[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14, Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[D. Division of the Question for Voting]
[§ 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]]