[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[D. Division of the Question for Voting]
[Â§ 43. Amendments and Substitutes Therefor]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11757-11766]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 43. Amendments and Substitutes Therefor

Effect of Negative Vote on Divisibility of Remainder

Sec. 43.1 A negative vote on a motion to strike out a portion of a 
    pending amendment does not preclude the demand for a division of 
    that portion of the amendment if it constitutes a properly 
    severable and, hence, separate proposition.

    On Aug. 18, 1965,(14) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, 
offered an amendment to the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965. The 
amendment proposed some six substantive changes in a section of the 
bill relating to the release and reapportionment of cotton acreage 
allotments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 20943, 20956, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, offered an amendment to the 
amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Missouri to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Poage: Strike out the first paragraph, which 
        reads: ``On Page 14, beginning on line 24, strike out all of 
        paragraph (2) and renumber paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
        (2) and (3), respectively.''

        After discussion of Mr. Jones' motion to strike out, the 
    Chairman (15) presented the question for a vote. Mr. 
    Jones' amendment was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Poage's amendment was about to be voted 
upon when Mr. John J. Rhodes, of Arizona, rose to divide the question. 
The following colloquy ensued:

        Mr. Rhodes of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a separate vote 
    on the first three lines of the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the first part of the 
    amendment referred to by the gentleman from Arizona.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On Page 14, beginning at line 24, strike all of paragraph 2 
        and renumber paragraphs 3 and 4 as paragraphs 2 and 3 
        respectively.

        The Chairman: The question occurs on that part of the amendment 
    just read by the Clerk.

[[Page 11758]]

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cooley: Have we not just voted on a separate amendment, the 
    Jones of Missouri amendment, which had the same purpose? Mr. Jones, 
    the author of the amendment, stated it had the same purpose, I 
    think.
        The Chairman: There was an amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Jones] but it was not this same proposition 
    which was just read by the Clerk.
        Mr. Cooley: The only difference is the name of the author.

        The Chairman: The parliamentary situation, I would say to the 
    gentleman from North Carolina, is different, too.
        The question occurs on that part of the amendment just read by 
    the Clerk.
        The question was taken and the Chairman announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to strike a given section from 
an amendment and the motion to divide the section from others for 
voting might accomplish the same end. However, the two procedures are 
distinguishable from a parliamentary perspective; and, the failure of 
the motion to strike out does not preclude the request to divide in 
this instance, providing the section in question constitutes a separate 
proposition.

Sec. 43.2 A Member having demanded a division of the question on two 
    portions of an amendment which was divisible into five substantive 
    parts, the question recurred on the remainder of the amendment 
    following agreement to the two portions by separate votes.

    On Aug. 17, 1972,(16) Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, 
proposed an amendment to title IV of the Equal Educational 
Opportunities Act of 1972 (H.R. 13915).(17) Mrs. Green's 
amendment consisted of five substantive parts, three of which pertained 
to section 403, and the remaining two of which called for the creation 
of sections 406 and 407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 28888, 28906, 28907, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. For the entire text of title IV and Mrs. Green's amendment, see 
        Sec. 43.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the request of Mr. William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, 
those portions of the amendment pertaining to sections 403 and 406 were 
considered in two separate votes. Both portions having been agreed to, 
the Chairman (18) then put the remainder of the Green 
amendment to a vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where an amendment is crafted to insert 
new, severable provisions, there may be a different result depend

[[Page 11759]]

ing on whether one section is made the object of a separate vote by a 
demand for a division of the question or whether an amendment is 
offered to strike the provision. In the latter event, the question 
would recur on the original amendment, as amended, but when a portion 
of an amendment is rejected on a separate vote, the question merely 
recurs on the remainder of the amendment.

Substitutes Not Divisible

Sec. 43.3 Where a pending amendment to the text of a bill would insert 
    language containing several substantive propositions (and such 
    amendment does not wholly consist of a motion to strike out and 
    insert), a demand for the division of the amendment is in order, 
    but a demand for the division of a substitute therefor is not.

    On Aug. 17, 1972,(19) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole in order to consider H.R. 13915, the Equal 
Educational Opportunities Act of 1972. During such consideration the 
Chairman (20) directed the Clerk to read title IV of the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 28834, 28887, 28888, 28890, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                               Title IV--Remedies

                      formulating remedies; applicability

            Sec. 401. In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal 
        educational opportunity or a denial of the equal protection of 
        the laws, a court, department, or agency of the United States 
        shall seek or impose only such remedies as are essential to 
        correct particular denials of equal educational opportunity or 
        equal protection of the laws.
            Sec. 402. In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal 
        educational opportunity or a denial of the equal protection of 
        the laws, which may involve directly or indirectly the 
        transportation of students, a court, department, or agency of 
        the United States shall consider and make specific findings on 
        the efficacy in correcting such denial of the following 
        remedies and shall require implementation of the first of the 
        remedies set out below, or on the first combination thereof 
        which would remedy such denial:
            (a) assigning students to the schools closest to their 
        places of residence which provide the appropriate grade level 
        and type of education for such students, taking into account 
        school capacities and natural physical barriers;
            (b) assigning students to the schools closest to their 
        places of residence which provide the appropriate grade level 
        and type of education for such students, taking into account 
        only school capacities;
            (c) permitting students to transfer from a school in which 
        a majority of the students are of their race, color, or 
        national origin to a school in which a minority of the students 
        are of their race, color, or national origin;
            (d) the creation or revision of attendance zones or grade 
        structures

[[Page 11760]]

        without requiring transportation beyond that described in 
        section 403;
            (e) the construction of new schools or the closing of 
        inferior schools;
            (f) the construction or establishment of magnet schools; or
            (g) the development and implementation of any other plan 
        which is educationally sound and administratively feasible, 
        subject to the provisions of sections 403 and 404 of this Act.

                           transportation of students

            Sec. 403. (a) No court, department, or agency of the United 
        States shall, pursuant to section 402, order the implementation 
        of a plan that would require the transportation of any student 
        in the sixth grade or below to a school other than the school 
        closest or next closest to his place of residence which 
        provides the appropriate grade level and type of education for 
        such student.
            (b) No court, department, or agency of the United States 
        shall, pursuant to section 402, order the implementation of a 
        plan which would require the transportation of any student in 
        the seventh grade or above to a school other than the school 
        closest or next closest to his place of residence which 
        provides the appropriate grade level and type of education for 
        such student, unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing 
        evidence that no other method set out in section 402 will 
        provide an adequate remedy for the denial of equal educational 
        opportunity or equal protection of the laws that has been found 
        by such court, department, or agency. Such plan shall only be 
        ordered in conjunction with the development of a long-term plan 
        involving one or more of the remedies set out in clauses (a) 
        through (g) of section 402. If a United States district court 
        orders implementation of a plan requiring transportation beyond 
        that described in this subsection, the appropriate court of 
        appeals shall, upon timely application by a defendant 
        educational agency, grant a stay of such order until it has 
        reviewed such order.
            (c) No court, department or agency of the United States 
        shall require directly or indirectly the transportation of any 
        student if such transportation poses a risk to the health of 
        such student or constitutes a significant impingement on the 
        educational process with respect to such student.

                                 district lines

            Sec. 404. In the formulation of remedies under section 401 
        or 402 of this Act, the lines drawn by a State, subdividing its 
        territory into separate school districts, shall not be ignored 
        or altered except where it is established that the lines were 
        drawn for the purpose, and had the effect, of segregating 
        children among public schools on the basis of race, color, sex, 
        or national origin.

                         voluntary adoption of remedies

            Sec. 405. Nothing in this Act prohibits an educational 
        agency from proposing, adopting, requiring, or implementing any 
        plan of desegregation, otherwise lawful, that is at variance 
        with the standards set out in this title, nor shall any court, 
        department, or agency of the United States be prohibited from 
        approving implementation of a plan which goes beyond what can 
        be required under this title, if such plan is voluntarily 
        proposed by the appropriate educational agency.

    Immediately thereafter, Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, rose to 
offer the following amendment:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Green of Oregon: Title IV is 
        amended as

[[Page 11761]]

        follows: (a) Section 403, page 37, line 5 is amended by 
        striking out ``in the sixth grade or below'';
            (b) Section 403., beginning on page 37, line 9 and 
        continuing on page 38 through line 3 is amended by striking all 
        of paragraph (b);
            (c) Section 403., page 38, line 4 is amended by striking 
        out the letter ``c'' and inserting in lieu thereof the letter 
        ``b'';
            (d) Adding at the end thereof the following new sections:

                             reopening proceedings

            Sec. 406. On the application of an educational agency, 
        court orders, or desegregation plans under title VI of the 
        Civil Rights Act of 1964 in effect on the date of enactment of 
        this Act and intended to end segregation of students on the 
        basis of race, color, or national origin, shall be reopened and 
        modified to comply with the provisions of this Act. The 
        Attorney General shall assist such educational agency in such 
        reopening proceedings and modification.

                              limitation on orders

            Sec. 407. Any court order requiring, directly or 
        indirectly, the transportation of students for the purpose of 
        remedying a denial of the equal protection of the laws shall, 
        to the extent of such transportation, be terminated if the 
        court finds the defendant educational agency is not effectively 
        excluding any person from any school because of race, color, or 
        national origin, and this shall be so, whether or not the 
        schools of such agency were in the past segregated de jure or 
        de facto. No additional order requiring such educational agency 
        to transport students for such purpose shall be entered unless 
        such agency is found to be effectively excluding any person 
        from any school because of race, color, or national origin, and 
        this shall be so, whether or not the schools of such agency 
        were in the past segregated de jure or de facto.
            Sec. 408. Any court order requiring the desegregation of a 
        school system shall be terminated, if the court finds the 
        schools of the defendant educational agency are a unitary 
        school system, one within which no person is to be effectively 
        excluded from any school because of race, color, or national 
        origin, and this shall be so, whether or not such school system 
        was in the past segregated de jure or de facto. No additional 
        order shall be entered against such agency for such purpose 
        unless the schools of such agency are no longer a unitary 
        school system.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, initiated 
the following exchange with the Chair:

        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered 
    by the gentlewoman from Oregon amends several sections in title IV.
        My parliamentary inquiry is whether or not it is possible to 
    have a separate vote on each of the substantive sections included 
    in the gentlewoman's en bloc amendment?
        The Chairman: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the 
    Chair will state at this point it would be appropriate and proper 
    to ask for separate votes on the different sections.
        However, in the event a substitute is offered and agreed to, 
    that procedure cannot be followed.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: But there could be separate votes?
        The Chairman: The gentleman can demand a separate vote and the 
    Chair will preserve his right to do so, subject to the condition 
    that a substitute, if offered, is not agreed to.

[[Page 11762]]

    After some discussion of the Green amendment, Mr. Albert H. Quie, 
of Minnesota, offered a substitute for that amendment.

    Mr. Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas, then sought clarification of the 
parliamentary situation. In responding, the Chairman reiterated what he 
had said to Mr. Steiger--leaving no doubt as to the rule:

        The Chairman: . . . Let the Chair state that the original 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Green) 
    contains four separate elements. Inquiry was made by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger) as to whether it would be proper to 
    divide those questions and ask for a separate vote. The Chair 
    advised that in the event the substitute is not agreed to, the 
    gentleman's rights would be protected, and he could ask for a 
    separate vote on each of the four propositions in the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Green).

    The Chairman further elaborated in response to another query from 
Mr. Eckhardt that:

        . . . [T]he substitute offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
    (Mr. Quie) cannot be divided for a separate vote whereas the 
    original proposition by the gentlewoman from Oregon can be divided 
    in the event that a substitute is not agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The precedents consistently indicate that a 
division of the question may not be demanded on a substitute for an 
amendment, based upon the prohibition in Rule XVI clause 7, against a 
division of a motion to strike out and insert. (See 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 6127, and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3168).
    With respect to a division of the question on an amendment, as 
amended by a substitute, the headnote in 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6127 
as well as Cannon's statement on page 172 of Cannon's Procedure 
indicate that the ``original,'' as amended, may be divided. The 
significance of this should not be misconstrued, however, for the 
``substitute'' in Sec. 6127 was not offered to a pending amendment, but 
rather to the original text. That precedent, therefore, does not stand 
for the proposition that a motion to strike out and insert is subject 
to a division of the question, either as to the two branches of the 
motion or as to the language proposed to be inserted.

Divisibility of En Bloc Amendments

Sec. 43.4 By unanimous consent a Member received permission to offer 
    several amendments en bloc and to divide the question for a 
    separate vote on each one.

[[Page 11763]]

    On June 9, 1966,(1) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 14929) to promote international trade 
in agricultural commodities, to combat hunger and malnutrition, and to 
further economic development, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, 
addressed the Chairman, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 12881, 12882, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and ask 
    unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc and voted upon 
    separately.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Ottinger: On page 24, line 15, 
        strike ``persons serving'' and all of lines 16 and 17, and 
        insert ``Peace Corps volunteers or Peace Corps volunteer 
        leaders pursuant to the Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612); and''.
            On page 23, line 3, strike ``Secretary of Agriculture'' and 
        insert ``President''.
            On page 23, line 5, immediately after ``to establish and 
        administer through existing'' insert ``departments or''.
            On page 23, line 6, strike ``of the Department of 
        Agriculture''.
            On page 24, line 23, strike ``$33,000,000'' and substitute 
        ``$7,000,000''.

    Following debate, the Chair put the question on the first 
amendment. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, posed the 
following question:

        Mr. Chairman, as I understood the request that was made, on the 
    amendments offered by the gentleman from New York, he asked 
    unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. If he did that, 
    does not the Committee have to vote on those amendments en bloc?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Michigan 
    that the unanimous-consent request was that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc but voted upon separately. There was no 
    objection.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Did the gentleman from New York make that 
    specific request?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

    The Committee voted separately upon the remaining amendments.

Division of En Bloc Amendment

Sec. 43.5 In Committee of the Whole, a division may be demanded on 
    discrete parts of a series of amendments considered en 
    bloc.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 792 (1995). A division can be 
        precluded if the request for en bloc consideration so 
        specifies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During consideration of a general appropriation bill on June 19,

[[Page 11764]]

1978,(4) a Member offered two related amendments on research 
and development programs funded in the bill and asked that they be 
considered en bloc. After debate, and before the question was put on 
the amendments, another Member requested a division. The proceedings 
were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 18180, 18184, 18186, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) Are there further amendments to 
    title I? If not, the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                            research and development

            For research and development activities, $328,028,000, to 
        remain available until September 30, 1980.

        Mr. [George E.] Brown [Jr.] of California: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California: On page 12, 
        line 14, strike ``$328,028,000'' and insert in place thereof 
        ``$348,028,000''.

        Mr. Brown of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that a second amendment on page 13 be reported by the Clerk, and 
    that the two amendments be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the second amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California: On page 13, 
        line 4, strike ``$4,200,000,000'' and insert in place thereof 
        ``$4,180,000,000''.

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will inquire of the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Ambro) whether he is requesting that the question be 
    divided.
        Mr. [Jerome A.] Ambro [of New York]: I am, indeed, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has that right, and the question 
    will be divided. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the first amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) appearing on page 12 of 
    the bill entitled Research and Development.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Brown of California) there were--ayes 12, noes 17. . . .
        A recorded vote was refused.
        So the first amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Brown) was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the second amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).
        The second amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Brown) was rejected.

Sec. 43.6 Consideration of amendments en bloc by unanimous consent does 
    not prevent a demand for division of the question so separate votes 
    can be taken on each of the amendments.

    Where two amendments, each adding a new section to a bill,

[[Page 11765]]

were considered en bloc by unanimous consent, the proponent announced 
his intention to ask that the Committee of the Whole vote on the two 
sections separately after debate on both. The Chair stated that en bloc 
consideration would not prejudice a demand for a division of the 
question. The proceedings of July 18, 1991,(6) were as 
indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 137 Cong. Rec. 18851, 18852, 18854, 18856, 18857, 102d Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his 
    inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. George Darden (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments pending at the 
    desk, amendments 67 and 68, and my question is, Is it possible to 
    have these two amendments debated at the same time in order to 
    reduce the vote on the second amendment, should it be necessary to 
    have one? . . .
        I think it would save the membership time if we could debate 
    the two amendments and then have a 15-minute vote on the first one, 
    followed by a 5-minute vote.
        Is that an acceptable procedure, if I were to make a unanimous 
    consent request?
        The Chairman: The Chair has some discretion in this area, if 
    the amendments are considered en bloc and if there is no 
    intervening business between the votes on the amendments. Does the 
    gentleman ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered 
    en bloc?
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, that puts me at a disadvantage, but 
    to go along with the membership, I would agree to do that, to have 
    no intervening debate but two separate votes.
        The Chairman: The gentleman makes a unanimous-consent request 
    that the amendments be considered en bloc.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New 
    York? . . .
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 25, after line 5, 
        add the following:

        sec. 37. drug testing required as a condition of new employment 
                             with the coast guard.

            (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            (1) the term ``preemployment drug testing'' means 
        preemployment testing for the illegal use of a controlled 
        substance; and
            (2) the term ``controlled substance'' has the meaning given 
        such term by section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act 
        (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
            (b) Preemployment Drug Testing.--No person may be appointed 
        to a civilian position in the Coast Guard unless that person 
        undergoes preemployment drug testing in accordance with this 
        section.

            (c) Regulations.--The Secretary of the department in which 
        the Coast Guard is operating shall issue regulations to carry 
        out subsection (b). Such regulations shall be issued no later 
        than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 11766]]

            (d) Effective Date.--This section applies with respect to 
        any appointment taking effect after the date on which 
        regulations are first issued under subsection (c).
            Page 26, after line 5, add the following:

          sec. 27. controlled substances testing program for civilian 
                      employees of the coast guard. . . .

            (b) Controlled Substances Testing Program.--The Secretary 
        of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall 
        establish and implement a program under which civilian 
        employees of the Coast Guard shall be subject to random testing 
        for the illegal use of controlled substances. . . .

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I was passed a note from the 
    majority over there that there is a question about how this vote 
    will take place on those two amendments.
        At the end of the debate, I would hope the chairman would 
    recognize me for the purpose of asking for the two separate votes, 
    one a 15-minute and one a 5-minute. . . .
        I might then, Mr. Chairman, ask for a division as we continue 
    the debate for vote purposes.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may demand a division of the 
    question at this time.
        Mr. Solomon: I do so.
        The Chairman: The question will be put separately on each of 
    the two amendments being considered en bloc. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
        The question will be divided.
        The Clerk will read the title of the amendment upon which the 
    vote will be taken.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, it would be amendment 8.
        The Clerk read the title of the amendment.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair 
    will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
    which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the 
    second amendment, if that question is put without intervening 
    debate or amendment.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    177, noes 240, not voting 16, as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: The pending business is the vote on the second 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
        The Clerk will restate the title of the amendment.
        The Clerk read the title of the amendment.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.

[[Page 11767]]