[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[E. Postponing Votes; Clustering Votes; Reduced Voting Time; Separate Votes]
[Â§ 55. Procedures During Postponed Proceedings]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11824-11841]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
 E. POSTPONING VOTES; CLUSTERING VOTES; REDUCED VOTING TIME; SEPARATE 
                                 VOTES
 
Sec. 55. Procedures During Postponed Proceedings

Precedence of Questions--In-terruption of Series of Suspensions by 
    Question of Privilege

Sec. 55.1 A resolution raising a question of the privileges of the 
    House takes precedence over a motion to suspend the rules and may 
    be offered and voted on between consideration of motions to suspend 
    the rules on which the

[[Page 11825]]

    Speaker has postponed record votes.

    On May 17, 1983,(4) before embarking on consideration of 
a revenue measure reported from the Committee on Ways and Means which 
was being brought up under the suspension procedure, the House 
considered and adopted a resolution, offered as a question of the 
privileges of the House under Rule IX,(5) to return to the 
Senate a similar revenue bill originated by that body. The question of 
privilege interrupted consideration of a series of suspension motions. 
The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 129 Cong. R. 12467, 12486, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) Pursuant to the 
    provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announces that he will 
    postpone further proceedings today on each motion to suspend the 
    rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or 
    on which the vote is objected to under clause 4 of rule XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Such rollcall votes, if postponed, will be taken today after 
    debate has been concluded on all motions to suspend the rules.
        Mr. [George E.] Brown [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2785), to amend the 
    provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
    Act relating to the scientific advisory panel and to extend the 
    authorization for appropriations for such Act, as amended. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) that the 
    House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2602, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles Roemer (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 
    5, rule I, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings 
    on this motion will be postponed.
        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 195) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 195

            Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 144) to ensure 
        the continued expansion of international market opportunities 
        in trade, trade in services, and investment for the United 
        States and for other purposes, in the opinion of the House, 
        contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of Article 
        I of the Constitution of the United States and is an 
        infringement of the privileges of this House, and that the said 
        bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski) is recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page 11826]]

        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
    may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, this resolution is simple and straightforward. On 
    April 21, 1983, the Senate completed its consideration of S. 144, a 
    bill to insure the continued expansion of reciprocal market 
    opportunities in trade, trade in services, and investment for the 
    United States, and for other purposes, approved the bill and 
    messaged it to the House of Representatives. As passed by the 
    Senate, the bill contains several provisions relating to revenues. 
    As such, the bill on its face clearly violates the prerogatives of 
    the House of Representatives to originate revenue bills.
        At times in the past, there has been some disagreement about 
    the proper extent of the other body's authority to amend House-
    originated revenue bills. It is a matter of intense debate, and I 
    have been known to express my views on that matter from time to 
    time. In this instance, however, we need not discuss the specifics 
    of the Senate amendment, since the Senate has taken it upon itself 
    to directly originate an entire revenue bill. There can be no 
    clearer case where the prerogatives of the House of Representatives 
    have been disregarded by the other body.
        Last Thursday, this matter was discussed by the Committee on 
    Ways and Means; and it was unanimously agreed to follow the process 
    of returning S. 144 to the Senate inasmuch as it contravenes the 
    first clause of section 7 of article I of the Constitution.
        Mr. [Barber E.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rostenkowski: I yield to the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, I support the position taken by our 
    distinguished chairman on this matter. I feel it should be returned 
    to the other body, as he has indicated, and for the reasons he has 
    stated.
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
    time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the resolution.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the resolution. A 
    resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    pass the bill, H.R. 2973, to repeal the withholding of tax from 
    interest and dividends.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 2973

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That--
            (1) subtitle A of title III of the Tax Equity and Fiscal 
        Responsibility Act of 1982 (relating to withholding of tax from 
        interest and dividends) is hereby repealed, and. . . .

--Order of Taking Votes on Postponed Questions

Sec. 55.2 Consideration of new motions to suspend the rules can take 
    precedence over the votes on suspensions postponed from a preceding 
    day.

[[Page 11827]]

    In the 96th Congress, the practice of conducting a series of 
postponed votes was to have a 15-minute vote on the first vote in the 
series. Where new motions to suspend the rules were considered before 
taking up votes postponed from the preceding day, a 15-minute vote was 
utilized for the first vote in each series.
    On Mar. 18, 1980,(8) the acting Majority Leader 
(9) announced that the consideration of motions to suspend 
the rules takes precedence over unfinished business (postponed roll 
call votes on motions to suspend the rules coming over from the 
previous day):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 5733, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Rousselot [of California]: I thank the gentleman for 
    yielding.
        I have no substantive questions about this legislation, but I 
    take this time to direct a question to the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my 
    question is, Why has the procedure of the House been changed? As I 
    understand it, Mr. Speaker, the procedure has been altered so that 
    the recorded vote on H.R. 5625 (the A. Phillip Randolph Institute 
    Gold Medal) was put over from yesterday's suspension calendar. 
    Normally that recorded vote would occur today, first thing.
        I wonder if the Speaker could explain to the House why that was 
    changed?
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rousselot: I would be glad to yield to my colleague from 
    Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski).
        Mr. Rostenkowski: It has been our custom on all suspensions to 
    conclude the business of suspensions and then have the votes at the 
    conclusion of all of the suspensions. There has never been any 
    precedent set where we would vote on the suspensions we have 
    concluded consideration on the day before.
        It has always been our practice to have concluded all of the 
    suspensions and vote at the end of the day.

    Later that same day,(10) the Speaker Pro Tempore 
(11) applied this practice, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 5741, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 18, 1980.
11. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3 of rule XXVII, the 
    unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) to suspend the rules and pass the bill, 
    H.R. 5625, as amended, on which further proceedings were postponed 
    on Monday, March 17, 1980, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) that the House 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5625, as amended, on 
    which the yeas and nays are ordered.
        This will be a 15-minute vote, since it is a different series 
    of suspension motions.

[[Page 11828]]

Method of Voting--Where Requests for Recorded Votes Are Postponed

Sec. 55.3 Where postponed proceedings resume in Committee of the Whole 
    on a request for a recorded vote on an amendment which is deferred 
    pursuant to an order of the House, the recorded vote is not 
    automatically ordered but must be supported at the later time, when 
    the question is put, by 25 Members seconding the demand.

    Where the request for a recorded vote is postponed, the Member 
making the request (the demand) need not renew his request when the 
question is again before the Committee or the House; but the Chair does 
not ascertain whether a sufficient number support the request until the 
time appointed to take the postponed votes. Chairman George E. Brown, 
Jr., of California, explained the effect of postponing requests for 
recorded votes under the rule as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., June 27, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All time for debate of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] has expired.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida [Mr. Stearns].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Cliff] Stearns [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        The Chairman: In accordance with the unanimous-consent request 
    that was granted by the House earlier, the Chair will postpone 
    further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida [Mr. Stearns] until a later time. That means that at a 
    later time the gentleman's request will be pending.
        Mr. Stearns: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, a recorded vote 
    is not automatic. I will have to go through this again.
        The Chairman: The Chair will announce to the gentleman when it 
    is an appropriate time for him to protect his request. The Chair 
    will not overlook the gentleman.
        Mr. Stearns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am just worried that I will 
    not be here.
        Can I make a point of order that a quorum is not present and go 
    through the whole procedure so it becomes an automatic vote so I 
    will not have to depend upon my presence, my being here?
        Mr. Chairman, I am just saying that I want to make sure that 
    this is an automatic vote and that it is not a vote dependent upon 
    my being here.
        The Chairman: Some Member will have to make a point of no 
    quorum pending the request for a recorded vote, and at that point 
    the Chair will put the request in the usual fashion.
        In other words, if enough Members stand, the gentleman will get 
    a recorded vote. This will just expedite the proceedings.

[[Page 11829]]

--Withdrawal of Request for Record Vote After Vote Is Postponed

Sec. 55.4 A request for a recorded vote on an amendment in Committee of 
    the Whole on which proceedings have been postponed may be 
    withdrawn, by unanimous consent, to allow the amendment to be 
    disposed of as per the voice or division vote initially announced 
    when the question was put.

    Like a reservation of a point of order or a reservation of the 
right to object to a unanimous-consent request, a request for a 
recorded vote inures to the benefit of every Member. The Member making 
the demand for the recorded vote may withdraw his demand, as a matter 
of right, when the question is yet before the Committee or when it is 
again put as unfinished business. Any other Member could then renew the 
demand. On July 26, 1995,(13) when the Commerce, Justice, 
State, and the Judiciary appropriation bill was under consideration in 
Committee of the Whole, the Member demanding a recorded vote on an 
amendment offered by Mrs. Jan Meyers, of Kansas, asked unanimous 
consent to withdraw his demand, since there had been intervening 
business and the Meyers amendment was no longer the pending business. 
The proceedings were as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman objects to the 20-
    minute time allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Steve Gunderson (Wisc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
    Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] to offer an amendment to title V?
        There was no objection.
        Mrs. Meyers of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Meyers of Kansas: Page 97, line 
        8, strike ``$217,947,000'' and insert ``$222,-325,000''.
            Page 98, line 6, strike ``$97,000,000'' and insert 
        ``$92,622,000''.

        Mr. [Harold] Rogers [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all 
    amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that the time be 
    equally divided between the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] 
    and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes].

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: All time has expired.

[[Page 11830]]

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Michael P.] Forbes [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
    further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] will be postponed.
        Mr. [Jose E.] Serrano [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Serrano: Page 102, after line 20, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 609. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
        be used for the Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting under 
        section 5 of the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act. . . .

        Mr. Forbes: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    my demand for a recorded vote on the Meyers amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        Mr. [Roger F.] Wicker [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, how did the Chair announce that vote on the 
    voice vote?
        The Chairman: The ayes had it.
        Mr. Wicker: That the ayes had it?
        The Chairman: On the Meyers amendment, yes.
        Mr. Wicker: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection reluctantly.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        Mr. [John J.] LaFalce [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, what was the request that was made again?
        Mr. Forbes: I requested unanimous consent to withdraw my 
    request for a recorded vote.
        Mr. LaFalce: Further reserving the right to object, if this is 
    an issue that will be settled, but if there is going to be an 
    attempt made in conference or something or some other time in the 
    future, I think that at some point in time there will not be.
        Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.
        So, the amendment was agreed to.

--Repetition of Demand for Yeas and Nays or Recorded Vote

Sec. 55.5 Where one-fifth of the Members present have refused to order 
    the yeas and nays on a motion to suspend the rules and that motion 
    later becomes the pending or unfinished business of the House under 
    the rule governing the Speaker's postponement 
    authority,(15) a

[[Page 11831]]

    Member may still demand a recorded vote on the motion but may not 
    renew his demand for the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule I clause 5(b)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 631 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During consideration in the House of the bill H.R. 12048, the 
Administrative Rule Making Reform Act of 1976, in the 94th 
Congress,(16) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, put the 
question on a suspension motion and the following proceedings then 
devolved:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 31640, 31641, 31668, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 21, 
        1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: Twelve Members have arisen, an insufficient 
    number.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I could not 
    hear what the Speaker said.
        The Speaker: I said that 12 Members have arisen, an 
    insufficient number.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on 
    the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule 
    XXVII, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on 
    this motion will be postponed.
        Does the gentleman from Wisconsin withdraw his point of order 
    that there is no quorum?
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of 
    order. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The unfinished 
    business is the question of suspending the rules and passing the 
    bill, H.R. 12048, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers) that the House suspend 
    the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 12048, as amended.
        The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Speaker, on the last recorded vote there were 
    400 Members present. Twenty percent of that would be 80.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that on recorded vote the rules require one-fifth of a quorum, 
    which is 44.
        A recorded vote is ordered.

Sec. 55.6 Where further proceedings on a pending question have been 
    postponed where there is objection to the vote for lack of a 
    quorum, following a division vote and the refusal of the House to 
    order the yeas and nays, the Speaker puts the question de novo when 
    it is

[[Page 11832]]

    again the pending business but a request for a division vote and a 
    demand for the yeas and nays cannot be repeated.

    On July 12, 1977,(18) Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas S. 
Foley, of Washington, put the question on a motion to suspend the rules 
and concur in a Senate amendment to a House bill. The proceedings were 
as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 22487, 22488, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson) that the House 
    suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill 
    H.R. 6893.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Bauman) there were--ayes 44, noes 5.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, having explored all other 
    possibilities, I now 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 Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXVII and the Chair's prior 
    announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
        The point of order is considered as having been withdrawn. . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The unfinished business is the 
    question of suspending the rules and concurring in the Senate 
    amendment to the bill H.R. 6893.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson) that the House 
    suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill 
    H.R. 6893.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The question was taken and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that, in his opinion, two-thirds of the Members had voted in favor 
    thereof.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the yeas and 
    nays have already been demanded and have been refused so that 
    request is not in order.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to ask for a division 
    on this vote?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that a division 
    has already been taken on the question.
        Mr. Bauman: Then an additional division is not permitted at 
    this time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct. The yeas and nays 
    have already been demanded and have been refused and prior to that 
    a division vote had already been taken.
        Mr. Bauman: And it is out of order to renew the request for the 
    yeas and nays?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that it is not in 
    order to renew the request that the vote be taken by the yeas and 
    nays.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the gentleman.

[[Page 11833]]

        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    Mr. Bauman could have demanded a recorded vote--as distinct from 
the yeas and nays--since that form of voting had not been attempted 
when the question was first put. An example of using a recorded vote 
following rejection of a demand for the yeas and nays is found in the 
proceedings of Sept. 21, 1976.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 55.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponed Amendment Proceedings

Sec. 55.7 When consideration is resumed on amendments where requests 
    for recorded votes have been demanded, but not ordered, the Chair: 
    (1) directs the Clerk to re-report the amendment; (2) states the 
    pending business to be the request for a recorded vote and states 
    the result of the initial vote taken by voice or division; and (3) 
    requests those Members seeking a recorded vote to stand and remain 
    standing until counted.

    While a Member may announce his intention to ask for a recorded 
vote on an underlying first degree amendment, he cannot actually make 
that request until the question is put on the amendment; and that 
question necessarily is deferred until a pending second degree 
amendment is disposed of. On July 29, 1992, the House had under 
consideration the bill H.R. 5679, making appropriations for Veterans' 
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 138 Cong. Rec. 20202, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before resolving into the Committee of the Whole, the following 
unanimous-consent agreement was entered into: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 20261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5679, the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union may postpone until a time not earlier than 8:30 p.m. this 
    evening any recorded votes that may be requested on amendments 
    after the vote on the pending amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I 
    just want to make certain of one thing. There are going to be 
    amendments to amendments, so I would inquire what happens in that 
    kind of a situation.

[[Page 11834]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Walker] addressing the question to the Chair, or to the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]?
        Mr. Walker: To the gentleman from Ohio, who has made the 
    request.
        Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Walker: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
        Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that those would also 
    be accomplished within the timeframe that we have referenced.
        Mr. Walker: In other words, the amendment to the amendment 
    would have to be waited upon and then we would have to go back and 
    complete the amendment later on, is that correct?
        Mr. Stokes: If the gentleman will continue to yield, yes, that 
    is correct.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

    Chairman Anthony C. Beilenson, of California, responded to several 
inquiries about this procedure and demonstrated the procedure followed 
when it is the request for a recorded vote that is deferred, and not a 
recorded vote which is already demanded and ordered by the requisite 
number of seconding Members. The proceedings were as follows 
:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 138 Cong. Rec. 20286, 20288-91, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., July 29, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Utah [Mr. Hansen] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Utah [Mr. Owens].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [James V.] Hansen [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of earlier 
    today, further proceedings on this request for a recorded vote are 
    postponed until not earlier than 8:30 p.m.
        The point of no quorum is considered as having been withdrawn.
        Mr. [Wayne] Owens of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    last word.
        Mr. Chairman, it will be my intention to seek a vote on my 
    amendment only if the amendment to the amendment fails.
        Mr. [Don] Sundquist [of Tennessee]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Sundquist: Mr. Chairman, under the rules the gentleman 
    cannot strike the last word before a vote. He is getting an 
    extension of his time for debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that the 
    votes on both amendments, if two are requested, have been 
    postponed. No amendment is pending. The statement of the gentleman 
    from Tennessee is not in order.

[[Page 11835]]

        Mr. Sundquist: Mr. Chairman, we did not have a second vote. We 
    had one vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
    Hansen].
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the question cannot be 
    put on the original amendment of Mr. Owens at this time. The Chair 
    would advise the gentleman that that request will be in order at 
    the proper time after the vote is later taken by the Committee on 
    the Hansen amendment, after that amendment is voted on.
        Does the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Owens] wish to complete his 
    statement?
        Mr. Owens of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to explain to 
    the House that I will seek a vote on my amendment if the vote on 
    the amendment to the amendment is not successful. . . .
        The Chairman: The pending business is the demand of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Atkins, for a recorded vote on 
    his amendment on which the Chair had announced that the noes 
    prevailed on a voice vote.
        The Clerk will rereport the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Atkins:
            Page 84, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 6 
        on page 85.

        The Chairman: Those in favor of taking the vote by recorded 
    vote will rise and remain standing. . . .
        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, could the Chair inform the body 
    whether this particular vote coming up passed or failed? We are 
    entitled to know that.
        The Chairman: The Chair already announced, he would say to his 
    friend, the gentleman from New York, that the noes prevailed on a 
    voice vote.
        Mr. Solomon: I thank the Chair. . . .
        The Chairman: The pending business is the demand of the 
    gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] for a recorded vote on his 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
    Owens], on which the Chair had announced that the noes prevailed on 
    a voice vote.
        The Clerk will rereport the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hansen to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Owens of Utah: Strike ``$4,961,500,000, to remain available 
        until September 30, 1994'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$5,136,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 
        1994''.

        The Chairman: Those in favor of taking this vote by recorded 
    vote will stand and remain standing.
        Evidently a sufficient number has arisen, and a recorded vote 
    is ordered.
        The Chair would remind Members that this, too, is a 5-minute 
    vote.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    181, noes 226, not voting 27. . . .
        So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                   amendment offered by mr. owens of utah

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Utah [Mr. Owens].

[[Page 11836]]

        The Clerk will rereport the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Owens of Utah: Page 76, line 21, 
        strike ``$5,226,500,000'' and insert ``$4,961,500,000''.

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Owens of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman: This too will be a 5-minute vote.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    249, noes 159, not voting 26, as follows: . . .

--Vote on Second Degree Amendment

Sec. 55.8 Where a recorded vote on a second degree perfecting amendment 
    is postponed, then the question on agreeing to the underlying first 
    degree amendment is also necessarily postponed.

    On July 26, 1995,(4) the House had under consideration 
in Committee of the Whole the appropriation bill (H.R. 2076) for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary. The 
following parliamentary inquiry and the Chair's response illustrates 
the point of the headnote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Steve Gunderson (Wisc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New Jersey [Mr. Smith] to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
        Mr. [David E.] Skaggs [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Skaggs: Mr. Chairman, I believe this was characterized as a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: It is an amendment.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New Jersey [Mr. Smith] to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House today, further 
    proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey [Mr. Smith], will be postponed.
        Mr. Skaggs: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Skaggs: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that we have faced this 
    particular parliamentary situation before in which proceedings have 
    been sus

[[Page 11837]]

    pended on an amendment to an amendment, and we have not yet gotten 
    to the underlying amendment. I would reserve at this time, if I 
    may, therefore, the right to a recorded vote on the underlying 
    amendment. I will not otherwise have an opportunity to ask for a 
    vote in the House.
        The Chairman: The Chair would put the question on the 
    underlying amend-ment to the committee after action on the 
    amendment to the amendment was completed at a later point.
        Mr. Skaggs: I thank the Chair for the clarification.

Sec. 55.9 Where the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole postpones 
    further proceedings on a request for a recorded vote on a second 
    degree amendment, the question on the underlying first degree 
    amendment may not be put (nor can a recorded vote be requested 
    thereon) until the amendment thereto is disposed of at a subsequent 
    time.

    On July 29, 1992,(6) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 138 Cong. Rec. 20286, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Utah [Mr. Hansen] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Utah [Mr. Owens].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [James V.] Hansen [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of earlier 
    today, further proceedings on this request for a recorded vote are 
    postponed until not earlier than 8:30 p.m.
        The point of no quorum is considered as having been withdrawn.
        Mr. [Wayne] Owens of Utah: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    last word.
        Mr. Chairman, it will be my intention to seek a vote on my 
    amendment only if the amendment to the amendment fails.
        Mr. [Don] Sundquist [of Tennessee]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Sundquist: Mr. Chairman, under the rules the gentleman 
    cannot strike the last word before a vote. He is getting an 
    extension of his time for debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that the 
    votes on both amendments, if two are requested, have been 
    postponed. No amendment is pending. The statement of the gentleman 
    from Tennessee is not in order.

Sec. 55.10 Where the Chair was given authority by a unani

[[Page 11838]]

    mous-consent agreement to postpone requests for recorded votes 
    ``until a later time,'' the Chair interpreted his mandate to 
    include the postponement of such requests on second degree 
    amendments, but not to permit second degree amendments after a 
    voice vote has been taken and announced on the first degree 
    amendment.

    On June 24, 1994,(8) Chairman George E. Brown, Jr., of 
California, while presiding over the Committee of the Whole on an 
appropriation bill, answered a parliamentary inquiry relating to the 
offering of second degree amendments when he had been given authority 
to postpone votes on certain amendments until a later time in the 
proceedings of the Committee. The inquiries directed to the Chair were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard L.] Berman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Berman: Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are operating 
    now under unanimous-consent request, as it applies to title V, in 
    terms of rolling votes. How will that affect the ability to offer 
    an amendment to any of the amendments that might be offered?
        The Chairman: Would the gentleman restate his parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Berman: The question is, we will now be proceeding to hear 
    amendments to title V and rolling votes on any of the amendments 
    where a vote is requested. If one wants to amend an amendment being 
    offered to title V under this procedure, how would one do that and 
    how would one get recognized?
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands the situation, on an 
    amendment to the amendment, the vote on that would still be 
    postponed until the end of debate on other amendments to title V.
        Mr. Berman: I have a further parliamentary inquiry. Could the 
    Chair explain the order of votes on amendments? Are all votes on 
    amendments being rolled? What is the first amendment that will be 
    voted on when we go to a vote?
        The Chairman: The only request that has been postponed 
    following the Chair's announcement that there would be a rolling of 
    the votes has been the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida [Mr. Stearns].
        Mr. Berman: Mr. Chairman, is there any amendment which has been 
    excluded from the unanimous consent to roll each vote?
        The Chairman: No, not so far.
        Mr. Berman: So what is the nature of the unanimous-consent 
    request that was granted?
        The Chairman: The unanimous-consent request was that the 
    request for a recorded vote on amendments be postponed until the 
    end of debate on further amendments to this title. This is

[[Page 11839]]

    to be done at the Chair's discretion, after consultation with the 
    chairman and the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee.
        Mr. Berman: If I might make a last parliamentary inquiry, would 
    it be in order after an amendment has been voted on, depending on 
    the result of that amendment, to then offer an amendment, after all 
    debate time has expired, to the next amendment, based on what had 
    happened on an earlier amendment?
        The Chairman: The chairman is informed by the parliamentarian 
    that such a second degree amendment would not be in order, if the 
    question had been put earlier on the first degree amendment and the 
    voice vote announced.

--Order of Taking Votes Where the Votes on Amendments Are Deferred

Sec. 55.11 When the Committee of the Whole resumes proceedings on two 
    consecutive amendments where requests for recorded votes were 
    postponed by the Chair, the questions recur on the amendments in 
    the same order in which the amendments were originally considered.

    Where the Chair announces that the votes on two consecutive 
amendments will be deferred until both have been debated, the order of 
voting remains the same as the order of their consideration. The 
proceedings of Apr. 20, 1994, illustrate the order of voting where 
votes on amendments are postponed: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) It is now in order to consider 
    amendment No. 37 printed in part 2 of the House Report 103-474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Robert G. Torricelli (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bart] Gordon [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gordon:
            At the appropriate place in the bill add the following:
        SECTION . AWARDS OF PELL GRANTS TO PRISONERS PROHIBITED.

            Section 401(b)(8) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
        U.S.C. 1070a(b)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(8) No basic grant shall be awarded under this subpart to 
        any individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State 
        penal institution.''.
        SEC.  . EFFECTIVE DATE.

            The amendment made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
        periods of enrollment beginning on or after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.

        The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
    Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a 
    Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Albert R.] Wynn [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment.

[[Page 11840]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] will be 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The distinguished gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the Chair is 
    going to cluster these two votes and we will have one 15-minute 
    vote and one 5-minute vote after the Gordon-Fields amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair has that discretion under the rule, to 
    cluster the votes.
        Mr. Brooks: I would request the Chair to do so. It would 
    expedite matters and save us 10 minutes.
        Mr. Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the request if 
    my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] has no objection.
        Mr. Wynn: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee 
    [Mr. Gordon]. . . .
        The Chairman: All time on the amendment has expired.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Jack] Fields of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.

        Mr. Wynn: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Wynn: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that because 
    these two amendments were being clustered, the debate on both 
    amendments would occur and then the votes on both amendments would 
    follow subsequent to the debate on both amendments. Am I correct in 
    that understanding? . . .
        The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 401, as the Chair 
    has stated, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] will be postponed until after 
    the debate on the next amendment.
        Mr. Fields of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Fields: The question is, Mr. Chairman, what is the order of 
    vote when we do have a recorded vote?
        The Chairman: The vote will occur in the same order as would 
    have occurred had the Chair not postponed the vote.
        It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 printed in part 
    2 of the House Report 103-474.
        Mr. Wynn: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by 
    the rule.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Wynn: At the appropriate place in the 
    bill add the following: . . .
        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.

[[Page 11841]]

        Mr. Fields of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 401, further 
    proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
    will be postponed until after further proceedings on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
        Pursuant to Resolution 401, proceedings will now resume on 
    those amendments on which further proceedings were previously 
    postponed and in the following order: Amendment No. 37, offered by 
    the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], and then amendment No. 
    39, offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
        The Chair announces that in the event votes are ordered, the 
    Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
    after the first vote in this series.