have appeared. A 
    quorum of the Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to rule 
    XXIII, clause 2, further proceedings under the call shall be 
    considered as vacated.
        The Committee will resume its business.
        The pending business is a demand for a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

Motion To Rise Preferential

Sec. 33.14 In Committee of the Whole, a motion that the Committee rise 
    takes preference over a demand for a recorded vote on a pending 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 5, 1980,(6) during consideration in Committee of 
the

[[Page 11684]]

Whole of H.R. 3829, a bill dealing with International Financial 
Institutions, an amendment to a pending amendment was agreed to by a 
voice vote. An opponent of the amendment then asked for a recorded 
vote, and pending that, made a point of order that a quorum was not 
present. The manager of the bill, Mr. Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas, then 
moved that the Committee rise. A demand for a recorded vote and a point 
of no quorum were made after the Chair announced that the affirmative 
position prevailed on the motion to rise. The Chair declined to 
entertain the point of no quorum, since the motion that the Committee 
rise does not require a quorum for adoption. The proceedings were as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 126 Cong. Rec. 4801, 4802, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Cavanaugh) to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Robert Duncan (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
    pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio demand a recorded 
    vote and make the point of order that a quorum is not present under 
    the motion for the Committee to rise?
        Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a quorum 
    is not required on a preferential motion that the Committee rise.
        Does any Member join in the demand for a recorded vote? The 
    Chair will count. Twelve Members have arisen, an insufficient 
    number.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    a division.
        The Chairman: On the motion that the Committee do now rise?
        Mr. Rousselot: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, may I ask of the distinguished 
    Chairman what the motion is?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    motion is a preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Gonzalez) that the Committee do now rise. A division has been 
    demanded.
        The Chair will now count for a division.

[[Page 11685]]

        On a division (demanded by Mr. Ashbrook) there were--ayes 15, 
    noes 14.
        So the motion was agreed to.

Sec. 33.15 Where the preferential motion to rise takes precedence over 
    a pending request for a recorded vote, and the Committee rises, the 
    request for a recorded vote remains pending business when the 
    Committee of the Whole resumes consideration of the bill.

    On July 15, 1981,(8) before putting the question on a 
preferential motion that the Committee rise, Chairman Paul Simon, of 
Illinois, stated the parliamentary situation as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 27 Cong. Rec. 15921, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hillis).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    a recorded vote.
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, is the vote on the motion to rise 
    or is it a vote on the Hillis amendment?
        The Chairman: This is the vote on the motion to rise.
        The request of the gentleman from New York to have a recorded 
    vote will be pending when we go into the Committee of the Whole 
    tomorrow.
        Mr. Stratton: The request for a recorded vote on the Hillis 
    amendment will be the first order of business tomorrow?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Price) that the Committee do now rise.
        The motion was agreed to.

When Timely

Sec. 33.16 Generally, a demand for a recorded vote is timely if made 
    before other business intervenes.

    On Oct. 5, 1994,(9) the House was considering the 
American Heritage Areas Partnership Program Act in Committee of the 
Whole. Pending was an amendment offered by Mr. W. J. Tauzin, of 
Louisiana, and a perfecting amendment thereto offered by Mr. Nick J. 
Rahall, of West Virginia. When the question was put on the perfecting 
amendment, Chairman Robert Menendez, of New Jersey, announced that the 
ayes had it on a voice vote. Mr. Tauzin, momentarily distracted in a 
conversation with a colleague, failed to stand

[[Page 11686]]

immediately to ask for a recorded vote but when he insisted, the Chair 
permitted his demand to be entertained since there had been no 
intervening business. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Tauzin: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        Mr. Rahall: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Rahall: Mr. Chairman, how long a time does one have after a 
    vote has been declared one way or another?
        The Chairman: There had been no intervening business when the 
    gentleman from Louisiana, who was standing, asked for a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

When Untimely

Sec. 33.17 It is too late to demand a recorded vote on an amendment 
    agreed to by the House by voice vote after the Speaker has put the 
    question on engrossment and third reading of the bill.

    On July 19, 1973,(10) certain Members having requested 
separate votes on three amendments proposed by the Committee of the 
Whole to a bill (H.R. 8860) to amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 
1970, the House rejected the first, while agreeing to the second and 
third. The other of the Committee's recommended amendments having been 
agreed to en gross, the Speaker (11) put the question on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 24965, 24966, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
12. When the House votes affirmatively on the ``engrossment and third 
        reading of the bill,'' it is voting on the final language of 
        the bill. An ``engrossed bill,'' itself, is the final copy of 
        the measure as passed by the House; it includes all amendments 
        which emanated from the floor, and is certified to by the Clerk 
        of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the taking of the question and the Chair's announcement that 
the ayes appeared to have it, Mr. Wilmer Mizell, of North Carolina, 
made the following parliamentary inquiries:

        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is would the 
    Chair restate the vote on the previous Bergland amendment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair announced that 
    the ayes had it.

[[Page 11687]]

        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mizell: This means that the Bergland amendment carried; is 
    that correct?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Mizell: On that, Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
        The Speaker: The gentleman waited much too long.
        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet. Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a recorded vote. I was on my feet.
        The Speaker: The Chair has put the question on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

Sec. 33.18 The demand for a recorded vote on the passage of a bill is 
    not timely if the Member making the demand is not on his feet 
    seeking recognition for that purpose when the Chair announces the 
    result of a voice vote on passage and states that the bill is 
    passed, and a motion to reconsider has been laid on the table. 
    However, it is certainly within the province of the Chair to 
    recognize for a unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings 
    on passage and thereby set the stage for putting the question on 
    passage a second time so a recorded vote can be demanded.

    Where a controversial measure had been passed by unanimous consent, 
no Member having sought a roll call vote in a timely manner, the bill 
manager withdrew his objection to a unanimous-consent request to vacate 
the proceedings on passage so that a Member's right to demand a vote 
could be protected. The proceedings on Oct. 19, 1977,(13) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 34223, 34224, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Udall, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 1037) to require that a 
    percentage of U.S. oil imports be carried on U.S.-flag vessels, 
    pursuant to House Resolution 774, he reported the bill back to the 
    House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

        The Speaker: (14) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the 
    question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 11688]]

        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it. The bill was passed.
        The Speaker: A motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
        Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask for a recorded vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair waited and the gentleman did not ask at 
    the proper time. The Chair waited and no Member rose within the 
    proper time.
        Mr. McCloskey: I merely thought the Chair was speaking about 
    the third reading of the bill.
        The Speaker: We went through the third reading of the bill. The 
    only way the gentleman can get a vote is by a unanimous-consent 
    request.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have a 
    recorded vote.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to vacate 
    the proceedings whereby the bill was passed and the motion to 
    reconsider laid on the table? Does the gentleman make that request?
        Mr. McCloskey: I do, Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to 
    vacate the action of the House, set aside the proceedings and have 
    a record vote.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by 
    which the House apparently passed the bill.
        The Speaker: A motion to reconsider was laid on the table, 
    without objection.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet, seeking 
    recognition.
        The Speaker: The gentleman was not seeking recognition when the 
    question was put on final passage. The Chair looked in that 
    direction, expecting that someone would rise, and no Member rose. 
    The Chair has been expeditiously fair on this matter, anticipating 
    that somebody would rise, and nobody rose.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Maryland?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the Chair in the 
    Chair's statement. The gentleman from Maryland was watching the 
    proceedings, and at no time did any Member rise to request a vote. 
    The Chair waited for a period of time, and no request was made.
        But I would also make this observation: In view of the 
    controversy and the charges that have surrounded this legislation, 
    it seems to me that the gen

[[Page 11689]]

    tleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) might want to reconsider his 
    objection to the request to rescind the proceedings and to allow a 
    vote. I think the subsequent public criticism that the House will 
    receive should we pass this controversial bill without a rollcall 
    vote will be far greater than any benefit that might be derived. 
    The honor of the House as an institution is at stake here. That is 
    only one Member's viewpoint, but the Chair was certainly within his 
    rights in his ruling but we should have a vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair respects the statement of the gentleman 
    from Maryland.
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. McCloskey).
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    165, nays 257, not voting 12, as follows: . . .

As Related to Vote by Division

Sec. 33.19 Where the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is counting 
    those standing on a vote by division, he will not entertain a 
    request for a recorded vote.

    Where Members in favor of a pending amendment have been asked to 
stand and remain standing while the Chair counts on a division vote, 
the vote cannot be interrupted by a demand for a recorded vote as the 
two issues may become confused. A ruling by Chairman William H. 
Natcher, of Kentucky, on June 10, 1975,(15) illustrates this 
point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: 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.
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

Withdrawal of Demand

Sec. 33.20 A demand for a recorded vote may be withdrawn before the 
    Chair begins to count Members supporting the demand, and unanimous 
    consent is not required.

    On Aug. 1, 1975, a bill entitled the Energy Conservation and Oil

[[Page 11690]]

Policy Act of 1975 was under consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole. After all debate had been limited and had expired on an 
amendment, the Chair put the question and when a recorded vote was 
demanded thereon, the Committee rose. When the Committee resumed 
consideration of the measure on Sept. 17, 1975,(16) a 
request was made that an additional four minutes of debate be permitted 
on the amendment, equally divided between the two parties. The Chair 
reminded Members that a recorded vote had been demanded but that if the 
demand were withdrawn, he would then entertain a request for additional 
debate time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 28904, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) When the Committee rose on 
    Friday, August 1, 1975, all time for debate on title III of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto had expired and there was pending the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to title III on 
    which a recorded vote had been requested by the gentleman from 
    Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the Clerk will again read the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections 
        301, 302, 303.
            Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, it is my recollection that at the 
    time the Committee rose, as the Chair has just indicated to us, we 
    had under consideration, as the Chair has pointed out, the Brown 
    amendment which provided for the striking, as I recall it, of three 
    sections: Section 301, section 302, and section 303, as amended. Am 
    I correct on that, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The gentleman goes well beyond the parliamentary 
    inquiry. The Chair can state that that is correct.
        Mr. [Clarence] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman is, 
    Would it be in order at this point while the vote is pending to ask 
    unanimous consent of the House that 2 minutes may be granted on 
    either side of the aisle for a discussion at this point of the 
    pending vote?
        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order only if the 
    gentleman first withdrew his request for a recorded vote.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 11691]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Would that request for a recorded vote then 
    be in order following the discussion of the pending vote?
        The Chairman: The gentleman could again request a recorded 
    vote.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, then I ask unanimous consent 
    to withdraw my request for a recorded vote at this point.
        The Chairman: That does not require unanimous consent. The 
    gentleman withdraws his request for a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman now ask unanimous consent for debate time?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I do, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent 
    that 2 minutes be granted on either side of the aisle, 2 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 2 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to discuss the pending vote.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
    think we can do this in 1 minute, if the gentleman would ask 
    unanimous consent for 1 minute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 1 
    minute be granted to the Democratic side in the hands of the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 1 minute to the 
    Republican side to be in the hands of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Brown).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 33.21 Withdrawal of a demand for a recorded vote has also been 
    permitted where the Chair had counted for a second but had not 
    announced the numbers supporting the demand.

    On Sept. 27, 1978,(18) Chairman Barbara Jordan, of 
Texas, permitted a ``by right'' withdrawal of a demand for a recorded 
vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 32053, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . Pending before the House is an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) to an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel), and the 
    pending business is the demand of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Harsha) for a recorded vote.
        All those Members in favor of taking the vote on this amendment 
    by a recorded vote will please rise and remain standing until they 
    are counted.
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote.
        Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: Madam Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that since she has not 
    announced the count of those requesting a recorded vote, the Member 
    requesting the recorded vote may withdraw the request without 
    unanimous consent. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) 
    withdraw his request?
        Mr. Harsha: Madam Chairman, I withdraw my request for a 
    recorded vote.

[[Page 11692]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) withdraws 
    his request for a recorded vote.
        Mr. Harsha: Madam Chairman, I just want to make certain I am 
    not withdrawing my amendment. I am withdrawing my request for a 
    recorded vote.
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, on that 
    I demand a division.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Howard) there were--ayes 60, 
    noes 2.
        So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel), as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Sec. 33.22 A recorded vote which was underway when the electronic 
    system failed was discontinued when the Member who had made the 
    request for a recorded vote asked unanimous consent to withdraw his 
    demand so the House would not have to undertake a more protracted 
    vote on the issue by roll call.

    On May 31, 1984,(19) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole, having directed the Clerk to call the roll for a recorded 
vote where the electronic voting system had failed during the vote, 
entertained a unanimous-consent request, by the Member who had 
requested the recorded vote in the first instance, to vacate the 
proceedings whereby the requisite number of Members had seconded the 
demand for the vote and to withdraw the demand. The Chair's prior 
statement that the amendment had been agreed to on a division vote was 
then controlling. The proceedings described were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 130 Cong. Rec. 14616, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Frenzel) there were--ayes 18, noes 24.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device.

                        announcement by the chairman

        The Chairman: The Chair desires to make an announcement. 
    Because of a technical malfunction, obvious to all of us, it will 
    be necessary to repeat this vote by a rollcall of the Members. The 
    Chair therefore requests all Members to take their seats, and the 
    Clerk will call the roll.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) seek recognition?
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, in view of all that has happened here, 
    I ask

[[Page 11693]]

    unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings and to withdraw my 
    request for a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair will announce that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) was 
    rejected on a division vote.

Conditional Withdrawal of Demand

Sec. 33.23 Where a demand for a recorded vote is pending, it may be 
    withdrawn by the maker, but it is not in order to condition its 
    withdrawal on a modification in the motion on which the vote is 
    being taken.

    Where there was pending a motion to close debate on a pending 
amendment and all amendments thereto, a Member demanded a recorded vote 
on that motion. The Member making the demand then suggested that he 
would withdraw it if the original motion to limit debate were modified. 
Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, then stated that the demand for the 
recorded vote must be disposed of by a vote or by its withdrawal, but 
that it had to be disposed of before there could be a modification to 
the underlying motion to limit debate. Following a quorum call, the 
proceedings of July 8, 1975,(1) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 21627, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . At the time the quorum call was requested, 
    there was pending a motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
    (Mr. Steiger) to limit all debate on the Hebert amendment and all 
    amendments thereto to 10 minutes to 5. The request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan was also pending for a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman still insist upon his request?

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for me to 
    withdraw my demand if a unanimous-consent request were made by the 
    chairman of the subcommittee handling the legislation to limit time 
    solely on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton)?
        The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman that first we 
    must dispose of the motion.
        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hebert: May I inquire as to what the gentleman's motion 
    was?
        The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Arizona was to 
    limit debate on the amendment of the gen

[[Page 11694]]

    tleman from Louisiana and all amendments thereto to 10 minutes to 
    5.
        Does the gentleman insist on his demand for a recorded vote at 
    this point?
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have no choice but to insist on it 
    unless someone will make another request.
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent to withdraw my motion.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the pending amendment cease within 5 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Montana to limit debate on the Stratton amendment?
        There was no objection.

Yeas and Nays

Sec. 33.24 While a demand for the yeas and nays, once seconded by one-
    fifth of those present, cannot be withdrawn, the House may, by 
    unanimous consent, vacate the proceedings and take the vote de 
    novo.

    On Mar. 6, 1978,(2) during the consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 578, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 5715, 5716, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lehman) that the 
    House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
    578).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 
    3, rule XXVII, and the Chair's prior announcement, further 
    proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
        Debate has been concluded on all motions to suspend the rules.
        Pursuant to clause 3, rule XXVII, the Chair will now put the 
    question on each motion, on which further proceedings were 
    postponed, in the order in which that motion was entertained.
        Votes will be taken in the following order:
        House Joint Resolution 715, by the yeas and nays; and House 
    Joint Resolution 578, by the yeas and nays.
        The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic 
    votes after the first such vote in this series.
        The unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules 
    and passing the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 715).
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lehman) that the House suspend 
    the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 715), on which 
    the yeas and nays are ordered.
        The Chair observes that the electronic voting system is 
    temporarily inoperative.

[[Page 11695]]

        In view of that fact, the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 349, nays 7, not 
    voting 78. . . .
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the House vacate the proceedings whereby the 
    yeas and nays were ordered on House Joint Resolution 578, 
    authorizing the President to proclaim the third week of May of 1978 
    and 1979 as National Architectural Barrier Awareness Week.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lehman) that the House suspend 
    the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 578).
        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the rules were suspended and the joint resolution was 
    passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.