[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[C. Yeas and Nays and Other Votes of Record]
[Â§ 24. Demands]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11584-11591]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 24. Demands

Precedence of Yeas and Nays Over Demand for Tellers

Sec. 24.1 A demand for the yeas and nays in the House under article I, 
    section 5 of the Constitution takes precedence over a demand for 
    tellers.

    On Dec. 10, 1963,(19) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report (and amendments remaining in disagreement) on 
the bill H.R. 8747, making appropriations for various independent ex

[[Page 11585]]

ecutive offices, a motion was offered that the House insist on its 
disagreement to a Senate amendment. Mr. Harold C. Ostertag, of New 
York, then offered a preferential motion that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur therein. The following 
proceedings then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 23949, 23950, 23952, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Ostertag].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ostertag) there were--ayes 102, noes 102.
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas 
    and nays.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, we were standing for a teller vote. 
    Can we not insist on the teller vote?
        The Speaker: The demand for the yeas and nays is a 
    constitutional right and, therefore, would supersede the request 
    for tellers.
        The gentleman from Texas has demanded the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where both a division and the yeas and nays 
are requested on a pending question, the Chair first entertains the 
demand for the yeas and nays, which has constitutional precedence over 
other forms of voting. See Sec. 14.1, supra.

When in Order; Intervening Events

Sec. 24.2 A demand for the yeas and nays is in order despite the 
    Chair's recognition of a Member offering a unanimous-consent 
    request on a different question, providing that that Member seeking 
    the yeas and nays has exercised due diligence in his efforts.

    On July 20, 1939,(1) the House agreed to a resolution 
(H. Res. 258) calling for a congressional investigation of the National 
Labor Relations Board. Immediately thereafter, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 9593, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to and lay 
    that motion on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Without objection, a 
    motion to reconsider will be laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James P. Richards (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent--

[[Page 11586]]

        Mr. [Claude V.] Parsons [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I object, 
    and ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to reconsider.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the motion comes too late, as I had already proceeded with a 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Parsons: I was on my feet objecting, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I had already proceeded with a 
    unanimous-consent request, and may I state that request, Mr. 
    Speaker?
        Mr. Parsons: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet trying to get the 
    attention of the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    insist on his request for the yeas and nays?
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, the 
    motion has already been carried and the gentleman from Virginia had 
    been recognized to make another request. I demand the regular 
    order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the 
    distinguished minority leader that the gentleman from Illinois was 
    on his feet at the time.
        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Parsons] demands the yeas and 
    nays.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I demand we find out 
    what the record shows.
        Mr. Parsons: The gentleman saw me running down the aisle; and I 
    was trying to get the attention of the Chair to object, and I did 
    object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois was on his 
    feet at the time.
        The gentleman from Illinois demands the yeas and nays on the 
    motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider.

Sec. 24.3 A Member's demand for the yeas and nays is in order 
    notwithstanding the intervention of an objection to a voice vote on 
    the grounds that a quorum was not present and the Chair's count of 
    the House to ascertain the presence of a quorum where the Member 
    exercises due diligence with respect thereto.

    On Nov. 2, 1967,(3) the Speaker Pro Tempore 
(4) put the question on the passage of a bill (S. 780) to 
amend the Clean Air Act. The question was taken; and the Chair 
announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of 
Ohio, then objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not 
present. The Chair counted in response to the Ashbrook objection and 
subsequently announced that a quorum was present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 30999, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following occurred:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page 11587]]

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Chair 
    had announced the vote, and then the gentleman from Ohio objected 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present and made 
    the point of order that a quorum was not present. The Chair counted 
    a quorum. I would have thought the demand of the gentleman from 
    Michigan came too late.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet when the 
    gentleman objected.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Michigan was on his 
    feet as the Chair was counting, and the demand for the yeas and 
    nays was in order, and the yeas and nays were ordered.

Effect of Ordering of Alternative Voting Procedures

Sec. 24.4 The constitutional right of a Member to demand the yeas and 
    nays in the House is not foreclosed by the ordering of tellers on 
    the question, where the tellers have not taken their places and 
    begun the count.

    On Dec. 9, 1970,(5) the Speaker having announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it on an amendment to a joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 1413) intended to forestall a national railroad strike, Mr. 
William L. Springer, of Illinois, demanded tellers on the question. The 
Member's demand having been supported, tellers were ordered; and the 
Speaker appointed as tellers Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, 
and Mr. Springer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 40704, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following proceedings then occurred:

        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, am I permitted to ask for a rollcall 
    vote on this amendment? Can I demand a rollcall vote?
        The Speaker: (6) A rollcall vote demand is in order 
    at the present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from West Virginia demands a vote by 
    a call of the yeas and nays which would be in order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Is it in order after a vote by tellers has 
    been ordered to demand a rollcall vote after the Speaker has 
    announced that a teller vote had been ordered?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the demand for a 
    rollcall vote before the tellers have taken their place and the 
    beginning of the vote by tellers would be in order.
        The gentleman from West Virginia demands the yeas and nays.

[[Page 11588]]

        The yeas and nays were ordered.

With Respect to Particular Motions

Sec. 24.5 Following a negative division vote on a motion that the House 
    adjourn to a day certain, the simple motion to adjourn was held to 
    take precedence over a demand for the yeas and nays on the former 
    motion.

    On Feb. 15, 1950,(7) the House met at 12 o'clock noon, 
and shortly after a prayer offered by the Chaplain, the Journal of the 
previous day's proceedings was read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 1805, 1806, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the completion of that reading, however, Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, rose to a point of order--contending that the 
Journal had incorrectly recorded the events of the previous day. Mr. 
Rankin further contended that the Chair had ruled improperly in 
granting preference to a simple motion to adjourn over his request for 
the yeas and nays on a motion to adjourn to a day certain. The 
following discussion then occurred:

        Mr. Rankin: . . . Now, Mr. Speaker, I call the Speaker's 
    attention to the fact that on yesterday I asked for a vote on my 
    motion that the House adjourn until Thursday. While we were taking 
    that vote the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] moved 
    that the House adjourn. The vote on my motion was interrupted; the 
    motion to adjourn made by the gentleman from Massachusetts was 
    given precedence and was voted on and agreed to.
        I protest that that ruling was in flagrant violation of section 
    5360 of Hinds' Precedents, which states:

            While a motion to adjourn takes precedence over other 
        motions, yet it may not be put while the House is voting on 
        another motion or while a Member has the floor in debate.

        We had offered a motion to adjourn until a day certain. We were 
    voting on it at that time. However, in violation of the rules of 
    the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts was permitted to offer 
    a motion that the House adjourn.
        In order to keep the record straight I call that to the 
    attention of the House, and I wish also to call attention to the 
    fact that Jefferson's Manual has the following provision in section 
    XXXIII relative to adjournment:

            A motion to adjourn simply takes place of all others; for 
        otherwise the House might be kept sitting against its will, and 
        indefinitely. Yet this motion cannot be received after another 
        question is actually put and while the House is engaged in 
        voting.

        I call that to the attention of the House in order to keep the 
    record straight. My distinguished colleague from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Williams], who was going along with me, also endeavored to secure a 
    roll call on the motion to adjourn until Thursday. We were 
    absolutely within the rules of the

[[Page 11589]]

    House and the motion to adjourn by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    [Mr. McCormack] was not in order.
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair does not agree with the 
    gentleman. On the motion made by the gentleman, upon which there 
    was a vote, there was a vote by division, and the motion was lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a roll-call vote on that 
    motion.
        The Speaker: Then the gentleman asked for the yeas and nays, 
    but before that question was put the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    [Mr. McCormack] moved that the House adjourn, which was a 
    preferential motion. The Chair put the question and the House did 
    adjourn.
        Mr. Rankin: And the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Williams] 
    and I were asking for the yeas and nays and the Chair refused to 
    put the question.
        The Speaker: The Chair has just tried to say to the gentleman 
    that anyone can ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were 
    not ordered. The gentleman from Massachusetts was within his rights 
    and made a preferential motion to adjourn, and the House did 
    adjourn.

When Untimely

Sec. 24.6 A demand for the yeas and nays comes too late after the 
    Speaker has put the question on a motion, announced the result, and 
    the House has proceeded to other business.

    On Aug. 25, 1960,(9) the House had under consideration 
certain amendments remaining in disagreement between the two bodies 
with respect to a bill (H.R. 11390) making appropriations for the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of 
Labor for the fiscal year 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 17666-73, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of considering the amendments remaining in 
disagreement, Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode Island, moved that the 
House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
numbered 16 and concur therein. The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. Fogarty: . . . And I am sure the taxpayers are willing to 
    pay for this kind of a program, because in the end it is going to 
    save them money.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (10) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
    disagreement.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, on that motion I 
    call for the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: Well, it appears to the Chair that the gentleman's 
    request comes rather late. The Chair has al

[[Page 11590]]

    ready declared the motion agreed to and ordered the Clerk to report 
    the next amendment in disagreement.

Sec. 24.7 A demand for the yeas and nays on a motion to recommit comes 
    too late after the Speaker has put the question on the motion, 
    announced the result, and put the question on passage of the bill.

    On Apr. 28, 1966,(11) the House had under consideration 
a bill (H.R. 13881) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 
regulate the transportation, sale, and handling of dogs, cats, and 
other animals intended to be used for purposes of research or 
experimentation, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 9230, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the engrossment and third reading of the bill,(12) 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. When the House votes affirmatively on the ``engrossment and third 
        reading'' of a bill, it is voting on the measure's final 
        language. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Frances P.] Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (13) Is the gentlewoman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Bolton: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mrs. Bolton moves to recommit the bill 13881 to the 
        Committee on Agriculture.

        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    had it, and that the motion was not agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on passage of the bill.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey rise?
        Mr. [Henry] Helstoski [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Helstoski: I would like to have the yeas and nays on the 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that stage has already 
    been passed.
        The question is now on the passage of the bill.

Withdrawal of Demand

Sec. 24.8 When the demand for the yeas and nays has been supported by 
    one-fifth of the Members present, it is too late for the Member 
    making the demand to withdraw it.

    On May 26, 1960,(14) the House having under 
consideration a bill

[[Page 11591]]

(H.R. 10128) to authorize federal financial assistance to the states 
for school construction, the Speaker put the question on a committee 
amendment as amended by the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Stewart L. 
Udall, of Arizona, then demanded the yeas and nays. A sufficient number 
of Members supporting this demand, the yeas and nays were ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 11304, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, a series of parliamentary inquiries were 
addressed to the Chair, there being some confusion as to the pending 
amendment. Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, sought to clarify 
the matter through the following exchange:

        Mr. McCormack: If the committee amendment as amended is adopted 
    and a motion to recommit should be defeated then the bill is 
    identically the same as the committee amendment as amended.
        The Speaker: (15) That is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Udall then rose and initiated the following discussion with the 
Chair:

        Mr. Udall: Since the vote on final passage will be the same as 
    this vote I ask consent to withdraw my request.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already announced that a sufficient 
    number of Members had arisen to order a rollcall.

    Another parliamentary inquiry followed, and the question was 
ultimately taken by the yeas and nays.