[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[D. Division of the Question for Voting]
[Â§ 42. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11734-11757]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 42. In General


    The fundamental prerequisites as well as the basic limits of 
divisibility are found in the sixth clause (1) of Rule XVI. 
It is there provided, in part, that any Member may demand the division 
of the question and that such a demand shall be honored if made before 
the question is put and if the propositions are so distinct in 
substance that one being taken away a substantive and grammatically 
separate proposition shall remain. To these fundamental re-quirements 
is added the proviso that two particular types of propositions are 
expressly indivisible-specifically, a motion or resolution to elect 
members or any portion of the members of a standing committee and a 
resolution or order reported by the Committee on Rules providing a 
special order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. ``On the demand of any Member, before the question is put, a 
        question shall be divided if it includes propositions so 
        distinct in substance that one being taken away a substantive 
        proposition shall remain: Provided, That any motion or 
        resolution to elect the members or any portion of the members 
        of the standing committees of the House and the joint standing 
        committees shall not be divisible, nor shall any resolution or 
        order reported by the Committee on Rules, providing a special 
        order of business be divisible.'' [Rule XVI clause 6, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (1995).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clause 7 (2) of Rule XVI also provides that the motion 
to strike out and insert is always indivisible. The clause proceeds to 
state, however, that neither amendments nor motions to strike out and 
insert are precluded merely because of the failure of a motion to 
strike out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. ``A motion to strike out and insert is indivisible but a motion to 
        strike out being lost shall neither preclude amendment nor 
        motion to strike out and insert. . . .'' [Rule XVI clause 7, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 
        (1995).]                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Substantive Proposition Requirement

Sec. 42.1 A question containing more than one substantive proposition 
    may be divided on demand of a Member.

    On June 1, 1942,(3) Mr. Compton I. White, of Idaho, 
sought to amend a committee amendment to a bill authorizing certain 
American Indians to sue in the Court of

[[Page 11735]]

Claims. Mr. White's amendment consisted of five parts, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 4754, 4756, 4758, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. White:

            On page 5, line 17, after the words ``Snake or Paiute 
        Indians'' and wherever these words occur in this bill, strike 
        out the comma or period and insert: ``of the former Malheur 
        Indian Reservation of Oregon.''
            On page 5, line 21, strike out ``departmental''.
            Strike out section 2 and insert therefor: ``Any alleged 
        band of Snake or Paiute Indians of the former Malheur Indian 
        Reservation of Oregon may prove themselves as such in the Court 
        of Claims.''
            On page 10, line 8, after the word ``as'' insert ``engaged 
        by the Snake or Paiute Indians of the former Malheur Indian 
        Reservation of Oregon.''
            Insert:
            ``Sec. 8. That for the purpose of the distribution of the 
        proceeds of such judgment, the Secretary of the Interior is 
        hereby authorized and directed to make a proper roll of said 
        Indians within 2 years from the date of the approval of this 
        act. Each community of the Snake or Paiute Indians of the 
        former Malheur Indian Reservation of Oregon shall prepare a 
        roll of its membership, which roll be submitted to a council of 
        the majority of their Indian chiefs, who lived on the above 
        said Indian reservation, for its approval or disapproval. The 
        said central council of these chiefs shall prepare a combined 
        roll of all members and descendants of members of the 
        respective communities of said Indians of former Malheur Indian 
        Reservation of Oregon, and shall submit the same to the 
        Secretary of the Interior for a final approval which shall 
        operate as final proof of such Indians to share in the benefits 
        of this act.''

    Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, sought to separate one part 
of Mr. White's amendment from the other parts. The following discussion 
ensued:

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. White] 
    submitted what was referred to as an amendment to the committee 
    amendment, but, as a matter of fact, did the gentleman not submit 
    several amendments, and may they be voted upon separately?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Idaho [Mr. White] 
    offered an amendment to the committee amendment which is now under 
    consideration.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: It seemed to me as I heard the 
    amendment that it referred to different parts of the committee 
    amendment. I was wondering if it could be separated.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The committee amendment strikes out 
    all after the enacting clause and includes a new draft.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: To get directly at the question 
    involved, is it possible to have a separate vote on that portion of 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho which provides 
    for the establishment of a roll?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would be in order to have separate 
    votes if separate votes should be de

[[Page 11736]]

    manded on each part of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Idaho.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: I would like to have a separate vote 
    upon that portion of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Idaho which calls for the establishment of a roll.

    As requested, the Speaker Pro Tempore subsequently separated that 
section of the White amendment mandating the establishment of a roll of 
eligible Indians from the other portions thereof, and separate votes 
were cast on that part and then on the remainder of the five part 
amendment.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For similar instances, in later Congresses, see the following: 118 
        Cong. Rec. 28906, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 17, 1972; 111 Cong. 
        Rec. 20945, 20956, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 18, 1965; 95 
        Cong. Rec. 14462, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 13, 1949; 94 Cong. 
        Rec. 8690, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948; and 88 Cong. 
        Rec. 5892, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., July 1, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Substantially Equivalent Questions

Sec. 42.2 A resolution censuring a Member and adopting a report of a 
    committee, which itself recommends censure on the basis of the 
    committee's findings, is not divisible since the questions are 
    substantially equivalent.

    Instance where the Chair took under advisement a question regarding 
the divisibility of a pending resolution, responding later in the day 
after an examination of the precedents.
    On Oct. 13, 1978,(6) the House had under consideration a 
disciplinary resolution concerning Mr. Edward R. Roybal, of California. 
During its consideration, a Member asked if the resolution was 
divisible. The Speaker deferred his decision until precedents could be 
reviewed. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 37009, 37010, 37012, 37013, 37016, 37017, 95th Cong. 
        2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 1416) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1416

            Resolved, That Representative Edward R. Roybal be censured 
        and that the House of Representatives adopt the Report of the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated October 6, 
        1978, In the matter of Representative Edward R. Roybal.

    At the onset of debate under the hour rule, Mr. John M. Ashbrook, 
of Ohio, addressed a parliamentary inquiry to the Speaker:

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 11737]]

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is directed 
    toward the rules and the precedents of the House. I would propound 
    a question to the Chair in my parliamentary inquiry as to whether 
    the resolution is divisible when it comes to a vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman will have 
    to indicate how he wanted to divide the vote.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, the resolution says, ``That 
    Representative Edward R. Roybal be censured,'' which would seem to 
    be divisible under the precedents of the House. The resolution 
    calls upon the House of Representatives to adopt the report and to 
    censure Mr. Roybal. I wonder whether or not the resolution can, 
    therefore, be divided into two questions, one being censure and the 
    second being the adoption of the report, which could be by separate 
    votes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's rights will be protected. The 
    Chair will examine the precedents with regard to the gentleman's 
    point.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for that 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) is 
    recognized for 60 minutes.

    Following debate on the resolution and the underlying committee 
investigation and report, Mr. Ashbrook renewed his inquiry.

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, earlier I propounded a parliamentary 
    inquiry to the Speaker as to whether or not, under the rules and 
    precedents of the House, House Resolution 1416, as it stands, would 
    be divisible.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to respond to the gentleman.
        Mr. Ashbrook: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) has 
    requested an opinion as to whether the question on House Resolution 
    1416 may be divided.

    To be the subject of a division of the question under the 
precedents of the House, a proposition must constitute two or more 
separate substantive propositions so that if one of the propositions is 
removed, the remaining proposition constitutes a separate and distinct 
question, and that test must work both ways.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the questions are substantially 
equivalent questions. For that reason, the Chair holds that House 
Resolution 1416 is not subject to a demand for a division of the 
questions.

        Mr. Ashbrook: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.

    The previous question was ordered.

        Mr. Bob Wilson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Bob Wilson: I am.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

[[Page 11738]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bob Wilson moves to recommit the resolution, House 
        Resolution 1416, to the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct with instructions to report the same back forthwith 
        with the following amendment. Strike all after the resolving 
        clause and insert:
        That Edward R. Roybal be and he is hereby reprimanded.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Caputo: Is time allowed for debate?
        The Speaker: The motion is not debatable.
        The question is on the motion to recommit with instructions.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: 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: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    219, nays 170, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 40, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the 
    House, I report the resolution back to the House with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flynt: Strike all after the 
        resolving clause and insert: That Edward R. Roybal be and he is 
        hereby reprimanded.

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Amendment of Two Parts, One Striking and Inserting, the Other Inserting

Sec. 42.3 Under clause 6 of Rule XVI, the question may be divided on an 
    amendment if it includes more than one distinct substantive 
    proposition susceptible of grammatical separation.

    During consideration of an Interior appropriation bill on July 15, 
1993,(8) an amendment that was offered which proposed to 
change a figure in one paragraph and also to insert a new paragraph at 
another point was held to be divisible as between the two parts. It

[[Page 11739]]

was implied and understood that the inserted paragraph was drafted in a 
manner which would render it ungrammatical if an attempt were made to 
divide its text. The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 139 Cong. Rec. 15843. 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 61, line 23, strike 
        ``$19,366,000'' and insert ``$18,091,000''.
            Page 66, after line 22, insert the following:

                  revision of amounts for department of energy

            The amounts otherwise provided by this title for the 
        Department of Energy are revised by reducing the amount made 
        available under the heading ``Fossil Energy Research and 
        Development'' by, and also transferring from the remaining 
        amount made available under such heading to the appropriation 
        for ``Energy Conservation'' an additional $24,873,000.

        Mr. Walker (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Dan Glickman (Kans.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the 
    question be divided on this amendment.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the amendment in its 
    present form is subject to a question of division.
        The Chairman: As between the two parts of the amendment, the 
    one on page 61, line 23, and the one on page 66, after line 22, it 
    would be subject to a division of the question. Those two parts 
    would be subject to a division, if that is how the gentleman is 
    offering this amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Will the Chair describe again just what the 
    parliamentary situation is? What amendment are we considering at 
    the present time?
        The Chairman: A demand for a division of the question has been 
    made. The first vote will occur on the portion of the amendment 
    which is on page 61, line 23, the striking and inserting of 
    dollars. The second vote will occur on page 66, after line 22, 
    inserting the following.
        Mr. Yates: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Demand for Division, When in Order

Sec. 42.4 Any Member may demand a division of the question on an 
    amendment which has two or more substantive propositions at any 
    time before the question is put thereon, and unanimous con

[[Page 11740]]

    sent is not required for that purpose.

    On Oct. 19, 1977,(10) when the Committee of the Whole 
had under consideration a bill making supplemental appropriations for 
various government departments. An amendment was offered which 
contained three parts. Two of the clauses struck out figures in the 
bill and inserted new amounts. The third deleted a phrase of the text. 
The Chair declared the amendment divisible and addressed the right of a 
Member to demand a separate vote on the parts thereof. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 34252, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                               operating expenses

            For an additional amount for ``Operating expenses'', to 
        remain available until expended, $167,000,000; of which 
        $150,000,000 shall be for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor 
        Project and which shall become available only upon the 
        enactment into law of authorizing legislation; and of which not 
        to exceed $17,000,000 is made available to reimburse the 
        General Services Administration for the expenses of renovation, 
        furnishing and repair of facilities necessary to provide 
        temporary and permanent space for personnel relocated as a 
        result of the establishment and activation of the Department of 
        Energy.

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Bevill: On page 10, line 17 strike 
        out ``$167,000,000'' and insert ``$97,000,000'';
            On line 18 strike out ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
        ``$80,000,000''; and
            Beginning on line 19 strike out ``and which shall become 
        available only upon the enactment into law of authorizing 
        legislation''. . . .

        Mr. [George E.] Brown [Jr.] of California: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of California: Mr. Chairman, would I be in order to 
    ask for a division of the question and, following that, to debate 
    the merits on each section separately?
        The Chairman: The Chair will protect the rights of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) to request a division when we 
    come to a vote on this matter. The gentleman can do it right now, 
    if he wants to.
        Mr. Brown of California: Mr. Chairman, I wish to call for a 
    division of the question at this time.
        Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: I reserve the right to object, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Let the Chair first inquire as to which part.

        Mr. Brown of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a separate 
    vote on the last clause.
        The Chairman: The clause beginning, ``and beginning on line 19 
    strike out * * *''?
        Mr. Brown  of California: That is correct.

[[Page 11741]]

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers) will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Flowers:  Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman entitled to have 
    that request granted just on the decision of the Chair, or does it 
    require action by the committee?
        The Chairman:  Any Member can request a division if the 
    question that will be offered is divisible.
        Mr. Flowers:  Mr. Chairman, I object to the request, and I 
    would like to be heard on whether or not it is a divisible 
    question.
        The Chairman: It is not one of the matters that requires 
    unanimous consent. It is not within the prerogative of the Chair. 
    It is within the right of the Member to request a division on a 
    matter that is divisible, and this matter is clearly divisible.

Concurrent Resolution on Budget

Sec. 42.5 A concurrent resolution on the budget has been considered 
    divisible as between that portion constituting a budget resolution 
    pursuant to the Budget Act and a separate hortatory section 
    expressing the sense of Congress regarding fiscal policy.

    On Mar. 5, 1992,(12) when the Committee of the Whole had 
concluded its consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget 
for fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the ranking minority member of the 
Budget Committee, Mr. Willis D. Gradison, Jr., of Ohio, asked that the 
resolution be divided for a vote so that the House could vote 
separately on section 3, a provision expressing the sense of the House 
on appropriate levels of budget authority in the event of certain 
contingencies. He asked to be heard on the question of the divisibility 
of the concurrent resolution, but Speaker Thomas S. Foley, of 
Washington, declaring the resolution to be subject to a demand for a 
division, declined to entertain debate on that issue. The Speaker put 
the question first on the remaining parts of the concurrent resolution, 
sections 1, 2, and 4 and then put the question on the part on which a 
separate vote had been demanded. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 138 Cong. Rec. 4657, 4658, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) Under the rule, the 
    Committee rises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Mfume, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that the Committee, 
    having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
    Res. 287) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Gov

[[Page 11742]]

    ernment for the fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, 
    pursuant to House Resolution 386, he reported the concurrent 
    resolution back to the House.
        The Speaker:  Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        Mr. Gradison: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question 
    on the resolution and specifically ask for a separate vote on 
    section 3. Pending the determination of the Chair as to the 
    resolution's divisibility, I would like to be heard on that 
    question.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may not debate a demand which has 
    not been subject to a point of order.
        Section 3 is subject to a division of the question, and a 
    separate vote will be held on that portion of the concurrent 
    resolution.
        Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gephardt: Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the Chair to 
    clarify this decision and the fact that there will be a separate 
    vote on both parts of this budget.
        The Speaker: The demand has been made that there be a division 
    of the question and a separate vote on section 3. The Chair has 
    ruled and is prepared to put the question in a divided form, the 
    two parts of the vote to occur immediately without further 
    intervening debate, so that what would normally have been 
    accomplished in a single vote on the adoption of the resolution 
    will now require two votes.
        Mr. Gephardt: I thank the Chair.
        The Speaker: This vote will be on sections 1, 2, and 4. The 
    second vote will be on section 3. . . .
        So sections 1, 2, and 4 of House Concurrent Resolution 287 were 
    agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on section 3 of House Concurrent 
    Resolution 287.
        Without objection, the yeas and nays are ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    224, nays 191, not voting 20, as follows: . . .
        So section 3 of House Concurrent Resolution 287 was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Prefatory Words May Not Destroy Divisibility

Sec. 42.6 An amendment containing separate paragraphs appropriating 
    funds for different government programs may be divisible although 
    preceded by prefatory language (such as ``There is hereby 
    appropriated . . .'') applicable to all paragraphs.

    On Nov. 8, 1983,(14) during consideration of a 
continuing appropriation joint resolution for 1984, a comprehensive 
amendment, made in order by the adoption of a special order reported by 
the Committee on Rules, was reached in the amendment process. The 
amendment consisted of 17 items of appropriation for different de

[[Page 11743]]

partments and programs, all preceded by standard language of 
appropriation: ``The following amounts are hereby made available, in 
addition to funds otherwise available, for the following purposes:''. 
While the amendment was pending, a Member asked when a motion to divide 
the amendment into its 17 component parts could be made. The Chair 
responded that a motion was not required, that any Member could demand 
the division of the amendment at any time during its pendency up until 
the point where the Chair has put the question on the amendment. At the 
conclusion of debate, a division was in fact asked, and the question 
was first put on the part of the amendment which had not been the 
object of the demand for division, then on the individual parts on 
which separate parts were requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 31477, 31494, 31495, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wright: At the appropriate place 
        in the joint resolution insert the following new section:
            Sec. . Such joint resolution is further amended by adding 
        the following new section:
            Sec. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        joint resolution, the following amounts are hereby made 
        available, in addition to funds otherwise available, for the 
        following purposes:

                  compensatory education for the disadvantaged

            For an additional amount for carrying out chapter 1 of the 
        Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, 
        $165,000,000 to become available on July 1, 1984, and remain 
        available until September 30, 1985.

                              vocational education

            For an additional amount for carrying out the Vocational 
        Education Act of 1963, $81,400,000 to become available on July 
        1, 1984, and re-main available until September 30, 1985. . . .

    There followed 12 more paragraphs, each related to a different 
education program, and two other headings for ``Job Training'' and 
``Emergency Shelters for the Homeless.''

        Mr. Wright (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right 
    to object, Mr. Chairman, I do so simply to propound a parliamentary 
    inquiry of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I am wanting to know whether or not 
    it would be possible at a time appropriate to divide the question 
    on this amendment into its 17 component parts.

[[Page 11744]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that the Chair does not know precisely how many parts 
    there are to the gentleman's amendment, but the gentleman is 
    entitled to ask for a division, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    has that right upon demand. . . . 

    Much later in the proceedings, the following occurred:

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for a division of the 
    question.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) will 
    please state to the Chair the portions that he wishes to divide.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to divide the question into-I 
    think it is 17 ways.
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, I have not yielded back the balance 
    of my time. I wonder if the gentleman's request is timely at this 
    moment. I have simply suggested that the minority might use its 
    remaining time.
        If the gentleman's request at this moment does not preclude our 
    concluding debate, then I have no objection to his making it at 
    this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts had no more requests for time. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania was appropriately recognized to demand a division of 
    the question on the amendment. But the time of the gentleman from 
    Texas for debate on his amendment is protected.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to divide the question into 
    the following categories: Compensatory education for the 
    disadvantaged, vocational education, adult education, community 
    services block grant, low-income energy assistance, education for 
    the handicapped, rehabilitation services and handicapped research, 
    education for immigrant children, higher education, the higher 
    education science centers, the college work-study appropriation, 
    supplemental education opportunity grants, the community health 
    centers, the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Galludet 
    College, job training, emergency shelter for the homeless, the 
    section of the bill which is related to child nutrition, and the 
    section of the bill which is the mandatory monthly reporting 
    language on food stamps.
        The Chairman: The request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Walker) is appropriate and the Wright amendment will be 
    divisible in the order contained in the amendment.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as remains.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) has 6 
    minutes remaining.
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say I am sorry that 
    we will be required to take 17 separate votes. I should have 
    thought that it might have been considered as one package. That was 
    the intention, I believe, of the Committee on Rules in drafting the 
    rule. However, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is fully within his 
    rights.
        This merely means that we will have to have a vote on each 
    separate compo

[[Page 11745]]

    nent of this package. I ask you to vote for each of them. . . .
        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        The first question will be put on the remainder of the 
    amendment, as amended, on which a division of the question has not 
    been demanded, namely, on the Perkins amendment . . . [which had 
    added several paragraphs to the end of the Wright amendment, 
    dealing with school lunch and child nutrition].
        At the conclusion of that vote, then we will vote separately on 
    the divisible portions in the order in which they appear in the 
    amendment. . . . 
        The question is on the Perkins amendment language now part of 
    the Wright amendment.
        That portion of the Wright amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first portion of the 
    amendment on which a division of the question has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec.  . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        joint resolution, the following amounts are hereby made 
        available, in addition to funds otherwise available, for the 
        following purposes:

                  compensatory education for the disadvantaged

            For an additional amount for carrying out chapter 1 of the 
        Educa- tion Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, 
        $165,000,000 to become available on July 1, 1984, and remain 
        available until September 30, 1985.

        The Chairman: The question is on the portion of the amendment 
    relating to compensatory education for the disadvantaged.
        The portion of the amendment relating to compensatory education 
    for the disadvantaged was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the next portion of the 
    amendment on which a division of the question has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec.  . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        joint resolution, the following amounts are hereby made 
        available, in addition to the funds otherwise available, for 
        the following purposes:

                              vocational education

            For an additional amount for carrying out the Vocational 
        Education Act of 1963, $81,400,000 to become available on July 
        1, 1984, and re-main available until September 30, 1985. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the portion of the amendment 
    relating to vocational education.
        The question was taken, and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Walker) there were--ayes 37, noes 20.
        So the portion of the amendment relating to vocational 
    education was agreed to.

    Separate votes were then taken on the remaining portions of the 
Wright amendment. The Clerk, in reporting each separate part, repeated 
the prefatory language. Most of the divisible portions were decided by 
voice votes. Seven resulted in record votes.

Divisibility of Perfecting Amendments Striking Text

Sec. 42.7 An amendment striking out various unrelated parts

[[Page 11746]]

    of text is subject to a division of the question.

    During consideration of the annual authorization bill for the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1985, several committee 
amendments were voted on en bloc at the request of The Chairman of the 
committee who was managing the bill. The Chairman did ask for a 
division of the question on one of the committee amendments which 
struck out text on a section of the bill. The question was divided 
without challenge. The proceedings of Mar. 28, 1984,(16) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 30 Cong. Rec. 6898, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) The question is on the committee 
    amendments, with the exception of the committee amendment appearing 
    on page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee amendments, with the exception of the committee 
    amendment appearing on page 17, were agreed to.
        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    division of the question on the 2 parts of the amendment on page 
    17.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 17, strike lines 16 and 17, and 
        redesignate succeeding subparagraphs, and on page 17, line 19, 
        strike subsection (c).

        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be divided.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first portion of the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 17, strike lines 16 and 17, and redesignate succeeding 
        subparagraphs. * * *

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to debate this?
        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Chairman, I do not. This is conforming with the 
    action taken by the committee, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

        The Chairman: The question is on the first portion of the 
    committee amendment.
        The first portion of the committee amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the second portion of the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 17, line 19, strike subsection (C).

        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Chairman, after reconsideration, the committee 
    does not wish to proceed with the adoption of this amendment and 
    ask for a ``no'' vote.
        The Chairman: The question is on the second portion of the 
    committee amendment.
        The second portion of the committee amendment was rejected.

Engrossment and Third Reading

Sec. 42.8 The question on engrossment and third reading of a

[[Page 11747]]

    bill is not subject to a demand for a division of the question 
    since two independently coherent questions are not present.

    Where the House had before it a bill on which the previous question 
had been ordered on a previous day, the Speaker announced the 
unfinished business to be the question on the engrossment and third 
reading. When a Member inquired whether the question could be divided, 
the Speaker replied in the negative. The proceedings of Aug. 3, 
1989,(18) were as indicated herein:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 135 Cong. Rec. 18544, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (19) The unfinished business is the 
    engrossment and third reading of the bill (H.R. 3026) making 
    appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and 
    other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the 
    revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
    1990, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Stan] Parris [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Parris: Mr. Speaker, is a vote on the engrossment and third 
    reading of this bill in order under the rules of the House if 
    requested by a Member of the House?
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman mean a recorded vote?
        Mr. Parris: A recorded vote, yes.
        The Speaker: A recorded vote is in order if the House sustains 
    such a request.
        Mr. Parris: Is the question of engrossment and third reading a 
    divisible question so that there perhaps could be two recorded 
    votes if requested?
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the question on 
    engrossment and third reading of the bill is not divisible.

Divisibility of Resolution Established by Special Order

Sec. 42.9 A resolution adopting the rules of the House was divided into 
    nine questions pursuant to a special resolution adopted prior to 
    the rules package acknowledging such divisibility.

    In the 104th Congress, a privileged procedural resolution, offered 
at the direction of the majority conference, established the procedure 
under which the resolution adopting the rules for the new Congress 
would be considered.(20) That privileged resolution 
specified that the resolution adopting the rules would be divisible 
into nine separate questions, and specified debate time on each. The 
resolution establishing the

[[Page 11748]]

new rules was drafted in a form to permit such divisibility, with a 
separate resolving clause before each portion which was to be subject 
to a separate vote. The effect of this draft was to protect the 
viability of the rules package even if one portion were defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    House Resolution 5, which was offered by the chairman of the Rules 
Committee on Jan. 4, 1995, specified that the question of adoption of 
the rules package would be divided into nine parts, each to be 
separately debated for 20 minutes.

        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the House Republican Conference, since there is no 
    Committee on Rules yet, and the Committee on Rules has not met yet 
    to organize and will not until tomorrow, by direction of the 
    Republican Conference, I call up a privileged resolution and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: (1) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Newt Gingrich (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 5

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
        Res. 6) adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for 
        the One Hundred Fourth Congress. The resolution shall be 
        considered as read. The resolution shall be debatable initially 
        for 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. The 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
        resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or 
        demand for division of the question except as specified in 
        sections 2 and 3 of this resolution.
            Sec. 2. The question of adopting the resolution shall be 
        divided among nine parts, to wit: each of the eight sections of 
        title I; and title II. Each portion of the divided question 
        shall be debatable separately for 20 minutes, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority 
        Leader or their designees, and shall be disposed of in the 
        order stated.
            Sec. 3. Pending the question of adopting the ninth portion 
        of the divided question, it shall be in order to move that the 
        House commit the resolution to a select committee, with or 
        without instructions. The previous question shall be considered 
        as ordered on the motion to commit to final adoption without 
        intervening motion.

        The Speaker: The resolution is a matter of privilege. The 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.

    Following adoption of this procedural order, the House proceeded to 
consideration of House Resolution 6. Each of the nine divisible 
portions was preceded by a standard clause: ``The Rules of the House of 
Representatives on the One Hundred Third Congress, including applicable 
provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of 
the House at the end of the One Hundred Third Congress, together with 
such

[[Page 11749]]

amendments thereto in this resolution as may otherwise have been 
adopted, are adopted as the Rules of the House of the One Hundred 
Fourth Congress with the following amendments:''.

Who May Demand; When in Order

Sec. 42.10 Any Member may demand a division of the question at any time 
    before the vote providing the question is divisible.

    On June 17, 1948,(2) Mr. Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, 
offered an amendment to the Selective Service Act of 1948. Mr. Rees' 
proposal consisted of an additional section containing three 
subparagraphs designed to insure that training under the act be 
``carried out on the highest possible moral, religious, and spiritual 
plane.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 8686, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, sought to divide the 
    question, prompting the following discussion:
        Mr. Wadsworth: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Francis H. Case (S. Dak.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wadsworth: I inquire as to whether or not this amendment 
    may be divided and an opportunity given to the members of the 
    committee to vote separately with respect to the first paragraph 
    and separately with respect to the second paragraph.
        Mr. [John] Phillips of California: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    has been considered as a whole, and the request to separate it 
    should have been made earlier.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the rules of the 
    House a division of a question may be asked for at any time, if the 
    question is divisible, before the vote.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and notices that it is in 
    three paragraphs labeled subparagraph (a), subparagraph (b), and 
    subparagraph (c), each one of them being substantive in form, and 
    each one of them could be voted on separately, if it is so 
    demanded.

    Mr. Wadsworth subsequently requested that a separate vote be taken 
on the second and third paragraphs. This request was agreed to.

Withdrawal of Demand

Sec. 42.11 A demand for a division of the question may be withdrawn by 
    the Member making such demand, before the question is put, and 
    unanimous consent is not required.

    On July 20, 1942,(4) Mr. Lyle H. Boren, of Oklahoma, 
sought to di

[[Page 11750]]

vide certain portions of a proposed amendment to the Revenue Act of 
1942. After some discussion, Mr. Boren changed his mind, and the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 88 Cong. Rec. 6388, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boren: Mr. Chairman, under the confused situation I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the request temporarily.
        Mr. [Raymond S.] McKeough [of Illinois]: I object, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        Mr. Boren: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on the division as I 
    have outlined it then.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman does not have to ask unanimous consent to withdraw his 
    request for a division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing of Demand for Division

Sec. 42.12 In Committee of the Whole, a request for a division of the 
    question on an amendment may be made at any time before the Chair 
    puts the question on the amendment.

    On Oct. 21, 1981,(6) during consideration of the Food 
and Agriculture Act of 1981 (H.R. 3603) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 127 Cong. Rec. 24778, 24785, 24788, 24789, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Coleman: Page 89, after line 23, 
        insert the following new section (and redesignate succeeding 
        sections accordingly): . . .

        Mr. [E. Thomas] Coleman [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Coleman: Mr. Chairman, at what point would a motion to 
    divide be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise that a demand for division 
    of the question is a proper request and can be made at the time 
    that the question is put on the amendment. . . . 
        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment composed of 
    four sections of which three sections are unobjectionable, and then 
    there is a question about the fourth one. Is it possible to vote on 
    the unobjectionable sections without curtailing or limiting further 
    debate on the fourth section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if 
    before the Chair first puts the question on the Coleman amendment 
    there is a request for a division of the question, the remainder of 
    the amendment will be voted on first and the portion on which the 
    division is demanded will be voted on last, and following the 
    adoption or rejection of the portion first voted on, which the 
    gentleman refers to as the objectionable portion, the portion on 
    which a division is demanded will remain open to further debate and 
    amendment. . . . 
        Mr. Coleman: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a fiction 
    perpetrated here

[[Page 11751]]

    that there is only one part of this amendment which is 
    controversial, 1340. My question is at what point and in what order 
    do we vote if we were to separate, as has been the indication, 
    separate one out? I would like to know, and I think others would 
    like to point out that there are some extreme difficulties with 
    some of the other sections of this amendment. If we are going to 
    start couching in a one or the other situation, then we are going 
    to have a division on every one of these things if we have a 
    division on one.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if a 
    division is requested with respect to section 1343, the enforcement 
    provisions, that a vote would first be taken on the balance of the 
    Coleman amendment, the section upon which a division was demanded 
    would be open for debate and amendment. But the part, of course, 
    that had been voted upon, the balance of the Coleman amendment 
    would be foreclosed from further debate and amendment.
        Mr. Coleman: If I might inquire of the Chair, what if an 
    objection was made or a division were to be requested or a division 
    were to be made on 1306, would that be voted on first?
        The Chairman: With respect to a demand for a division, assuming 
    the question is divisible, there would be a vote on the part not 
    subject to the demand for a division first.
        Mr. Coleman: But if there was a demand for a division on 1306, 
    would that precede the vote on 1343?
        The Chairman: If a division were demanded on both, that is 
    correct.
        Mr. Coleman: I thank the chairman.

Sec. 42.13 A demand for division of the question can be made while an 
    amendment is pending, even before debate has expired, at any time 
    until the Chair has put the question.

    On Nov. 8, 1983,(8) Mr. Robert S. Walker, of 
Pennsylvania, posed a parliamentary inquiry relative to the 
divisibility of an amendment, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 31477, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I am wanting to know whether or not 
    it would be possible at a time appropriate to divide the question 
    on this amendment into its 17 component parts.
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that the Chair does not know precisely now many parts 
    there are to the gentleman's amendment, but the gentleman is 
    entitled to ask for a division, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    has that right upon demand.
        Mr. Walker: And the gentleman from Pennsylvania would be 
    protected to offer such a motion just before the vote on the Wright 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair is unable to protect in the traditional 
    sense of the word the gentleman from Pennsylvania because what the 
    gentleman is requesting is a request and it is not a motion.
        Mr. Walker. I thank the Chair. But it would be proper to make 
    that re

[[Page 11752]]

    quest at the time just before the vote on the Wright amendment; is 
    that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond that before the Chair puts 
    the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, 
    if there is a timely request by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, it 
    will be entertained.
        Mr. Walker. I thank the Chair I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.

Order of Voting on Divisible Parts

Sec. 42.14 When there is a division of the question on various 
    separable parts of an amendment, the Chair puts the question first 
    on the remainder of the amendment, the portion not to be divided; 
    and then the remaining portions (which remain open to debate and 
    even further amendment) are voted on in the order in which the 
    divisible portions appear in the bill.

    On Oct. 21, 1981,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 3603) described as the Food and 
Agriculture Act of 1981. An amendment offered by Mr. E. Thomas Coleman, 
of Missouri, proposed the insertion of two new sections to the pending 
text and made several conforming changes in the pertinent text (further 
insertions and provisions striking out and inserting new text). Mr. 
Matthew F. McHugh, of New York, who was acting as Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole, answered several parliamentary inquiries 
regarding the time to demand a division of the amendment and the order 
of voting. No decision was rendered on whether the amendment was in 
fact, divisible in the Committee. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 24778, 24785, 24788, 24789, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Coleman: page 89, after line 23, 
        insert the following new section (and redesignate succeeding 
        sections accordingly):

                      adjustment of the thrifty food plan

            Sec. 1306. Section 3(o) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 is 
        amended by striking out clause (6) and all that follows through 
        the end of clause (9), and inserting in lieu thereof the 
        following: ``(6) on October 1, 1982, adjust the cost of such 
        diet to the nearest dollar increment to reflect changes in the 
        cost of the thrifty food plan for the twenty-one months ending 
        the preceding June 30, 1982, and (7) on October 1, 1983, and 
        each October 1 thereafter, adjust the cost of such diet to the 
        nearest dollar increment to reflect changes in the cost of the 
        thirty food plan for the twelve months ending the preceding 
        June 30''.
            (Food stamp funding and program extension.)
            Page 114, line 7, insert ``and'' at the end thereof.
            Page 114, strike out line 8 and all that follows through 
        line 17, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

[[Page 11753]]

            (2) inserting before the period at the end thereof the 
        following: ``; not in excess of $11,300,000,000 for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 1982; not in excess of 
        $11,170,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983; 
        not in excess of $11,115,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1984; and not in excess of $11,305,000,000 for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985''.
            Page 120, after line 22, insert the following new section.

                    authority of office of inspector general

            Sec. 1343. Any person who is employed in the Office of the 
        Inspector General, Department of Agriculture, who conducts 
        investigations of alleged or suspected criminal violations of 
        statutes, including but not limited to the food stamp program, 
        administered by the Secretary of Agriculture or any agency of 
        the agency of the Department of Agriculture, and who is 
        designated by the Inspector General of the Department of 
        Agriculture may--
            (1) make an arrest without a warrant for any such criminal 
        violation if such violation is committed, or if such employee 
        has probable cause to believe that such violation is being 
        committed, in the presence of such employees.
            (2) incident to making an arrest under paragraph (1), 
        search the premises and seize evidence, without a warrant.
            (3) execute a warrant for an arrest, for the search of 
        premises, or the seizure of evidence if such warrant is issued 
        upon probable cause to believe that such violation has been 
        committed, and
            (4) carry a firearm,
        in accordance with rules issued by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture, while such employee is engaged in the performance 
        of official duties under the authority provided in section 6, 
        or described in section 9, of the Inspector General At of 1978. 
        (5 U.S.C. app.a 6, 9).

            Page 104, line 23, insert after ``of coupons'' the 
        following: ``including any losses involving failure of a coupon 
        issuer to comply with the requirements specified in section 
        11(d)(21).''.
            Page 108, line 21, strike out ``paragraph:'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``paragraphs:''
            Page 109, after line 9 insert the following:
            ``21. That, project areas or parts thereof where 
        authorization cards are used, and eligible households are 
        required to present photographic identification cards in order 
        to receive their coupons, the state agency shall include, in 
        any agreement or contract with a coupon issuer, a provision 
        that (1). . . .

        Mr. [E. Thomas] Coleman [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Coleman: Mr. Chairman, at what point would a motion to divide 
    be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise that a demand for division 
    of the question is a proper request and can be made at the time 
    that the question is put on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment composed of 
    four sections of which three sections are

[[Page 11754]]

    unobjectionable, and then there is a question about the fourth one. 
    It Is possible to vote on the unobjectionable sections without 
    curtailing or limiting further debate on the fourth section?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if 
    before the Chair first puts the question on the Coleman amendment 
    there is a request for a division of the question, the remainder of 
    the amendment will be voted on first and the portion on which the 
    division is demanded will be voted on last, and following the 
    adoption or rejection of the portion first voted on, which the 
    gentleman refers to as the objectionable portion, the portion on 
    which a division is demanded will remain open to further debate and 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Coleman: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a fiction 
    perpetrated here that there is only one part of this amendment 
    which is controversial, 1340. My question is at what point and in 
    what order do we vote if we were to separate, as has been the 
    indication, separate one out? I would like to know, and I think 
    others would like to point out that there are some extreme 
    difficulties with some of the other sections of this amendment. If 
    we are going to start couching in a one or the other situation, 
    then we are going to have a division on every one of these things 
    if we have a division on one.

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if a 
    division is requested with respect to section 1343, the enforcement 
    provisions, that a vote would first be taken on the balance of the 
    Coleman amendment, the section upon which a division was demanded 
    would be open for debate and amendment. But the part, of course, 
    that had been voted upon, the balance of the Coleman amendment 
    would be foreclosed from further debate and amendment.
        Mr. Coleman: If I might inquire of the Chair, what if an 
    objection was made or a division were to be requested or a division 
    were to be made on 1306, would that be voted on first?
        The Chairman: With respect to a demand for a division, assuming 
    the question is divisible, there would be a vote on the part not 
    subject to the demand for a division first.
        Mr. Coleman: But if there was a demand for a division on 1306, 
    would that precede the vote on 1343?
        The Chairman: If a division were demanded on both, that is 
    correct.
        Mr. Coleman: I thank the chairman.

Chair Has Some Discretion in Order of Voting

Sec. 42.15 Where no further debate or amendment is in order on the 
    portion of an amendment on which a division of the question has 
    been demanded, the Chair has discretion to put the question first 
    on the divided portions and then on the remainder of the amendment.

    While the order of voting on the various portions of a divided 
question has been differently executed by various presiding officers, 
the more modern practice is to allow the Chair some discretion to

[[Page 11755]]

shape the voting to meet the will of the Members participating. Thus, 
on June 8, 1995,(12) the Chair put the question first on 
those portions of the amendment on which a division of the question had 
been demanded, then on the remainder. The proceedings were as 
indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant 
    to the rule, I offer an amendment that has not been printed in the 
    Record. I have consulted through staff and the ranking minority 
    member with regard to this amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            At the end of the bill, add the following:

                       division d--additional provisions

          title xli--united states educational and cultural exchange 
                                    programs

                  sec. 4001. authorization of appropriations.

            (a) Fulbright Academic Exchange Programs.--Notwithstanding 
        section 2106(3)(A), there are authorized to be appropriated for 
        ``Fulbright Academic Exchange Programs'', $112,484,200 for the 
        fiscal year 1996 and $88,680,800 for the fiscal year 1997.
            (b) Other Programs.--Notwithstanding section 2106(3)(F), 
        there are authorized to be appropriated for ``Other Programs'', 
        $77,265,800 for the fiscal year 1996 and $57,341,400 for the 
        fiscal year 1997.
            In section 3231 of the bill (in section 667(a)(1) of the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to be amended by 
        such section 3231; relating to operating expenses of the United 
        States Agency for International Development), strike 
        ``$465,774,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250'' and strike 
        ``$419,196,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250''.

        amendment offered by mr. hoyer to the amendment offered by mr. 
                                     gilman

        Mr. [Steny H.] Hoyer [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Gilman].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer to the amendment to the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Gilman:
            At the end of the amendment, add the following: In title 
        XXVI (relating to foreign policy provisions) insert the 
        following at the end of chapter 1:

              sec. 2604. bosnia and herzegovina self-defense act.

            (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Bosnia 
        and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act''.
            (b) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) The Serbian aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina 
        continues into its third year, the violence has escalated and 
        become widespread, and ethnic cleansing by Serbs has been 
        renewed. . . .
            (d) Termination of Arms Em-bargo.--
            (1) Termination.--The President shall terminate the United 
        States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
        upon receipt from that Government of a request for assistance 
        in exercising its right of self-defense under Article 51 of the 
        United States Charter. . . .

[[Page 11756]]

        Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me 
    just say that I have a first degree amendment, and I ask for a 
    division of the question on the last part of Mr. Gilman's amendment 
    regarding AID and O&E cuts.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will divide the 
    question at the appropriate time. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Robert W. Goodlatte (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All time for consideration of amendments under 
    this rule has expired.
        Mr. Hoyer: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Hoyer: To understand the parliamentary situation at this 
    point in time, am I correct that the Gilman en bloc amendment will 
    be voted on after the Hoyer amendment as a secondary amendment 
    which will be voted upon first; then is it my understanding that 
    the Burton amendment will be then split out of the en bloc 
    amendment for the purposes of a vote, and then the Gilman amendment 
    as amended?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. For the information of 
    the Members, the Chair will announce that the order of voting will 
    proceed as follows: first on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Gilman]; next on separate votes on any divisible 
    portion of this Gilman amendment; and finally on the remainder of 
    the Gilman amendment, as amended or not. . . .
        Mr. [Alcee L.] Hastings of Florida: I have a further 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Hastings of Florida: Mr. Chairman, does that mean that 
    Members could ask for a division on any of the manager's amendments 
    that are in there?
        The Chairman: Any divisible portion of the amendment can be 
    subjected to a separate vote. . . .
        So the [Hoyer] amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Chairman: The question is on the last divisible portion of 
    the amendment as originally offered by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Gilman], as amended, demanded by the gentleman from Indiana 
    [Mr. Burton]. The Clerk will report the divided portion of the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            In section 3231 of the bill (in section 667(a)(1) of the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as proposed to be amended by 
        such section 3231; relating to operating expenses of the United 
        States Agency for International Development), strike 
        ``$465,774,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250'' and strike 
        ``$419,196,000'' and insert ``$396,770,250''. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the last divisible portion of 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], 
    as amended.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    182, noes 236, not voting 16, as follows: . . .

[[Page 11757]]

        The Chairman: The question is on the remaining portion of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], as 
    amended.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Gilman: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman: This is a 5-minute vote.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    239, noes 117, not voting 18, as follows: . . .