[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11421-11424]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting


[[Page 11421]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by William Holmes Brown, J.D., and David P. 
Gary, J.D.; Manuscript editing by Joan Deschler Bamel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Generally (p. 1)

    Sec. 1. Introduction
    Sec. 2. Stating and Putting the Question
    Sec. 3. Duty To Vote
    Sec. 4. Pairs
    Sec. 5. Tie Votes; Supermajority Votes
    Sec. 6. Finality of Votes Once Cast

B. Non-recorded Votes (p. 73)

    Sec. 7. Voice Votes
    Sec. 8. Voting by Division
    Sec. 9. Demand for Division Vote
   Sec. 10. Interruption of Division Vote
   Sec. 11. Objections to Division Vote: Lack of Quorum
   Sec. 12. Determining Presence of Quorum as Related to Division Vote
   Sec. 13. Division Vote as Related to Demand for Tellers
   Sec. 14. Division Vote as Related to Demand for Yeas and Nays
   Sec. 15. Voting by the Chair on Division Votes
   Sec. 16. Voting by Tellers; In General
   Sec. 17. Demand for Tellers
   Sec. 18. Ordering Tellers
   Sec. 19. Appointment of Tellers
   Sec. 20. Interruptions of Teller Votes
   Sec. 21. Voting by the Chair on Teller Votes

[[Page 11422]]

   Sec. 22. Recapitulations and Recounts of Teller Votes

C. Yeas and Nays and Other Votes of Record (p. 167)

   Sec. 23. The Yeas and Nays; In General
   Sec. 24. Demands
   Sec. 25. --When Not in Order
   Sec. 26. Ordering of Vote
   Sec. 27. Interruption of Vote
   Sec. 28. Recapitulation of Roll Call Vote
   Sec. 29. Voting by the Speaker
   Sec. 30. Recorded Votes; In General
   Sec. 31. The Electronic Voting System
   Sec. 32. Requests To Alter Electronically Recorded Votes
   Sec. 33. Demand for Vote
   Sec. 34. Taking the Vote
   Sec. 35. Time To Respond on a Vote
   Sec. 36. Casting Votes After the Roll Call; Effect of Announcement 
            of Result
   Sec. 37. Changing Incorrectly Recorded Votes Prior to Announcement 
            of Result
   Sec. 38. Correction of Incorrectly Recorded Votes After Announcement 
            of Result
   Sec. 39. Changing Correctly Recorded Votes; Inquiries
   Sec. 40. Effecting Vote Changes and Corrections
   Sec. 41. Announcement of Member Pertaining to His Own Vote; 
            Announcing How Absent Colleague Would Have Voted

D. Division of the Question for Voting (p. 328)

   Sec. 42. In General
   Sec. 43. Amendments and Substitutes Therefor
   Sec. 44. Motions To Amend an Amendment
   Sec. 45. Motions To Instruct Conferees; Motions To Recommit
   Sec. 46. Motions for the Previous Question
   Sec. 47. Motions To Rise

[[Page 11423]]

   Sec. 48. Motions To Strike Out and Insert
   Sec. 49. Propositions Affecting Several Persons
   Sec. 50. Propositions Considered Under a Motion To Suspend the Rules
   Sec. 51. Reports From the Committee of the Whole on Amendments 
            Considered Therein
   Sec. 52. Motions To Recede and Concur

E. Postponing Votes; Clustering Votes; Reduced Voting Time; Separate 
Votes (p. 396)

   Sec. 53. Evolution of House Rules on Postponement and Reduced Voting 
            Time
   Sec. 54. Postponing Votes
   Sec. 55. Procedures During Postponed Proceedings
   Sec. 56. Postponed Proceedings and the Quorum Rule
   Sec. 57. Reduced Voting Time
   Sec. 58. Separate Votes on Amendments in the House

F. Delegate Voting (p. 469)

   Sec. 59. Delegate Voting in the Committee of the Whole

Index to Precedents (p. 513)





[[Page 11425]]


                                 Voting


 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY 
 
Sec. 1. Introduction


    The legislative power vested in the Congress by Article I of the 
Constitution (1) is implemented by the Members of the House 
and Senate by the act of voting. There are various ways in which votes 
are cast: the Constitution specifies that the ``yeas and nays'' shall 
be taken on any issue if desired by one-fifth of the Members of either 
House who are present when a question is put.(2) When the 
yeas and nays are ordered, the names of all Members responding to the 
vote are recorded in the Journal of the House or Senate, as the case 
may be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 1.
 2. Id. at Sec. 5, clause 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The yeas and nays are in the modern House taken by electronic 
means, each Member inserting his own coded card into one of the voting 
stations installed in the Chamber. They were formerly taken by a call 
of the roll, Members names being called by the Clerk, alphabetically. 
This system is still utilized on occasion when the electronic system is 
inoperable and can be specified as the method to be used on a 
particular vote by the Speaker, who is given the discretion to choose 
the voting method by a House rule.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XV clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 774b (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The roll is in special circumstances called ``by states'': on 
opening day of a new Congress, for example, a House rule requires the 
Clerk to call the roll in this fashion to determine the presence of a 
quorum.(4) Under the 12th amendment, if the House were 
called upon to choose a President, votes would be cast by states. 
Proposals to govern the conduct of this vote have been 
introduced.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Rule III clause 1 directs the Clerk to ``call the roll of Members 
        by States in alphabetical order.'' Since the advent of 
        electronic voting, this quorum call is normally, by unanimous 
        consent, conducted by the electronic device. See, e.g., 139 
        Cong. Rec. 45, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
 5. See Sec. 1.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Obviously, while critical questions usually do become the subject 
of votes of record, not every vote is taken by the constitutional 
method: many issues are decided

[[Page 11426]]

by unanimous consent or by other methods of voting prescribed by the 
rules adopted in each body. In the House of Representatives, a vast 
amount of the business, from procedural motions to amendments to the 
third reading and passage of bills, is disposed of by unanimous-consent 
requests. The Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
routinely entertain requests for legislative action phrased as 
unanimous-consent requests which are finalized ``without objection.'' 
For example, unanimous consent may be asked to ``consider'' a measure, 
in which case a vote may be demanded later when the appropriate motion 
for disposition of the matter is made. More frequently, the request may 
be to ``pass'' a bill, ``agree'' to a resolution, or ``concur'' in a 
Senate amendment. These requests may accomplish the legislative result 
without a vote, since the failure of any Member to object results in 
the adoption of the matter which is the subject of the 
request.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. An example of this principle: a unanimous-consent request to concur 
        in a Senate amendment to a House bill on the Speaker's table 
        with an amendment is not subject to a vote, the failure of any 
        Member to object resulting in the automatic adoption of the 
        proposed Senate amendment with the stated modification. See 
        Sec. 1.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the foundations of parliamentary procedure in the House is 
that the Presiding Officer, the Speaker or the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole, or Members appointed to preside ``pro 
tempore,'' will be impartial in conducting votes. Whether taken by 
voice, by division, or by one of the various forms of taking a roll 
call, the Chair's call of the result and his utilization of the voting 
mechanism must be even-handed and carried out without partisanship. 
When there is a perception that the Chair has deviated from these 
standards, Members may take great offense.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 31.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This chapter explains how the Members cast their many votes, 
including those constitutionally mandated,(8) as well as 
those prescribed (9) or permitted by House

[[Page 11427]]

rules.(10) It describes the procedures used in taking a vote 
by voice, division, tellers with clerks, and the yeas and nays as well 
as the proper parliamentary foundation which must be laid to demand a 
particular type of vote.(11) The chapter also addresses the 
priorities or precedence of certain votes,(12) the finality 
of a vote once cast,(13) and methods used to bring a vote to 
final conclusion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The only type of vote which is constitutionally mandated is the yea 
        and nay vote. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 5. The vote on sustaining 
        or overriding a Presidential veto must be taken by the yeas and 
        nays. Id. at Sec. 7.
 9. The House rules mandate a yea and nay vote where a quorum is not 
        present, an objection to a vote is made for that reason, and 
        the House does not choose to adjourn. See Rule XV clauses 4 and 
        6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 773 (1995). See also Sec. 1.3, 
        infra, for an example of a statutory requirement for a yea and 
        nay vote. A provision of law enacted as an exercise of 
        rulemaking authority can mandate the taking of a vote in a 
        prescribed manner.
10. Voice votes, division votes, and recorded votes are permitted under 
        the rules: see Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 
        (1995). Teller votes, where Members filed up the center aisle 
        of the Chamber between Members appointed to ``tell'' the vote, 
        were dropped from Rule I in the 103d Congress. Tellers with 
        clerks, a method of taking a recorded vote by depositing red, 
        green, or orange preference cards with employees of the Clerk, 
        remains as a method of voting but is normally not utilized 
        since the installation of the electronic voting system.
11. For example, demands for recorded votes and the yeas and nays 
        require ``support'' before the votes will be ordered. See 
        Sec. Sec. 23.1, 34.1, infra.
12. A demand for the yeas and nays took precedence over a demand for 
        tellers, for example. See Sec. 24.1, infra. And yet, the former 
        demand cannot interrupt a vote by division which is in 
        progress; see Sec. 10.3, infra.
13. A vote once given cannot be changed. However, a vote incorrectly 
        recorded, as on a roll call where the Clerk hears the response 
        incorrectly, may be corrected if the error in recording the 
        vote is demonstrably clear. See Sec. 6; Sec. Sec. 31.16 and 
        38.1, infra.
14. When votes were taken by a call of the roll, the possibilities for 
        error in recording a Member's vote were manifest. Close votes 
        were sometimes ``recapitulated'' to insure accuracy. See 
        Sec. 27, infra. The procedure is rarely used today, since the 
        purpose of this procedure is to guard against error on a close 
        roll call determination by allowing and encouraging Members to 
        check whether they are properly recorded. Id. On electronic 
        votes Members can see how they are recorded without repeating 
        the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also included in the chapter are precedents explaining a Member's 
responsibility to vote,(15) ethical

[[Page 11428]]

questions concerning the sanctity of the vote and new rules addressing 
the problem of ``ghost'' voting in the House (16) and the 
Speaker's authority to schedule the timing of taking a vote. Since the 
advent of electronic voting,(17) various new procedures have 
been put in place to allow the Speaker to postpone votes to a scheduled 
time and to certain voting times when votes occur ``back to back'' 
without intervening business.(18) The chapter also addresses 
the topic of dividing the question for separate votes where more than 
one topic or proposition is inherent in the question.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule VIII, Duties of the Members, specifies that ``[e]very Member 
        shall be present within the Hall of the House during its 
        sittings . . . and shall vote on each question put, unless he 
        has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of 
        such question.'' House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995). It 
        should be noted that since the advent of electronic voting and 
        the practice of permitting recorded votes in a Committee of the 
        Whole (a practice begun in 1974), the frequency of yea and nay 
        votes, recorded votes, and quorum calls has increased. Few 
        Members can claim to have responded to every such vote. On May 
        3, 1978, both the Speaker and the Minority Leader commented on 
        the unbroken record of Rep. Bill Natcher (Ky.) who on that date 
        cast his 10,000th vote without missing a quorum call or roll 
        call in his 24 years in the House. 124 Cong. Rec. 12473, 95th 
        Cong. 2d Sess. Because of illness, Rep. Natcher failed to 
        respond to a roll call on Mar. 3, 1994. His final unbroken 
        string of consecutive votes totaled 18,401. 140 Cong. Rec. p. 
        ________, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1994.
16. Rule VIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 660(b) (1995).
17. Rule I clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1995).
18. Rule I clause 5(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 631 (1995).
19. Rule XVI clause 6, provides that a ``question shall be divided if 
        it includes propositions so distinct in substance that one 
        being taken away a substantive proposition shall remain . . 
        .''. House Rules and Manual Sec. 791 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most issues that come before the House are decided by a majority 
vote, a concept which normally implies one-half plus one of the number 
voting.(20) In a strict sense, of course, the majority for 
legislative action is a majority of those voting, a quorum being 
present.(1) Occasionally, a law having the status of a House 
rule will specify that the majority necessary to a legislative action 
is measured against the authorized membership of the 
House.(2) There are exceptions where a super ma

[[Page 11429]]

jority is required. Most obvious is the vote on reconsideration of a 
bill following a Presidential veto, where the Constitution specifies 
that a two-thirds vote is required for passage over the 
veto.(3) Amendments to the Constitution also require the 
support of two-thirds for passage (4) as does the vote on 
expulsion of a Member.(5) In the 14th amendment, there is 
the little-noticed and largely obsolete requirement of a two-thirds 
vote to remove a political disability; (6) and in the 25th 
amendment, a similar vote is required to determine that the President 
is disabled and unable to carry out the responsibilities of his 
office.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jefferson's Manual states: ``. .  . The voice of the majority 
        decides; for the lex majoris partis is the law of councils, 
        elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided.'' 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 508 (1995).
 1. Rule XV clause 3 specifies the necessity of a quorum for a 
        challenged vote: ``On the demand of any Member, or at the 
        suggestion of the Speaker, the names of Members sufficient to 
        make a quorum in the Hall of the House who do not vote shall be 
        noted by the Clerk and recorded in the Journal, and reported to 
        the Speaker with the names of the Members voting, and be 
        counted and announced in determining the presence of a quorum 
        to do business.'' House Rules and Manual Sec. 772 (1995).
 2. See Sec. 8.2, infra.
 3. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7. For an interesting precedent involving a 
        House determination as to the vote-majority or two-thirds-
        required to extend the time for state ratification of a 
        constitutional amendment, see Sec. 1.5, infra.
 4. Id. at art. IV.
 5. Id. at art. I, Sec. 5.
 6. Id. at Sec. 3.
 7. Id. at Sec. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the parliamentary history of the House, certain rules have 
required a two-thirds vote for a variety of decisions. The rule 
providing for motions to suspend the rules, a special procedure now 
permitted on certain days of each week to expedite consideration of 
measures, has its origins in a rule first adopted in 
1822.(8) Other motions to disturb the established order of 
business also require two-thirds for adoption: to dispense with 
Calendar Wednesday (9) or the call of the Private 
Calendar,(10) to call up a special order on the same day 
reported from the Committee on Rules.(11) More recently, in 
the 104th Congress, the House adopted a new rule requiring a three-
fifths vote for passage of a measure containing an income tax rate 
increase (12) and put in place a Corrections Calendar (to 
replace the Consent Calendar) which specifies that a bill considered 
under this new procedure requires the approval of three-fifths of the 
Members voting, a quorum being present, for passage.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The development of the motion to suspend the rules is discussed in 
        the annotation following Rule XXVII clause 1, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 902 (1995).
 9. Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1995).
10. Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995).
11. Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729a (1995).
12. Rule XXI clause 5(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 846c (1995).
13. Rule XIII clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of the House do not specifically prescribe rules for vot

[[Page 11430]]

ing in its committees. However, since House rules are made applicable 
to its committees by the current Rule XI clause 1,(14) so 
far as applicable, it has been accepted practice to consider that the 
constitutional requirement (15) is applicable therein and to 
permit the yeas and nays to be ordered by one-fifth of those present. 
Indeed, the right to demand the yeas and nays in committee was well-
established in the 19th century.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 703 (1995).
15. Article I Section 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 75 (1995).
16. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the modern House, since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970, committees have been required to adopt written rules and to 
publish them in the Congressional Record.(17) An examination 
of those rules (18) show that committees differ as to how a 
roll call vote is ordered: in some, one Member can demand a roll call; 
in others, one-fifth of those present; in still others, one-fifth of a 
quorum. Some committee rules are silent, implicitly following the 
general rule described above. As in the House, many issues are decided 
by unanimous consent, by division, or voice votes. A bill can be 
ordered reported to the House by a non-record vote, a quorum being 
present; (19) but since the adoption of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970, the House rules now require a record of all 
roll call votes to be available for public inspection (20) 
and also mandate that ``with respect to each roll call vote on a motion 
to report any measure or matter of a public character, and on any 
amendment offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes 
cast for and against, and the names of those Members voting for and 
against, shall be included in the committee report on the measure or 
matter.'' (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XI clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 704 (1995).
18. See ``Rules Adopted by the Committees of the House of 
        Representatives,'' compiled by the Committee on Rules and 
        republished each Congress.
19. Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713c (1995).
20. Rule XI clause 2(e), House Rules and Manual Sec. 706a (1995).
 1. Rule XI clause 2(l)(2)(B), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713d 
        (1995).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting by States; Election of President by House

Sec. 1.1 A Member announced his introduction of a resolution amending 
    the rules of the House to provide for open recorded votes within 
    each

[[Page 11431]]

    state delegation when choosing a President under the 12th amendment 
    to the Constitution.

    On May 28, 1992,(2) Mr. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., of 
Wisconsin, took a special order to address his concerns regarding the 
process of ``voting by states'' under the 12th amendment.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 138 Cong. Rec. 12855, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. See 3 Hinds' Precedents, Chapter LXII, ``Election and Inauguration 
        of President,'' Sec. 1981 for the constitutional provision, 
        Article XII; Sec. Sec. 1982, 1983 for rules adopted by the 
        House in 1801, when Jefferson was chosen; Sec. 1984, 1985 when 
        President John Quincy Adams was chosen by the House in 1825.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Madam Speaker, the time has come for the 
    House of Representatives to seriously consider adopting procedures 
    should the selection of the next President of the United States 
    fall to the House of Representatives under the 12th amendment to 
    the U.S. Constitution.
        Today, I have introduced a resolution amending the permanent 
    rules of the House of Representatives to open up the process for 
    the election of a President should the House be called upon to do 
    this duty. The resolution that I have introduced is rather 
    straightforward. It adopts a new rule 54 of the Rules of the House, 
    entitled ``Procedures for Choosing a President,'' and it says:

            Whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon the House, 
        any vote of a Member from a state in determining the vote of 
        that state to choose a President shall be recorded by the Clerk 
        in open session.

        The last time the House of Representatives had to select a 
    President was in 1825 following the failure of all four candidates 
    to obtain a majority in the Electoral College in the Presidential 
    election of 1824. In looking at the precedents that were 
    established in the 1825 election of the President, it is clear that 
    two things happened.
        First, the House met in closed session with everybody except 
    House Members, stenographers, officers of the House, and Senators 
    being excluded; and second, the votes cast in each State delegation 
    were done in secret, so not only did the public not know how every 
    Representative voted in the selection of the President, but they 
    did not know how each State's vote was cast.
        At the end of the process, the Speaker of the House just 
    announced which candidates had how many States' votes and declared 
    John Quincy Adams elected President of the United States.
        Obviously, this secrecy will not do should the new House of 
    Representatives be called upon to select a President beginning 
    January 6, 1993, due to the failure of the three Presidential 
    candidates to achieve a majority in the Electoral College.
        It is incumbent upon this House of Representatives to set up 
    the ground rules now before anybody can accuse the House of trying 
    to engineer those rules to favor one candidate or the other, so 
    that the most important vote that is cast by those Representatives 
    who are elected on November 3, that is

[[Page 11432]]

    the election of the President of the United States, will be open to 
    the public and on the record.
        My resolution proposes to do that. It opens up the process so 
    that Members of the House can be accountable on how they cast this 
    very important vote should the House be called upon under the 12th 
    amendment to perform this very important function.

    Mr. Sensenbrenner's resolution (H. Res. 472) was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration but was not reported to the House.

Sec. 1.2 A unanimous-consent request to concur in Senate amendments to 
    a House bill on the Speaker's table with amendments is not subject 
    to a vote, the failure of any Member to object resulting in the 
    automatic adoption of the proposed amendments.

    On July 2, 1980,(4) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Science and Technology, Mr. Don Fuqua, of Florida, asked to take a 
House bill (H.R. 7474) with Senate amendments thereto, from the 
Speaker's table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 126 Cong. Rec. 18273, 18275, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's 
    desk the bill (H.R. 7474), providing for a research, development, 
    and demonstration program to achieve early technology applications 
    for ocean thermal energy conversion systems, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, concur in the Senate amendment to the title, and concur in 
    the Senate amendment to the text with an amendment.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Ocean Thermal Energy 
        Conversion Research, Development, and Demonstration Act''. . . 
        .

        The Clerk read the House amendment to the text of the Senate 
    amendment, as follows:

            Strike out section 10 on page 13, line 19 through page 14, 
        line 12 of the engrossed Senate amendment and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Is there objection to 
    the initial request of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Loeffler: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to ask for a vote at 
    this time? It is hard to hear.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This was just a unanimous-consent 
    request

[[Page 11433]]

    to amend the Senate amendment and there is no vote on that request.

Sec. 1.3 The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (2 USC 198) 
    requires that the concurrent resolution providing for the August 
    recess in odd-numbered years be adopted by roll call vote in each 
    House.

    Section 132(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 
provides as follows:

        Unless otherwise provided by the Congress, the two Houses 
    shall--
        (1) adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each year; or
        (2) in the case of an odd-numbered year, provide, not later 
    than July 31 of such year, by concurrent resolution adopted in each 
    House by rollcall vote, for the adjournment of the two Houses from 
    that Friday in August which occurs at least thirty days before the 
    first Monday in September (Labor Day) of such year to the second 
    day after Labor Day.
        (b) This section shall not be applicable in any year if on July 
    31 of such year a state of war exists pursuant to a declaration of 
    war by the Congress.

Sec. 1.4 The Senate, having passed by voice vote a concurrent 
    resolution providing for an August adjournment, by unanimous 
    consent reconsidered that action and the concurrent resolution was 
    subsequently adopted by roll call vote in both Houses in compliance 
    with the statute.

    In the first session of the 94th Congress, the Senate passed Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 54 by voice vote, ignoring the statutory rule 
(6) requiring a roll call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. .1.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On July 22, 1975,(7) the Senate remedied the 
    omission by reconsidering its action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 24028, 24109, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mike] Mansfield [of Montana]: Mr. President, yesterday the 
    Senate passed an adjournment resolution, Senate Concurrent 
    Resolution 54. It was my intention at that time to ask for a 
    rollcall vote. I forgot it. So I ask unanimous consent at this time 
    that the matter be reconsidered.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: (8) Without 
    objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Dale Bumpers (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mansfield: I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: Is there a sufficient second? 
    There is a sufficient second.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. Mansfield: And that the vote occur at the hour of 12 
    o'clock noon.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: Without objection, it is so 
    ordered. . . .
        Under the previous order, the Senate will now vote on Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 54. On this question the yeas and nays have 
    been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 11434]]

        The legislative clerk called the roll.
        Mr. Robert C. Byrd [of West Virginia]: I announce that the 
    Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Eastland), the Senator from Hawaii 
    (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Pell), are 
    necessarily absent.
        I also announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Hart), is 
    absent because of illness.
        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: I announce that the 
    Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Bartlett), is absent due to a death in 
    the family.

    On July 28, 1975,(9) the House took action on the Senate 
concurrent resolution and followed the statutory mandate that the 
decision be reached by a yea and nay vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 25220, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    take this time to advise the House that the Speaker will lay before 
    the House Senate Concurrent Resolution 54, providing for an 
    adjournment of the two Houses from Friday, August 1, 1975, until 
    Wednesday, September 3, 1975.
        The Senate adopted this concurrent resolution on July 22 and 
    under section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as 
    amended, both Houses must vote by rollcall to adjourn for this 
    period. Since under the precedents an adjournment resolution of 
    this sort is not debatable, I have taken this time for the 
    convenience of the Members to notify them of the forthcoming vote.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    majority leader yield?
        Mr. O'Neill: I yield to the minority leader.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I support the Senate concurrent 
    resolution. . . .
        The Speaker laid before the House the Senate concurrent 
    resolution (S. Con. Res. 54) providing for a conditional 
    adjournment of the Congress from August 1, 1975, until September 3, 
    1975.
        The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:

                              S. Con. Res. 54

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Friday, August 
        1, 1975, they stand adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on 
        Wednesday, September 3, 1975, or until 12 o'clock noon on the 
        second day after their respective Members are notified to 
        reassemble in accordance with section 2 of this resolution, 
        whichever event first occurs.
            Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
        President pro tempore of the Senate shall notify the Members of 
        the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever 
        in their opinion the public interest shall warrant it or 
        whenever the majority leader of the House and the majority 
        leader of the Senate, acting jointly, or the minority leader of 
        the House and the minority leader of the Senate, acting 
        jointly, file a written request with the Clerk of the House and 
        the Secretary of the Senate that the Congress reassemble for 
        the consideration of legislation.
            Sec. 3. During the adjournment of both Houses of Congress 
        as provided in section 1, the Secretary of the Senate and the 
        Clerk of the House, respectively, be, and they hereby are, 
        authorized to receive messages, including veto messages, from 
        the President of the United States.

[[Page 11435]]

        The Speaker: (10) Under the law, the vote on this 
    Senate concurrent resolution must be taken by the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    293, nays 109, not voting 32, as follows: . . .

Sec. 1.5 The House laid on the table a resolution called up under a 
    question of the privileges of the House declaring that a two-thirds 
    vote was necessary to pass a joint resolution extending the 
    ratification period for a constitutional amendment previously 
    submitted to the states; and in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    on the vote required to pass a joint resolution extending the 
    period for state ratification of a constitutional amendment, the 
    Speaker stated that the House had determined that a majority vote 
    was required, by laying on the table a (privileged) resolution 
    asserting that a two-thirds vote was required.

    Section 508, Jefferson's Manual, states ``The voice of the majority 
decides; for the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, 
elections, &c., where not otherwise express-ly provided.'' A super-
majority is required in article V: ``The Congress, whenever two thirds 
of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to 
this Constitution. . . .'' Since 1917 Congress has, when proposing a 
constitutional amendment, provided in the joint resolution a time limit 
within which the requisite number of states must ratify; in four cases 
since that date the time limit has appeared in the text of the 
constitutional amendment, but since the 23d amendment has appeared 
independently in the proposing clause (with the apparent intent of not 
``cluttering'' the Constitution with irrelevant past time limits). 
Early in the 95th Congress the Parliamentarian's office began receiving 
inquiries, principally from the Subcommittee on Civil and 
Constitutional Rights, as to the required vote on a joint resolution to 
extend the time limit for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment 
(submitted to the states in March 1972), where the joint resolution 
referred to the joint resolution proposing the amendment but neither 
amended it nor the text of the constitutional amendment.
    The report of the Committee on the Judiciary (11) stated 
that the joint resolution extending the ratification period could be 
adopted

[[Page 11436]]

by a majority vote, but the issue was one on which the House was 
clearly divided. On Aug. 15, 1978, Mr. James H. Quillen, of Ten-nessee, 
offered House Resolution 1315, as a question of privilege. The 
proceedings were as indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Rept. No. 95-1405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Quillen: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks I 
    shall offer a resolution involving a question of the privileges of 
    the House and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. Speaker, the ``Resolved'' clause of my resolution demands a 
    two-thirds vote on final passage of the constitutional resolution 
    extending the ERA. At the appropriate time I will offer my 
    privileged resolution.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen) that now is the time for the 
    gentleman to offer his resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Quillen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the 
    privileges of the House and offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 
    1315) involving a question of the privileges of the House, and I 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        First, the Chair will state that he has had an opportunity to 
    examine the resolution as offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
    (Mr. Quillen), and in the opinion of the Chair the resolution 
    presents a question of the privileges of the House and may be 
    considered under rule IX of the rules of the House.
        The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1315

            Whereas H.J. Res. 638 of this Congress amends H.J. Res. 208 
        of the 92nd Congress, proposing an amendment to the 
        Constitution;

            Whereas H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd Congress was passed by an 
        affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members present and 
        voting, as required by Article V of the Constitution, and 
        submitted for ratification on March 22, 1972;
            Whereas the integrity of the process by which the House 
        considers changes to H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd Congress would 
        be violated if H.J. Res. 638 were passed by a simple majority 
        of the Members present and voting; and
            Whereas the constitutional prerogatives of the House to 
        propose amendments to the Constitution and to impose necessary 
        conditions thereto in accordance with Article V of the 
        Constitution would be abrogated if H.J. Res. 638 were passed by 
        a simple majority of the Members present and voting;
            Resolved, That an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
        Members present and voting, a quorum being present, shall be 
        required on final passage of H.J. Res. 638.

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, I move to table 
    the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Quillen: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    230, nays 183, not voting 19, as follows: . . .

[[Page 11437]]

        So the motion to table was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Edwards) to offer a motion.
        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Speaker, upon the conclusion of our 
    consideration of House Joint Resolution 638, including the adoption 
    of any amendments to it, when the question is put on the final 
    passage of that resolution, must the vote of the House to adopt the 
    joint resolution be by a simple majority of those present and 
    voting or by two-thirds of those present and voting?
        The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry raised by 
    the gentleman from California, the Chair feels that the action of 
    the House in laying on the table House Resolution 1315 was an 
    indication by the House that a majority of the Members feel a 
    majority vote is required for the final passage of House Joint 
    Resolution 638. The Chair would cite the precedent contained in 
    Cannon's VIII, section 2660, that affirmative action on a motion to 
    lay on the table, while not a technical rejection, is in effect an 
    adverse disposition equivalent to rejection.
        The Chair, by ruling that House Resolution 1315 properly raised 
    a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX, believed 
    it essential that the question of the vote required to pass House 
    Joint Resolution 638 be decided by the House itself. The House now 
    having laid that resolution on the table, the Chair feels that the 
    result of such a vote, combined with the guidance on this question 
    furnished by the Committee on the Judiciary on page 6 of its 
    report, justifies the Chair in responding that, following the 
    expression of the House, House Joint Resolution 638 will be 
    messaged to the Senate if a majority of those present and voting, a 
    quorum being present, vote for passage.
        Mr. Wiggins: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wiggins: Do I understand the ruling of the Chair correctly 
    to be that a vote not to consider a privileged resolution is 
    equivalent to a rejection of the text of the resolution itself?
        The Speaker: The vote was not on the question of consideration. 
    The Chair will state that he believes he has answered the question 
    raised in the gentleman's original inquiry. The Chair has stated 
    that a motion to table is an adverse disposition.
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Speaker, I understood the answer, then, to be 
    ``Yes''?
        The Speaker: The answer is ``Yes.''



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 2. Stating and Putting the Question

    Reaching a decision on a motion before the House or the Committee 
of the Whole involves several distinct steps. After debate has 
terminated, the Chair first states the question: ``The question

[[Page 11438]]

is on the motion offered by the Gentleman from ____.'' The Chair's 
statement defines the issue to be voted upon.(13) The Chair 
then puts the question: ``Those in favor of the motion will say aye, 
those opposed will say no.'' The type of vote is then within the 
control of the Members, who can ask for a division, recorded vote, or--
in the House--the yeas and nays.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
14. The precise rule which governs the action of the Chair--Rule 1 
        clause 5(a)--is as follows:
            ``He shall rise to put a question, but may state it 
        sitting; and shall put questions in this form, to wit: ``As 
        many as are in favor (as the question may be), say `Aye'.''; 
        and after the affirmative voice is expressed, ``As many as are 
        opposed, say `No'.''; if he doubts, or a division is called 
        for, the House shall divide; those in the affirmative of the 
        question shall first rise from their seats, and then those in 
        the negative. If any Member requests a recorded vote and that 
        request is supported by at least one-fifth of a quorum, such 
        vote shall be taken by electronic device, unless the Speaker in 
        his discretion orders clerks to tell the names of those voting 
        on each side of the question, and such names shall be recorded 
        by electronic device or by clerks, as the case may be, and 
        shall be entered in the Journal, together with the names of 
        those not voting. Members shall have not less than fifteen 
        minutes to be counted from the ordering of the recorded vote or 
        the ordering of clerks to tell the vote.'' See House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 629 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The order in which motions or questions are put to the House is 
dictated by rules, either standing or special. A standing rule may 
establish the ``regular order'' of considering issues. A special order 
reported from the Committee on Rules or otherwise brought to the House 
for consideration and adoption may specify a ``unique order'' for 
consideration of amendments.
    Rule XIX, e.g., structures the order of voting when several 
amendments are pending--an amendment tree--and also specifies that the 
title of a bill or resolution is amended only after the text is agreed 
to.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (1995). See also Ch. 27, 
        Sec. Sec. 19.4-19.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jefferson's Manual states that the ``natural order in considering 
and amending any paper is, to begin at the beginning, and proceed 
through it by paragraphs;'' with a ``single exception found in 
parliamentary usage.'' (16) The preamble is considered and 
amended after the text has been perfected and agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 413, 414 (1995). See also Ch. 24, 
        Sec. Sec. 9.9-9.13, supra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 2.6-2.8, supra.

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

[[Page 11439]]

Chair's Statement as Controlling

Sec. 2.1 A motion as stated by the Chair in putting the question and 
    not as stated by the Member in offering the motion, is the 
    proposition voted upon.

    On Dec. 4, 1963,(18) the House having resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole in order to consider a bill (H.R. 6196) 
to revitalize the cotton industry, Mr. Charles B. Hoeven, of Iowa, 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute requiring the 
Secretary of Agriculture to make yearly adjustments in cotton price 
supports and to conduct a research program to reduce the cost of upland 
cotton production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 23300, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following some discussion of the proposed amendment, Mr. William R. 
Poage, of Texas, moved (19) that ``all debate on this 
amendment close at 4 o'clock.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 23305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In presenting the question, however, the Chairman (20) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poage] moves that all debate on 
    this amendment and all amendments thereto close at 4 o'clock. The 
    question is on the motion of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poage].

    While the motion passed, the Chair's phrasing prompted the 
following exchange:

        Mr. [M.G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. I understood the gentleman to propose that all debate on 
    this amendment close at 4 o'clock, and I understood the Chair to 
    say ``this amendment and all amendments thereto.''
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Snyder: Which is it?
        The Chairman: ``And all amendments thereto'' is the way the 
    Chair put it: ``This amendment and all amendments thereto'' is the 
    way the Chair put the question.

    Thus, the Chair's statement of the question is preeminent.

Sec. 2.2 Where a Member asks for a recorded vote in the House, but the 
    Chair interprets the request as a demand for the yeas and nays and 
    puts the question in that fashion (``Those in favor of taking this 
    vote by the yeas and nays will rise''), it is the Chair's statement 
    of the issue, not the Member's request, which governs whether one-
    fifth of a quorum or one-fifth of those present will constitute a 
    sufficient second. Since the constitutional demand for the yeas and 
    nays always takes precedence, and since the Chair himself has the 
    right to make

[[Page 11440]]

    that demand, the Chair can force the yeas and nays when he chooses 
    to do so.

    On Oct. 1, 1981, a resolution disapproving an action of the 
District of Columbia Council was before the House. When a motion was 
made to proceed to its consideration, a Member asked for a recorded 
vote on that motion. The Speaker Pro Tempore, James J. Howard, of New 
Jersey, interpreted the demand as one for the yeas and nays. The 
proceedings were as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 22760, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   motion offered by mr. philip m. crane

        Mr. Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Philip M. Crane moves that the House proceed to the 
        immediate consideration of House Resolution 208 pursuant to 
        section 604(g) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
        Governmental Reorganization Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-127(g)).

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Philip M. Crane).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    request a recorded vote.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman asks for the yeas and 
    nays. All Members wishing the yeas and nays will rise and remain 
    standing until counted.
        The Chair will count the House.
        One hundred and fifty-seven Members are present; thirty-four 
    having stood, a sufficient number, the yeas and nays are ordered.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked for a recorded 
    vote, I believe, which requires 44 Members.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair put the question for the 
    yeas and nays. The Chair counted for the yeas and nays, the Chair 
    would inform the gentleman.
        The yeas and nays are ordered. Members will cast their vote by 
    electronic device.

Only Chair Puts Question

Sec. 2.3 Votes on questions may be put only by the Chair; and it is not 
    in order for a Member having the floor in debate to ask for a show 
    of support for a certain proposition.

    It is not within the rules for a Member, during debate, to ask his 
colleagues to show whether they support, or would support, an amendment 
or a bill drafted in a certain form. Putting the question

[[Page 11441]]

is the prerogative of the Chair and it is not in order to seek informal 
expressions of support. On May 5, 1955,(2) Chairman Robert 
L. F. Sikes, of Florida, had occasion to make such a ruling: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 101 Cong. Rec. 5778, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. A similar ruling was given by Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
        Kentucky, on Apr. 27, 1977, 123 Cong. Rec. 12548, 95th Cong. 
        1st Sess. In the 104th Congress, a similar admonition was made 
        that Members in debate should ``not conduct straw polls in the 
        House.'' Speaker Pro Tempore Robert Goodlatte, of Virginia; 141 
        Cong. Rec. p. __, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 18, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the necessary number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I supported the rigid price-support program and I 
    intend to do it again today. I supported the peanut amendment last 
    year, and I did yesterday, but I am beginning to wonder whether or 
    not the victory that was accomplished on the peanut amendment 
    yesterday was not brought about at least by some people who want to 
    scuttle the entire program and see this bill defeated.
        I have noticed that most of our Republican colleagues walked 
    through the tellers yesterday in support of the peanut amendment. I 
    ask now how many of them who voted for the peanut amendment 
    yesterday will vote for this bill if the peanut amendment remains 
    in the bill? Those of you who will, please do me the favor of 
    rising in your seats.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I object to that as being contrary to the rules. The 
    gentleman has no right to call for a rising vote.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed in order.
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield so that I may answer his question?
        Mr. Multer: No, I will yield at this point only for a show of 
    hands or a rising by those Members on the left-hand side of the 
    aisle who will vote for this bill with the peanut amendment in it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The 
    gentleman is out of order, and under the rules his request should 
    be stricken from the record.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's point of order is well taken. 
    Questions can be put only by the Chair. The Chair trusts the 
    gentleman will proceed in order.

Sec. 2.4 An amendment which is ``accepted'' by the bill manager must 
    still be voted upon.

    The fact that the majority and minority managers of the bill or 
issue before the House ``accept'' the motion or amendment does not 
relieve the Chair of the necessity of stating and putting the question. 
The proceedings of Feb. 27, 1980,(4) are illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 126 Cong. Rec. 4095, 4096, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 11442]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 5, immediately after 
        line 8 insert the following new subsection:
            ``(k) Up to one per centum of the funds made available to 
        Nicaragua from amounts authorized in subsection (b) shall be 
        used to make publicly known to the people of Nicaragua the 
        extent of U.S. aid programs to them. The President shall 
        periodically report to the Congress on the effectiveness of his 
        efforts to carry out this subsection.''

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin.
        Mr. Zablocki: I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, I sort of feel a bit embarrassed that I am 
    accepting all of these amendments, but since we are being very 
    cooperative, we have had an opportunity to read and study the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). 
    Certainly we want to identify U.S. aid to Nicaragua. On behalf of 
    this side and on behalf of many of the majority, we accept the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    requisite number of words.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        We have not voted on the amendment.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Harkin) is entitled to move to strike the requisite number of 
    words, to debate the amendment, even though it has been accepted by 
    both sides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: I yield to the 
    gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, we are about 
    to vote here in a second on this amendment, which has been 
    accepted, and I would just like to say to my colleagues that we 
    have had many days now of very fine cooperation, thorough debate on 
    many issues before us on this bill. We are down to about the last 
    amendment. I believe there is one more amendment on that side of 
    the aisle. I am not sure, but I believe that is right. And with a 
    little cooperation we can finish this bill. I would urge the 
    continued cooperation of my colleagues.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        The amendment was agreed to.

An Amendment Identical to One Previously Adopted Must Still Be Voted 
    Upon

Sec. 2.5 Where the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to a unanimous-
    consent agreement, permitted identical amendments to two 
    propositions to be considered and debated at the same time, the 
    Chair still put the question on the two propositions separately, 
    causing the Com

[[Page 11443]]

    mittee to vote first on the perfecting amendment to the original 
    text and then on the identical amendment offered to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.

    On July 12, 1988,(6) the House had resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of the Defense Savings Act, 
1988 (H.R. 4481). The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 134 Cong. Rec. 17757, 17762, 17763, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. armey

        Mr. [Richard K.] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Armey: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
        section 1. short title.

            This act may be cited as the ``Defense Savings Act of 
        1988.''
        sec. 2. closure and realignment of military installations.

            This Secretary of Defense shall-- . . .

    amendment offered by mr. porter to the amendment in the nature of a 
                      substitute offered by mr. armey

        Mr. [John E.] Porter [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Porter to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Armey: In section 4(b), 
        strike out ``The'' in the first sentence and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``Subject to paragraph (2), the''.
            At the end of section 4(b), add the following new 
        paragraph:
            (2) Not more than one-half of the professional staff of the 
        Commission shall be individuals who have been employed by the 
        Department of Defense during calendar year 1988.

        Mr. Porter: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment be made in order both to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and to 
    the committee bill.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Illinois to making the amendment in order to 
    both the committee print and to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Harold L. Volkmer (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, let me make a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Can the gentleman from Illinois offer his 
    amendment to both pieces of legislation simultaneously?
        The Chairman: Unanimous consent was given to offer the 
    amendment simultaneously to both of the pending texts, since both 
    texts are pending and open to separate amendment at any point. So 
    the amendments are now pending to both. Under parliamentary 
    procedure, the amendment will be first

[[Page 11444]]

    voted upon to the original bill and then it will be voted upon as 
    offered to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas. . . 
    
        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, what are we going to vote on? What is 
    the parliamentary procedure?
        The Chairman: If there is no further discussion on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, the Chair will 
    put the question. The question will be first put as to the 
    amendment to the print, being considered as original text, and the 
    Chair will now do that.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Porter] to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
        The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was agreed to.

Preamble Amendments

Sec. 2.6 When the Committee of the Whole has perfected the body and 
    then the preamble of a concurrent resolution and the Committee 
    rises, the Speaker puts the question on separate votes on 
    amendments and then on agreeing to the resolution (including the 
    preamble).

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a concurrent resolution 
(H. Con. Res. 570) expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to 
the then-volatile situation in Berlin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 22620, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of considering the resolution, the Committee 
perfected both the body and the preamble,(9) whereupon it 
rose, and the Chairman (10) reported the resolution back to 
the House with the amendments adopted by the Committee. Under the rule, 
the Speaker (11) then ordered the previous question and 
asked if any of the Members sought a separate vote on any amendment. No 
such request having been made, the amendments were considered en gross 
and agreed to. The Chair then put the question on the concurrent 
resolution in accordance with appropriate procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 22636, 22637.
10. Samuel S. Stratton (N.Y.).
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.7 Where a joint resolution is reported to the House from the 
    Committee of the Whole with amendments to the body and preamble, 
    the Speaker puts the question: (1) on the amendment to the

[[Page 11445]]

    body; (2) on engrossment of the joint resolution; (3) on the 
    amendment to the preamble; (4) on the third reading of the joint 
    resolution; and (5) on passage of the joint resolution.

    On Aug. 18, 1972,(12) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 1227) to provide congressional approval of an interim 
agreement on limitation of strategic offensive arms. During the course 
of the discussion, the Committee amended both the body and the preamble 
of the resolution after which it rose (13) under the rule 
and reported the resolution back to the House with the adopted 
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 29095, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Id. at p. 29126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter,(14) the Speaker (15) put the 
appropriate questions in the proper procedural order as the following 
excerpt indicates:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 29127.
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        The question is on the amendment to the text of the joint 
    resolution.
        The amendment to the text of the joint resolution was agreed 
    to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the preamble.
        The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the third reading of the joint 
    resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a Senate joint resolution is 
considered in the House, the question is put separately on the preamble 
only if there are amendments to be considered thereto.

Sec. 2.8 A motion to strike all after the resolving clause of a 
    concurrent resolution does not affect the preamble thereof; and a 
    motion to strike out the preamble is properly offered after the 
    resolution has been agreed to.

    On Feb. 21, 1966,(16) the House considered a Senate 
concurrent resolution, the text of which was identical to a House-
passed resolution, differing only in that the Senate resolution carried 
a preamble. The proceedings for eliminating the preamble are carried 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 3473, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 552) 
    recognizing

[[Page 11446]]

    the 50th anniversary of the chartering by act of Congress of the 
    Boy Scouts of America. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to 
    the present consideration of the concurrent resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There being no objection, the Clerk read the House concurrent 
    resolution, as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 552

            Whereas June 15, 1966, will mark the fiftieth anniversary 
        of the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy 
        Scouts of America;
            Whereas the Boy Scouts of America was the first youth 
        organization to be granted a charter by Act of Congress;
            Whereas the Congress has been kept informed of the programs 
        and activities of the Boy Scouts of America through the annual 
        reports made to it each year by this organization in accordance 
        with such charter.
            Whereas these programs and activities have been designed to 
        instill in boys the moral and ethical principles, and the 
        habits, practices, and attitudes, which are conducive to good 
        character, citizenship, and health; and
            Whereas, by fostering in the youth of the Nation those 
        qualities upon which our strength as a Nation is dependent, the 
        Boy Scouts of America has made a contribution of inestimable 
        value to the welfare of the entire Nation: Therefore be it
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby pay tribute to the Boy 
        Scouts of America on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary 
        of the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy 
        Scouts of America, and expresses its recognition of and 
        appreciation for the public service performed by this 
        organization through its contributions to the lives of the 
        Nation's youth.

        The concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.
        The following committee amendment was agreed to:

            On pages 1 and 2, strike all ``Whereas'' clauses.

        Mr. [Arch A.] Moore [Jr., of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the present consideration of Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 68, which is similar to House Concurrent 
    Resolution 552.
        The Clerk called the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
    68).
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the present consideration of 
    the Senate concurrent resolution?
        There was no objection.
        There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate concurrent 
    resolution, as follows:

                                S. Con. Res. 68

            Whereas June 15, 1966, will mark the fiftieth anniversary 
        of the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy 
        Scouts of America;
            Whereas the Boy Scouts of America was the first youth 
        organization to be granted a charter by Act of Congress;
            Whereas the Congress has been kept informed of the programs 
        and activities of the Boy Scouts of America through the annual 
        reports made to it each year by this organization in accordance 
        with such charter;
            Whereas these programs and activities have been designed to 
        instill in boys the moral and ethical principles, and the 
        habits, practices, and

[[Page 11447]]

        attitudes, which are conducive to good character, citizenship, 
        and health; and
            Whereas, by fostering in the youth of the Nation those 
        qualities upon which our strength as a Nation is dependent, the 
        Boy Scouts of America has made a contribution of inestimable 
        value to the welfare of the entire Nation: Therefore be it
            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby pays tribute to the Boy 
        Scouts of America on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary 
        of the granting by Act of Congress of the charter of the Boy 
        Scouts of America, and expresses its recognition of and 
        appreciation for the public service performed by this 
        organization through its contributions to the lives of the 
        Nation's youth.

        Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moore: Strike out all after the 
        enacting clause and insert the provisions of House Concurrent 
        Resolution 552 as passed.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the purpose of the gentleman from 
    West Virginia to strike out the preamble?
        Mr. Moore: My amendment would strike out the language of the 
    Senate concurrent resolution and substitute in lieu thereof the 
    language of the concurrent resolution just passed by the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the amendment of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia strike out the preamble or all after the 
    enacting clause and substitute the language of the House concurrent 
    resolution just passed?
        Mr. Moore: It would strike out all after the enacting clause.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That would not eliminate the preamble.
        Mr. Moore: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the preamble.
        The Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment of 
    the gentleman from West Virginia.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Moore moves to strike out the preamble.

        The amendment was agreed to.
        A similar House concurrent resolution was laid on the table.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 3. Duty To Vote

    In the First Congress, a rule was adopted which specified that ``no 
Member shall vote on any question in the event of which he is 
immediately and particularly interested; or in any case where he was 
not present when the question was put.'' (18) Another rule, 
adopted on the same day, Apr. 7, 1789, provided that ``every Member who 
shall be in the House when a question is put shall vote on the one side 
or the other, unless the House for special reasons shall excuse 
him;''.(19) Finally, on Apr. 13, 1789, the House

[[Page 11448]]

mandated ``that no Member absent himself from the service of the House, 
unless he have leave or be sick and unable to attend;''.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See House Journal, First Cong. 1st Sess., p. 9, for adoption of 
        ``old rule 29,'' on Apr. 7, 1789.
19. First Cong. 1st Sess., Rule 31.
20. First Cong. 1st Sess., Journal p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 104th Congress, the corresponding clauses of Rule VIII 
address the same concepts. Clause 3, although implicitly a part of the 
accepted norms of House behavior, was not adopted until ``ghost 
voting'' problems surfaced in the House following the utilization of 
the electronic voting system.(1) The rule reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1 127 Cong. Rec. 98-113, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 
        1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Rule VIII. Duties of the Members.
        Clause 1. Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the 
    House during its sittings, unless excused or necessarily prevented; 
    and shall vote on each question put, unless he has a direct 
    personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question. . . .
        Clause 3. (a) A Member may not authorize any other individual 
    to cast his vote or record his presence in the House or Committee 
    of the Whole.
        (b) No individual other than a Member may cast a vote or record 
    a Member's presence in the House or Committee of the Whole.
        (c) A Member may not cast a vote for any other Member or record 
    another Member's presence in the House or Committee of the Whole.

    In the 94th Congress, the House adopted a new provision to the Code 
of Official Conduct. Rule XLIII clause 10,(2) states that a 
Member of the House who pleads guilty to, or is convicted of, a crime 
for which the sentence could be two or more years imprisonment should 
refrain from voting in the House or its committees, including the 
Committee of the Whole, until judicial or executive proceedings 
reinstate the Member's presumption of innocence or until he is 
reelected to the House after his conviction.(3) The power of 
the House to deprive a Member of the right to vote on any question is 
certainly doubtful.(4) Clause 10 is not mandatory, but 
``directory.'' (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 839 (1995).
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 10340, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 16, 1975.
 4. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5952; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3072.
 5. See Sec. 3.2, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal or Pecuniary Interest, Member's Determination

Sec. 3.1 Observance of the requirement of Rule VIII, clause 1 that each 
    Member shall vote unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary 
    interest in the question, is the responsibility of the individual 
    Member. And the

[[Page 11449]]

    Speaker has indicated that he would not rule on a point of order 
    challenging the personal or pecuniary interest of Members in a 
    pending question, but would defer to the judgment of each Member as 
    to the directness of their interest.

    On June 27, 1972,(6) the House entertained consideration 
of a resolution (H. Res. 1021) providing for the consideration of a 
bill (H.R. 15390) to extend the then-temporary level of the public debt 
limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 22548, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the resolution's consideration, Mr. Durward G. 
Hall, of Missouri, sought to elicit an indication from the Speaker 
(7) as to whether the Chair intended to direct the Members 
with respect to assessing their own pecuniary interest in voting on the 
measure, as the following exchange (8) reveals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 22554, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to rule 
    VIII,(9) pertinent to the duties of Members, clause 657, 
    which involves personal interest, stating in part: ``Unless he has 
    a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such 
    question.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, leading up to the parliamentary 
    inquiry, section 659 says:

            It is a principle of ``immemorial observance'' that a 
        Member should withdraw when a question concerning himself 
        arises . . .

        Now, Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is, in view of the 
    Reorganization Act of 1970, and even prior to that, the 
    establishment of the Standing Committee on the Conduct and 
    Standards of Ethics of Members, inasmuch as it has become common 
    knowledge as the result of reportorial objective enterprise that 
    there are over 190 Members, including the gentleman from Missouri, 
    that have pecuniary interest in banks and monetary exchange, would 
    it be the intention of the Speaker to see that rule VIII applies in 
    the vote on the previous question?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    precedents under the rule to which the gentleman makes reference 
    are clear that the Speaker has usually held that the Member himself 
    should determine the question. It is a question for the conscience 
    of the Member.
        Mr. Hall: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Unless a point of order were made based on this rule 
    it would not be the intention of the Chair to direct the Members 
    that they should as a matter of conscience assess their own

[[Page 11450]]

    pecuniary interest in voting on such a matter?
        The Speaker: The Chair would leave the matter of conscience to 
    each Member's own judgment.

Point of Order Raised Against Vote

Sec. 3.2 Where a Member had voted on a motion to permit the reading in 
    debate of a court transcript on which a pending resolution for his 
    expulsion was in part based, the Chair overruled a point of order 
    that such Member was prohibited because of his personal interest in 
    the question from voting thereon, since the more recent precedents 
    within the last 100 years indicate that it is the responsibility of 
    each Member, and not of the Speaker, to determine whether he has a 
    direct personal or pecuniary interest so as to prevent him from 
    voting under Rule VIII.

        On Mar. 1, 1979,(10) Mr. Newt Gingrich, of Georgia, 
    rose to a question of privilege. The pertinent proceedings relating 
    to Rule VIII are shown below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746, 3747, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the 
    privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 142) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 142

            Resolved, That Charles C. Diggs, Jr., a Representative from 
        the Thirteenth District of Michigan, is hereby expelled from 
        the House of Representatives.

                        motion offered by mr. wright

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wright moves to refer House Resolution 142 to the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Wright) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich). . . .

        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Virginia (Mr. Butler). . . .
        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: . . . I will tell you, 
    however, that I have read the testimony of Charles Diggs under oath 
    before the court and in my opinion he affirmatively stated and 
    admitted sufficient acts to constitute grounds for his expulsion 
    today. Here again, I would prefer it to be determined with the 
    recommendation of the appropriate committee and under more regular 
    procedures await that process; but when the gentleman from Michigan 
    insists on continued participation, then I have no choice but to 
    share the facts I have now.

[[Page 11451]]

        Bear in mind, I have not read the entire record. I make no 
    representation about that. I only deal with what the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Diggs) had to say on the charges against him. There 
    are 29. My time is limited. I will only deal with samples, but I 
    represent that these are fair samples.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, the Member in the well 
    is going to attempt to read from a transcript in a trial. 
    Ordinarily, I would have no objection to that if this body had 
    constituted itself as a body to try Mr. Diggs. It has not done so. 
    I have strenuous objections to reading any portion of that 
    transcript when this body is not so constituted to receive that 
    information.
        Number two. Mr. Speaker, in doing so, if he is permitted to do 
    so, is not the Member usurping authority of the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct?
        I strenuously object to the reading of any portion of this 
    transcript.
        The Speaker: The gentleman objects to the reading?
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker; any portion 
    of the transcript, whether it is printed in the Record or not, I do 
    not care. I object to its being read before this body as presently 
    constituted.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Virginia can continue to 
    debate, but he cannot continue to read without the permission of 
    the House.
        Mr. Butler: Mr. Speaker, may I have the permission of the House 
    to read from the transcript?
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I object to granting 
    permission for the reading of the transcript.
        The Speaker: The question is: Shall the gentleman from Virginia 
    be permitted to read the document? The question is on that matter.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland demands the yeas and 
    nays.
        Those in favor of taking this by the yeas and nays will arise.
        In the opinion of the Chair, a sufficient number have arisen. 
    The yeas and nays will be ordered. . . .
        The Members will proceed to vote. Those in favor will vote 
    ``aye,'' those opposed will vote ``no.''
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    353, nays 53, not voting 26, as follows: . . .
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Arizona will state it.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the electronic device by which the 
    House votes indicates that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Diggs) 
    has voted on the question which the House just considered. I would 
    like to make a point of order against the vote by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Diggs)

[[Page 11452]]

    based on rule VIII, clause 1, which of course states:

            Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the House 
        during its sittings, unless excused or necessarily prevented; 
        and shall vote on each question put, unless he has a direct 
        personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question.
            In making the point of order, I submit that the gentleman 
        from Michigan clearly has a personal interest in the question 
        just decided.

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule on the gentleman's 
    point of order. For the information particularly of the new Members 
    as to how the pending vote came about, it is stated in the Rules of 
    the House that a Member cannot read from a document upon which the 
    House will not vote without the permission of the House. In this 
    instance the gentleman was going to read from the records of the 
    court. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) objected. This 
    has happened in the past.
        It was on December 19, 1974, that there was an objection to the 
    reading from a paper by the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Abzug, 
    and the House voted that she could read from the paper.
        The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) has addressed himself 
    in an inquiry to the Chair on the application of rule VIII, clause 
    1, providing that each Member shall vote on each question unless he 
    has a direct personal or pecuniary interest therein.
        Speaker Clark held that the question of whether a Member's 
    interest was such as to disqualify him from voting was an issue for 
    the Member himself to decide and that the Speaker did not have the 
    prerogative to rule against the constitutional right of a Member to 
    represent his constituency.
        Speaker Blaine stated that the power of the House to deprive 
    one of its Members of the right to vote on any question was 
    doubtful.
        The Chair has been able to discover only two recorded instances 
    in the history of the House where the Speaker has declared a Member 
    disqualified from voting. The last decision occurred over 100 years 
    ago.
        Because the Chair severely doubts his authority to deprive the 
    constitutional right of a Member to vote, and because of the 
    overwhelming weight of precedent, the Chair holds that each Member 
    should make his or her own determination whether or not a personal 
    or pecuniary interest in a pending matter should cause him to 
    withhold his vote. The point of order is overruled.
        So the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Butler) was allowed to 
    read.

For Medical Reasons

Sec. 3.3 A Member may be excused from voting for medical reasons only 
    by the House; the Committee of the Whole has no such authority, 
    even by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(12) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
2362) to strengthen and improve edu

[[Page 11453]]

cational quality and educational opportunities in the nation's 
elementary and secondary schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 6096, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Adam C. Powell, 
of New York, asked unanimous consent that Mr. Charles E. Bennett, of 
Florida, and Mr. Elmer J. Holland, of Pennsylvania, be excused from any 
teller votes. Although both of these Members were present, Mr. Bennett 
had a broken leg and was confined to a wheelchair; and Mr. Holland was 
recovering from a severe stroke and found walking difficult.
    The Chairman (13) was unable to permit the Powell 
request, however, stating that ``That is not in order in the Committee 
of the Whole. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstentions and Announcements Thereof

Sec. 3.4 Two Members abstained from voting on a bill [to increase 
    compensation for service-connected disabilities for veterans] in 
    which they had a pecuniary interest.

    On Apr. 2, 1962,(14) Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, moved 
to suspend the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 10743) to amend title 38 of 
the United States Code. The purposes of the bill were to provide 
increases in the rates of service-connected disability compensation to 
reflect the change which had occurred in the cost of living since the 
previous compensation increase in 1957 and to more adequately 
compensate the nation's seriously disabled veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 5561, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following discussion of the motion, the Speaker (15) put 
the question.(16) It was taken; and, the yeas and nays 
having been ordered, there were--yeas 347, answered ``present'' 2, not 
voting 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 5568, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two Members voting ``present'' were Mr. Robert H. Michel, of 
Illinois, and Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi. Both of the 
aforementioned Members possessed service-connected 
disabilities.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. In an earlier instance, the same Mr. Williams along with Mr. 
        Charles E. Potter (Mich.), notified the Speaker that they would 
        be personally affected by a bill (S. 1864) to authorize the 
        Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to purchase automobiles for 
        certain disabled veterans. Accordingly, each indicated that he 
        felt compelled to vote ``present.'' See 97 Cong. Rec. 13746, 
        82d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 20, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.5 A Member announced a disqualifying personal inter

[[Page 11454]]

    est in a pending bill [pertaining to marketing orders on pears] and 
    stated his intention to vote ``present'' on the issue.

    On Sept. 9, 1968,(18) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
10564) to amend section 2(3), section 8c(2), and section 8c(6)(I) of 
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended. The 
purpose of the bill was to add pears for canning or freezing to the 
list of commodities for which federal marketing orders may be made 
applicable and to permit the inclusion of a checkoff for marketing 
promotion projects, including paid advertising for the commodity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 114 Cong. Rec. 26035, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Charles S. Gubser, 
of California, felt compelled to make the following statement: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 26038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I am the owner and operator of a small pear 
    orchard. So, obviously, I have a personal interest in this matter 
    which I construe as a conflict of interest. I therefore take this 
    time to announce to the membership of the House that if a rollcall 
    is held on this bill, I shall vote ``present.''

Sec. 3.6 A Member announced that he had not voted on a roll call 
    because of a pecuniary interest in the legislation, which dealt 
    with urban renewal.

    On July 27, 1965,(20) the House agreed to the conference 
report on a bill (H.R. 7984) to assist in the provision of housing for 
low and moderate-income families to promote orderly urban development, 
to improve living environment in urban areas, and to extend and amend 
laws relating to housing, urban renewal, and community facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 18424, 18425, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following this vote, Mr. James H. Scheuer, of New York, requested 
unanimous consent to address the House for one minute. There being no 
objection, Mr. Scheuer made the following statement:

        Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the record that on 
    rollcall No. 204 concerning H.R. 7984, I was present but did not 
    vote because I felt I had a direct personal interest in the 
    legislation, and under rule 8 of the House was precluded from 
    voting thereon.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.7 Where a bill was pending relating to the reserves required to 
    be maintained by certain banks, a Member disqualified himself on 
    the vote

[[Page 11455]]

    because of a pecuniary interest in the question voted upon.

    On July 1, 1959,(2) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (S. 
1120) to amend the National Bank Act and the Federal Reserve Act with 
respect to the reserves required to be maintained by member banks of 
the Federal Reserve System against deposits and to eliminate the 
classification ``central reserve city.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 12481, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the Committee's deliberations, the Chairman 
(3) recognized Mr. Thomas M. Pelly, of Washington, who then 
made the following statement: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 12504, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I desire the Record to show that in conformity 
    with rule 8 of the Rules of the House when this measure comes to a 
    vote, I shall feel constrained to vote ``present.'' (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal of Vote Owing to Pecuniary Interest

Sec. 3.8 A Member has withdrawn his vote on a roll call because of a 
    pecuniary interest in the question voted upon.

    On July 21, 1954,(6) the House voted to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill (H.R. 9020) to provide increases in the monthly 
rates of compensation and pension payable to certain veterans and their 
dependents. Prior to the Speaker's (7) announcement of the 
result, Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, addressed the Speaker 
and asked how he was recorded. The Speaker responded by informing Mr. 
Williams that he was recorded as voting ``yea.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 100 Cong. Rec. 11262, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Williams made the following statement:

        Mr. Speaker, under rule 8, clause 1, of the Rules of the House 
    of Representatives I do not feel qualified to vote on this 
    particular measure. I therefore withdraw my vote of ``yea'' and 
    vote ``present.''

    The result of the vote was then announced, after which Mr. Williams 
sought and received unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the 
Record. In so doing, he said the following:

        Mr. Speaker, on the rollcall just completed, I am recorded as 
    voting ``present.'' In view of the fact that I am not recorded as 
    favoring or opposing the measure, I feel that I should take this 
    means to clarify my personal position on the bill just passed.

[[Page 11456]]

        Clause 1, rule VIII of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives provides that every Member ``shall vote on each 
    question put unless he has a direct or pecuniary interest in the 
    event of such question.'' (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. This language did not change in the intervening period of time. See 
        Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Further, Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, 
    paragraph 376, states:

            Where the private interests of a Member are concerned in a 
        bill or question, he is to withdraw.

        Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that I would be one of the 
    veterans personally affected by the bill just passed, I felt 
    compelled under the Rules of the House to withdraw from voting and 
    to be recorded as voting ``present'' (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. In the 84th Congress, Mr. Williams also withdrew a ``yea'' vote on 
        a roll call to pass a bill of pecuniary interest to certain 
        veterans for virtually the same reasons. See 102 Cong. Rec. 
        12566, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Subject Matter in Question Affects Class of Members

Sec. 3.9 The Chair has held that where the subject matter before the 
    House affects a class of citizens, which includes some Members, 
    rather than individual Members, the personal interest of Members 
    who belong to that class is not such as to disqualify them from 
    voting; and the Chair noted, in so ruling, that the power of the 
    House to deprive one of its Members of the right to vote on any 
    question is doubtful.

    On May 31, 1939,(10) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up a resolution (H. Res. 
205) and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution 
provided, in part, that upon its adoption, the House would resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 6359, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . for the consideration of H.R. 6466, a bill to provide for 
    and promote the general welfare of the United States by supplying 
    to the people a more liberal distribution and increase of 
    purchasing power, retiring certain citizens from gainful 
    employment, improving and stabilizing gainful employment for other 
    citizens, stimulating agricultural and industrial production and 
    general business, and alleviating the hazards and insecurity of old 
    age and unemployment. . . .

    Shortly thereafter,(11) Mr. Martin J. Kennedy, of New 
York, propounded a parliamentary inquiry--the answer to which comprised 
a rather lengthy statement by the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 6360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin J. Kennedy: . . . I feel that in such an important 
    issue as the

[[Page 11457]]

    pending one the House and the country are entitled to know whether 
    or not these Members over the age of 60 are disqualified to vote 
    under rule VIII of the House.(12) If this bill passes 
    they will automatically become immediate beneficiaries under the 
    provisions of the bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary 
    inquiry is, Are such Members disqualified from voting on this bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The language of the first clause of Rule VIII did not change 
        between 1939 and 1973. See Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman from New York has 
    propounded a parliamentary inquiry which, of course, the Chair 
    assumes is propounded in good faith, and the Chair imagines that 
    the gentleman has in mind rule VIII of the House of 
    Representatives, which is in the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the House 
    during its sittings unless excused or necessarily prevented, and 
    shall vote on each question put unless he has a direct personal or 
    pecuniary interest in the event of such question.

        The Chair does not feel, in view of the pressing circumstances 
    with respect to time, it is necessary to undertake to elaborate 
    upon this question, as it is certainly not a novel one, and in the 
    brief time since the gentleman gave notice he would propound his 
    parliamentary inquiry the Chair has found that this question has 
    been specifically presented to the House on a number of occasions 
    and finds that very thoughtful and elaborate opinions have been 
    rendered upon this point, particularly by Mr. Speaker Blaine 
    (Hinds' Precedents, vol. V, sec. 5952), by Mr. Speaker Longworth 
    (Cannon's Precedents, vol. VIII, sec. 3072), and by Mr. Speaker 
    Clark (Cannon's Precedents, vol. VIII, sec. 3071), all of whom join 
    in the conclusion stated in the syllabus of the Blaine opinion in 
    the following language:

            Where the subject matter before the House affects a class 
        rather than individuals, the personal interest of Members who 
        belong to that class is not such as to disqualify them for 
        voting.
            The power of the House to deprive one of its Members of the 
        right to vote on any question is doubtful.

        If the Chair were disposed to elaborate upon the opinion 
    announced in the Blaine decision, it might be proper for him to 
    read extracts from that decision. However, it seems to be well 
    determined--and the Chair thinks it is based on sound reasoning and 
    philosophy--that where a bill comes up affecting a general class of 
    people and no direct or personal pecuniary interest of a Member as 
    such is involved, Members are not proscribed in absolute good faith 
    and in all morality from voting upon a bill of that character.
        If the rule were otherwise, all of us would probably be subject 
    to some prohibition in the way of voting upon Federal Taxation. It 
    might be taken to excuse ourselves from voting upon such questions 
    because our pecuniary interests are involved. A number of other 
    suggestions might be made along the same line.
        So the Chair answers the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman 
    from New York to the effect that under the

[[Page 11458]]

    rulings of former Speakers in well-considered opinions and as a 
    matter of constitutional right the Members can, and should, in all 
    good faith vote upon the bill now involved.

Votes and Ethics Inquiries

Sec. 3.10 A Member's stock ownership has been the subject of an 
    investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
    where it was alleged that the Member's votes on legislation before 
    the House tended to benefit his investment.

    In the 94th Congress, the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct investigated several charges of misconduct brought against Mr. 
Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida. The committee eventually submitted a 
report urging a reprimand of the Representative which was adopted by 
the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 1421, 122 Cong. Rec. 14381-83, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., July 
        29, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the charges against Mr. Sikes was that he had violated Rule 
VIII clause 1,(15) which provides that a Member not vote on 
questions in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest, in 
that he had voted on a general defense appropriation bill in 1974 which 
carried an appropriation of funds to purchase aircraft to be 
manufactured by a corporation in which he owned stock. The committee 
declined to recommend that the Member be punished for this vote and 
cited in support of its decision Speaker Albert's response to a 
parliamentary inquiry on Dec. 2, 1975.(16) In that instance, 
Speaker Albert had stated that a Member's ownership of stock did not 
disqualify him from voting on a bill general in scope where he would be 
within a class of numerous individuals with similar pecuniary 
interests. It is up to each Member to make a determination whether to 
withhold his vote under Rule VIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule VIII clause 1, provides: ``Every Member shall be present 
        within the Hall of the House during its sittings, unless 
        excused or necessarily prevented; and shall vote on each 
        question put, unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary 
        interest in the event of such question.'' House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 38135, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Meeting as Excusing Duty To Vote

Sec. 3.11 Permission from the House to a committee to sit during House 
    sessions, does not relieve committee members from their obligation 
    to respond on House roll calls.

[[Page 11459]]

    On Aug. 5, 1937,(17) the House, by unanimous consent, 
granted its permission to the Committee on Ways and Means to sit during 
the sessions of the House for the remainder of the session. Immediately 
thereafter, Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, addressed the Speaker 
(18) and the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 8300, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Indiana yield to permit 
    the gentleman from New York to submit a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. [Arthur H.] Greenwood: I yield.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, when permission is given to a committee 
    to sit during the sessions of the House, does that give any rights 
    to any of the members of that committee on roll calls?
        The Speaker: Absolutely none.
        Mr. Fish: Not even on quorum roll calls?
        The Speaker: It does not. On all quorum roll calls all Members 
    who desire to be recorded must appear and vote on the roll call.

Right of Chairman of Committee of the Whole To Participate

Sec. 3.12 Appointment of a Member to Chair the Committee of the Whole 
    does not effect a forfeiture of his right to vote or to object to a 
    unanimous-consent request.

    On Dec. 9, 1947,(19) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
4604) providing aid to certain foreign countries. In the course of the 
lengthy discussion which followed, a question arose as to the possible 
invasion of the Chair's rights. Mr. August H. Andresen, of Minnesota, 
had sought unanimous consent to discuss his proposed amendment 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole on the following day. 
Objection being heard,(1) Mr. Andresen withdrew his request. 
However, Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, sought to strike the 
last word in order to voice his reservations against such a request per 
se. Mr. McCormack felt constrained to say that he ``would never agree 
to a unanimous-consent request which takes away from the Chairman of 
the Committee . . . the right to recognize Members in [the] Committee 
of the Whole.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 11188, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Id. at p. 11230.
 1. Id. at p. 11231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In responding to Mr. McCormack's assertion, the Chair 
(2) in

[[Page 11460]]

dicated that it did not believe any of its prerogatives would be 
forfeited if such a request were honored. Said Chairman Michener:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair understands the rule, the presiding officer in the 
    Committee is in a dual capacity. First, he is selected to be the 
    presiding officer during the consideration of the bill. But by 
    accepting such appointment he does not lose his right to vote and 
    object as any other Member. That is, his district is not deprived 
    of its rights by virtue of the Chairman selection. That being true, 
    the Chair not making any objection, I cannot see how the rights of 
    the Chair are infringed upon if the committee, by unanimous 
    consent, wants to provide that a certain individual may speak at a 
    certain hour during the Committee consideration. If the Chair is 
    agreeable and all Members are agreeable.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For specific precedents pertaining to votes by the Chair in the 
        generic sense (i.e., by the Chairman of the Committee of the 
        Whole, by the Speaker, and by the Speaker Pro Tempore) see 
        Sec. Sec. 15, 21, 29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Senate

Sec. 3.13 The Senate by viva voce vote excused a Senator from voting on 
    a yea and nay roll call because of his pecuniary interest in an 
    amendment before that body.

    The Senate having resumed consideration of a bill (H.R. 3687) to 
provide revenue, and for other purposes, Senator J. W. Elmer Thomas, of 
Oklahoma, called up an amendment pertaining to mineral depletion 
allowances.(4) Discussion ensued after which the Presiding 
Officer (5) put the question (6) on the 
amendment. Senator Thomas then requested the yeas and nays which were 
ordered shortly thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 300, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 18, 1944.
 5. John L. McClellan (Ark.).
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 304, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the legislative clerk proceeded to call his name, Senator Warren 
R. Austin, of Vermont, initiated the following exchange:

        Mr. President, I ask to be excused from voting on this 
    amendment. I am personally interested in one of the items affected, 
    namely, talc.
        The Presiding Officer: Shall the Senator from Vermont, for the 
    reasons assigned by him, be excused from voting? [Putting the 
    question.] The ``ayes'' have it, and the Senator is excused.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While Members of the House are expected to 
vote on each question unless they have a ``direct personal or pecuniary 
interest'' (7)--a question which each Representative must 
decide on his own--members of the Senate are expected to vote unless 
``excused by

[[Page 11461]]

the Senate.'' (8) The procedure is described in part as 
follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
 8. Rule XII clause 2, Senate Manual (1995).
 9. Id. at clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When a Senator declines to vote on call of his name, he shall 
    be required to assign his reasons therefor, and having assigned 
    them, the Presiding Officer shall submit the question to the 
    Senate: ``Shall the Senator, for the reasons assigned by him, be 
    excused from voting?'' which shall be decided without debate.

Proxy Voting

Sec. 3.14 While the exercise of proxy voting is forbidden in the House, 
    recognition of voting proxies by a standing committee has at some 
    periods been left as a matter to be determined by the committee 
    itself.

    On Jan. 26, 1950,(10) the House briefly discussed a 
recent decision of the Committee on Rules to delay the reporting out of 
certain legislation because of the absence of two of the committee's 
minority members. As Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, explained to the 
House, one of the missing members had been unavoidably absent because 
of his hospitalization, and had specifically requested that the 
Committee on Rules decision be delayed temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 980, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, a colloquy evolved as follows:

        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, would it not be within the rules 
    of the House for the Committee on Rules to permit a member to give 
    his proxy to another member so a vote could be had on an important 
    matter in which the whole country is interested?
        The Speaker: That is a matter for the committee to determine.
        The Chair may make this statement: He served on one committee 
    for 24 years, and never was a proxy voted on that committee, 
    because the present occupant of the Chair always voted against it.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: The rules of the House are the rules of every 
    committee of the House. I, as chairman of the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs, have taken the position that since the rules of 
    the House forbid voting by proxy, under the same rule a member 
    cannot vote by proxy in the committee. Am I right or not?
        The Speaker: Committees have always been permitted to decide 
    that question.

[[Page 11462]]

        Mr. Rankin: The rule states that the committees shall be 
    governed by the rules of the House: that the rules of the House 
    shall be the rules of every committee, and I do not believe a 
    committee can change its own rules to permit absentee voting.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to hold as did Speaker 
    Longworth, that it is a matter for the committee itself to 
    determine.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Speaker Longworth's statement on the use of proxies in committees 
        is found in 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2219. See also Ch. 17, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Effective Jan. 22, 1971, the provisions of 
section 106(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 became 
part of the rules. Those provisions permitted committees to adopt 
written rules permitting proxies in writing, designating the person to 
execute the proxy, and limited to a specific measure or matter and 
amendments or motions relating thereto. Effective Jan. 3, 1975, proxies 
in committee were prohibited, but on Jan. 14, 1975, the rule was 
amended to permit proxies in committees with the additional 
restrictions requiring an assertion that the Member is absent on 
official business or otherwise unable to attend, requiring the Member 
to sign and date the proxy, and permitting general proxies for 
procedural matters. In the 103d Congress, Rule XI clause 2(f), was 
added which prohibited all proxy voting in all committees and 
subcommittees.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Absentee'' or ``Ghost'' Voting

Sec. 3.15 An explicit prohibition against using a voting card for a 
    colleague is now a part of the standing rules.

    While the requirement that a Member has to be physically in the 
Chamber to cast his vote had been an ``accepted'' part of House 
procedures since the First Congress, either explicitly stated or 
universally understood as the norm of behavior, the necessity of 
adopting clause 3, Rule VIII arose after the implementation of the 
electronic voting system. The Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, in its report on ``voting anomalies'' issued in the 96th 
Congress recommended the adoption of an explicit rule.(14) 
The current clause 3 was actually made a part of Rule I on Jan. 5, 
1981.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Rept. No. 96-991.
15. 127 Cong. Rec. 98-113, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.16 The House has reprimanded a Member who permitted votes on his 
    behalf to be cast during his absences.

[[Page 11463]]

    On Dec. 18, 1987,(16) the House considered a privileged 
resolution, reported from the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, to reprimand Mr. Austin J. Murphy, of Pennsylvania, for 
allowing his voting card to be used to cast two votes during his 
absence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266-76, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative 
    Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 335

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the 
        report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated 
        December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J. 
        Murphy of Pennsylvania.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (H. 
        Rept. No. 100-485) set forth the findings of the committee and 
        recommended a reprimand. By adopting the report, the House 
        ratified the committee's findings as well as its 
        recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  announcement by the speaker pro tempore

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to state that 
    unanimous consent has been obtained for Members to extend their 
    remarks on this matter. It is essential that the Congressional 
    Record contain as true and accurate a record of the proceedings as 
    possible. All insertions and extensions not delivered in debate 
    will appear at the end of the proceedings printed in smaller type. 
    The Chair trusts that Members will, in revising remarks they 
    actually delivered in debate on this subject, confine their 
    revisions to those which are necessary to correct grammatical 
    errors and consistent with the permission obtained by the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Dixon] to refrain from making any changes in 
    the substance of debate.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]: 
    . . .
        Mr. Dixon: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, there were four counts that the committee 
    sustained. Two counts dealt with what is commonly known as ghost 
    voting. A third count dealt with the improper diversion of 
    Government resources, and the fourth count dealt with what is known 
    as a ghost employee; that is, Michael Corbett--from September 1981 
    to July 1982--failed to carry out the duties for which he was 
    compensated.
        I want to first take the time to deal with counts 1 and 2. The 
    committee found that on July 14 and August 9, 1978, Representative 
    Murphy was recorded as voting when he wasn't present in the Hall of 
    the House.
        He was recorded ``present'' on rollcall No. 543 at 10:23 a.m. 
    on July 14, 1978. There was clear and convincing evidence and, as a 
    matter of fact, it was

[[Page 11464]]

    stipulated to that he was in Washington, PA, serving as master of 
    ceremonies at Judge Samuel Rogers' swearing in at 10:30 a.m.
        On August 9, 1978, on rollcall No. 663 at 10:26 a.m., he was 
    recorded as being present. He was in Carmichaels, PA, at a ground-
    breaking ceremony at 11 a.m.
        As a matter of fact, Representative Murphy has stipulated that 
    he was present at these particular places. The defense for these 
    actions are that his card was placed in his desk drawer while he 
    was out of town and he had no personal knowledge how these votes 
    occurred. He also asserts that, as a defense, it was not a 
    violation of House rules at that time to proxy vote.
        In 1978, rule VIII said, in part: Every Member shall be present 
    *** and shall vote on each question put ***.
        The committee came to the conclusion that Representative Murphy 
    permitted, either in the sense that he knew or that he didn't guard 
    against being voted on the floor of the House by safeguarding his 
    voting card. Furthermore, he didn't, a short time thereafter, 
    notify the House to disavow the ghost votes. . . .
        It is the totality of this picture: That on at least two 
    occasions ghost voting occurred; that there was an improper 
    diversion of official resources; and that a ghost employee under 
    Representative Murphy's direct supervision, did not carry out his 
    job duties as subcommittee staff director, that this committee has 
    recommended to you, on a vote of 11 ayes to 0 nays, that 
    Representative Murphy be reprimanded. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Members of this body that I 
    appreciate the attention that they have given to both sides of this 
    issue. . . .
        There is some confusion here as it relates to counts one and 
    two, and let me tell you what the facts are. An analysis was made. 
    The votes were not made here or anyplace else. They were made at 
    station 33 with a card; so the issue of whether they were made here 
    and all the confusion, in all respect to the respondent, he is 
    trying to cloud the issue.
        Prior to 1973, that was the year that the voting devices were 
    installed, was there any doubt in any Member's mind that they have 
    to be here physically on the floor and vote? I do not think so.
        After that time in an honorable House with honorable men and 
    women, no one thought to change the rule, and so there is an issue 
    that arose in the Morgan Murphy case as to the crime or breach of 
    confidence or House rule as it relates to someone who took the 
    card, not the person that was responsible for their own vote; and 
    yes, there was a rule change made in 1980 that said not only do you 
    have to be present, but because of technology, the person who does 
    the voting has breached the House rules. That is what occurred in 
    the Morgan Murphy case.
        Mr. Murphy in that case took the well on the Monday after and 
    said he did not allow anyone to vote him.
        Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Austin Murphy, says 
    that some of this came to the committee's attention, and he is 
    correct in part, by a May 7 Times article. Did Mr. Murphy at that 
    time look at the article, ex

[[Page 11465]]

    amine the dates, the specific two dates that were alleged, come to 
    this well, notify the Speaker, ``Yes, I was not here, and there was 
    a recorded vote''? No, he waited until after a statement of alleged 
    violation, after we knew where he was, and then he says, ``Oh, yes, 
    I leave my card--when I get this, now, when I in fact leave''----

        Mr. Murphy: Will the gentleman yield just for a question?
        Mr. Dixon: I will not yield. The gentleman has placed his 
    interpretation on the evidence. These are arguments I have a right 
    to place my interpretation on the evidence.
        I take my card and I put it in my desk drawer, and so when I 
    leave here I do not have my identification card. With that, does he 
    ever check his records to see if he has been recorded? No. He just 
    does not know how it happened.
        When you look at the fact that it did occur at station 33, 
    there is no doubt that he either directed someone to do it, or he 
    did not safeguard this card. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All time has expired.
        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the resolution.
        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    324, nays 68, answered ``present'' 20, not voting 21, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the resolution was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Voting After Conviction for Felony

Sec. 3.17 In the 93d Congress, the House adopted a resolution 
    expressing the sense of the House that Members should refrain from 
    voting, in the House, its committees, including the Committee of 
    the Whole, when convicted of a crime for which a sentence of two 
    years or more may be imposed. This resolution was later added to 
    the Code of Official Conduct, as clause 10 in Rule XLIII.

    The resolution was considered and adopted on Nov. 14, 
1973.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 26944-46, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 128

            Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
        Representatives that any Member of, Delegate to, or Resident 
        Commissioner in, the House of Representatives who has been 
        convicted by a court of record for the commission of a crime 
        for which a sentence of two or more years' imprisonment may be 
        imposed should refrain from participation in the business of 
        each committee of which he is then a member and should refrain 
        from voting on any question at a meeting of the House, or of 
        the Committee of the Whole House, unless or until judicial or 
        executive proceedings result in reinstatement of

[[Page 11466]]

        the presumption of his innocence or until he is reelected to 
        the House after the date of such conviction. This resolution 
        shall not affect any other authority of the House with respect 
        to the behavior and conduct of its Members.

        Mr. [Mel] Price of Illinois: . . . [T]he committee is unanimous 
    . . . in urging adoption of the pending resolution which would make 
    it the sense of the House that a Member convicted of a crime 
    carrying a possible sentence of 2 or more years' imprisonment 
    should refrain from participation in the business of each committee 
    of which he is a member and refrain from voting on any questions in 
    the House.

    After debate on the resolution, where certain Members addressed 
issues of constitutionality and of depriving constituents of 
representation, the House adopted the resolution by a vote of 388 to 
18, 27 Members not voting.
    Later in the 93d Congress, on Sept. 24, 1974, a Member resigned as 
a conferee, citing the provisions of H. Res. 128 as the reason for his 
action.
    In the 94th Congress, in a report (94-76) issued by the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct, the committee stated that 
``conviction'' in clause 10 includes a plea of guilty or a finding of 
guilty even though sentencing may be deferred.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 4. Pairs

    The practice of ``pairing votes'' dates back to the early part of 
the 19th century.(20) The fundamental purposes of pairing 
were to indicate a Member's position on a roll call vote when he was 
unable to be present and to prevent his absence from improperly 
affecting the outcome. ``Pairing'' enabled him to effect a 
``cancellation'' of the vote he would have cast on the particular issue 
through a gentleman's agreement with a Member of the opposite view. The 
latter Member either expected to be similarly unavailable for the vote 
in question or would willingly abstain from voting in deference to the 
``pair'' and vote ``present.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initially criticized by Members of prominence,(21) the 
practice was not referred to in the rules until 1880.(1) 
Even then, the applicable rule (2) merely pertained to the 
announcing of pairs; and its promulgation appears to have constituted 
the legitimizing of a longstanding practice. Historically regarded as 
merely private agreements between Members, the pairing procedure grew 
more by custom than by direction; and the original purpose was 
occasionally lost in the

[[Page 11467]]

procedures which evolved. Hence, as early as 1917, ``general pairs'' 
were customarily listed by pair clerks of all absent Members not 
leaving instructions to the contrary.(3) And such lists did 
not necessarily reflect any Member's position or even his opposition to 
the position of the individual with whom he was paired. The rules still 
make only minimal reference to the pair.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Indeed, John Quincy Adams once moved a resolution citing the 
        practice as violative of the Constitution. Id. At Sec. 3076.
 1. Rule VIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 660 (1995).
 2. Id.
 3. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3078.
 4. See Rule VIII clause 2 (Sec. 660) and Rule XV clause 1 (Sec. 765), 
        House Rules and Manual (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, students of congressional procedure frequently encounter 
references to ``simple'' pairs, ``live'' pairs, ``general'' pairs, and 
``broken'' pairs, among other terms. The ``simple'' pair usually refers 
to the basic agreement through which two Members cancel out each 
other's vote by pairing themselves in the Record when each would take 
opposite positions if present, but both anticipate being absent when 
the particular question is put. The ``live'' pair refers to an 
agreement in which a Member who would vote ``yea'' pairs with a Member 
who would vote ``nay,'' and only one of the two expects to be absent; 
when the question is put, the attending Member changes his vote to 
``present'' or merely answers ``present'' and announces that he has a 
``live'' pair with his absent colleague.(5) A ``general'' 
pair does not represent the product of any agreement between Members 
and neither indicates the positions of those paired nor whether they 
hold opposite views; Members anticipating their absence who desire to 
be generally paired, notify the Clerk as such, and their names are 
arbitrarily paired in the Record as ``Member X with Member Y until 
further notice.'' A ``broken'' pair, of course, refers to a pair 
agreement which is vitiated for one reason or another.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Alternatively, the attending Member may vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' and 
        then withdraw his vote pursuant to the ``live'' pair before the 
        result is announced by the Chair. See Sec. 8, infra.
 6. See Sec. 4.2, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In General

Sec. 4.1 Parties to pairs sometimes, by mutual consent, indicate their 
    positions on the question by inserting after their names ``for'' 
    and ``against'' respectively.

    On Oct. 10, 1963,(7) the Committee of the Whole reported 
a bill back to the House where, following a motion to recommit, the

[[Page 11468]]

yeas and nays were taken, after which the Clerk announced the following 
pairs, among others:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 19270, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On this vote:
        Mr. Halleck for, with Mr. Albert against.
        Mr. Conte for, with Mr. Keogh against.
        Mr. Collier for, with Mr. Shepard against. . . .
        Until further notice:
        Mr. Buckley with Mr. Reifel.
        Mr. O'Brien of Illinois with Mr. Curtin.
        Mr. Feighan with Mr. Thomson of Wisconsin.

Sec. 4.2 A pair will be regarded as broken when a paired Member, 
    expecting to be absent, arrives in time to cast his vote.

    On Apr. 26, 1961,(8) the House voted on the conference 
report on a bill (S. 1) to alleviate conditions of substantial and 
persistent unemployment and underemployment in certain economically 
distressed areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 6731, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. James E. Bromwell, of Iowa, having anticipated that he would be 
absent, had been paired on this vote. Immediately after the tally, 
however, he initiated the following exchange with the Speaker: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I was paired on this vote, but I arrived on the 
    floor in time to vote. Of course, I should not be shown twice since 
    I did vote in person.
        The Speaker: The pair will be broken then, if the gentleman 
    desires to do that.
        Mr. Bromwell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Announcements Pertaining to Pairs

Sec. 4.3 Until the 94th Congress, while pairs could not be announced on 
    a vote by tellers with clerks (now a recorded vote) in the 
    Committee of the Whole, a Member could be recorded as ``present'' 
    and then insert at that point in the Record the statement of an 
    absent Member that he and his colleague would have voted on 
    opposite sides of the question.

    On May 18, 1972,(10) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
14989) making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1973, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 118 Cong. Rec. 18018, 18027, 18028, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Edward J. Derwinski,

[[Page 11469]]

of Illinois, proposed an amendment to increase the amount of funds 
appropriated for the United Nations and seven of its agencies. 
Following discussion of this proposal, the question was taken by 
tellers with clerks, and the amendment was rejected.
    Immediately after this vote, the following personal announcement 
appears in the Record:

        (Mr. Purcell, at the request of Mr. Bergland, was granted 
    permission to extend his remarks at this point in the record.)
        Mr. [Graham B.] Purcell [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I am unable 
    to be present. Were I present, I would vote ``no'' on this 
    amendment. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland) having 
    intended to vote ``aye,'' the result of the vote would be the same. 
    The gentleman from Minnesota voted ``present.''

    Parliamentarian's Note: Clause 2 of Rule VIII was amended in the 
94th Congress to permit pairs to be announced in Committee of the 
Whole.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.4 A Member who entered the Chamber after a vote had been 
    announced on the question of overriding a veto, stated the reasons 
    for his absence and entered his name on the pair list.

    Following a decision by the House to override a Presidential veto 
of the Revenue Act of 1944 (H.R. 3687), Mr. Chet Holifield, of 
California, obtained unanimous consent to extend the following remarks 
at that point in the Record: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 2016, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 24, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I arrived on the floor after my name had been 
    called for a vote to sustain or reject the President's veto on the 
    tax bill. Due to an unavoidable appearance before the State 
    Department on an immigration matter for a constituent, I arrived 
    some 3 minutes late. In such a case the rules of the House prohibit 
    the Member qualifying for the roll-call vote. I immediately entered 
    my name on the pair list in favor of sustaining the President's 
    vote. If I had been present in time for qualification, I would have 
    cast my vote in favor of sustaining the President's veto.

Sec. 4.5 Immediately after announcing that a live pair with an absent 
    colleague compelled him to withdraw his negative roll call vote on 
    an amendment, a Member additionally announced that he had voted 
    ``present'' in the Committee of the Whole on a recorded teller vote 
    pertaining to the same amendment based upon a similar agreement 
    with the identical colleague.

[[Page 11470]]

    The House entertaining consideration of an amendment to a bill 
(H.R. 8190) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1971, the question on the amendment was put, and, 
following a vote by the yeas and nays, but before the Speaker's 
announcement of the result, Mr. Glenn R. Davis, of Wisconsin, was 
recognized by the Chair.(13) He stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 14590, 14591, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., May 12, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from 
    Mississippi, Mr. Griffin. If he had been present he would have 
    voted ``yea.'' I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw my vote and vote 
    ``present.''
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to further state that my vote of 
    ``present'' on the teller vote is also explained by my live pair 
    with the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Griffin.

Parliamentary Inquiries as to Pairs

Sec. 4.6 While the Chair does not interpret or take other cognizance of 
    pairs, he may respond to a parliamentary inquiry concerning whether 
    or not a particular Member's name was read by the Clerk as being 
    paired.

    The House having passed a bill (H.R. 15149), Mr. Frank T. Bow, of 
Ohio, withdrew his ``nay'' vote immediately thereafter, and voted 
``present'' instead, explaining that he had a ``live pair'' with Mr. 
Donald W. Riegle, Jr., of Michigan, who would have voted ``yea,'' had 
he been present.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 37996, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 9, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action prompted the following inquiry and the Chair's 
response:

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: When the pairs were originally announced, was not 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle) announced as being paired?

        The Speaker: The Chair will state, in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry, that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Riegle) was announced as paired for. The Chair does not take 
    cognizance of pairs.

Member's Proscription Against Pairing

Sec. 4.7 A Member may leave instructions with pair clerks that he is 
    never to be paired, on any occasion.

    On Oct. 8, 1962,(16) shortly after the House convened, 
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, made the following personal 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 22801, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a summary of votes on legislation for the session 
    shows me as having been paired on one occasion.

[[Page 11471]]

        Mr. Speaker, the clerks have direction never to pair me. I am 
    never paired on a vote on any occasion, and I wish to make this 
    statement at this time.

Subsequent Deletion of Pair

Sec. 4.8 Following a statement as to how he would have voted on the 
    final passage of a bill if he had been present, a Member obtained 
    unanimous consent to delete his ``until further notice'' pair with 
    another Member from the Record.

    On Apr. 25, 1972,(17) shortly after the House convened, 
Mr. John G. Schmitz, of California, was recognized by the Speaker 
(18) and made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 14214, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be on the House 
    floor on April 20 to be recorded on rollcall No. 119, the vote on 
    H.R. 14070, to authorize appropriations for the National 
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, including the funding for the 
    space shuttle program. Had I been present I would have voted 
    ``yea.''
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the listing of my 
    name under the pairs under the ``until further notice'' section be 
    stricken, to reflect this fact.

    There being no objection to the unanimous-consent request, it was 
honored; and the name of Mr. Thomas S. Foley, of Washington, with whom 
Mr. Schmitz had been paired, was also deleted (19) from the 
permanent Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 13654, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 20, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Live'' Pairs; Withdrawing Vote; In General

Sec. 4.9 A Member who qualified as being opposed to a bill and offered 
    the motion to recommit (which was defeated) withdrew his ``no'' 
    vote on passage and, after announcing a live pair, answered 
    ``present.''

    On Dec. 9, 1969,(20) the Committee of the Whole directed 
its Chairman (1) to report a bill (H.R. 15149) to the House 
making appropriations for foreign assistance and related programs for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes with 
sundry amendments and with the recommendation that the amendments be 
agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 37995, 37996, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill having been engrossed and read a third time, Mr. Frank T. 
Bow, of Ohio, rose to offer a motion to recommit. The Speak

[[Page 11472]]

er (2) ascertained Mr. Bow's opposition to the measure and 
the Clerk was directed to report the motion to recommit. The motion was 
rejected, however, and the bill was passed by the yeas and nays with 
Mr. Bow voting in the negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Bow addressed the Chair and made the 
following statement:

        Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Riegle). If he had been present he would have voted 
    ``yea.'' I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw my vote and vote ``present.''

Sec. 4.10 A Member withdrew his roll call vote of ``no'' and answered 
    ``present'' pursuant to a ``live pair'' with an absent Member, and 
    then announced that he had answered ``present'' on a recorded 
    teller vote on that amendment in the Committee of the Whole based 
    upon a similar agreement with the absent Member.

    On May 12, 1971,(3) following consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill making supplemental appropriations for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, the bill (H.R. 8190) was reported 
back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that 
the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass. The 
previous question was then ordered in the House, and a request emerged 
for a separate vote on a particular amendment. The yeas and nays having 
been demanded, the question was taken; and there were--yeas 201, nays 
197, answered ``present'' 6, not voting 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 14590, 14591, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among those who answered ``present'' was Mr. Glenn R. Davis, of 
Wisconsin, who, in the course of withdrawing his vote, explained:

        Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from 
    Mississippi, Mr. Griffin. If he had been present he would have 
    voted ``yea.'' I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw my vote and vote 
    [answer] ``present.''
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to further state that my vote 
    [answer] (4) of ``present'' on the teller vote [the 
    teller vote with clerks on the same amendment in the Committee of 
    the Whole] is also explained by my live pair with the gentleman 
    from Mississippi, Mr. Griffin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. It should be noted that a ``vote'' of ``present'' is a misnomer. A 
        Member answering ``present'' does not cast a vote in so doing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing of Withdrawal

Sec. 4.11 Members desiring to withdraw their roll call votes

[[Page 11473]]

    of ``yea'' or ``nay'' in order to answer ``present'' pursuant to a 
    live pair must do so before the announcement of the result.

    On May 27, 1947,(5) the House voted by the yeas and nays 
on a resolution (H. Res. 218) waiving points of order against a bill 
(H.R. 3601) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for 
the fiscal year 1948. The Speaker (6) announced the result 
of the vote, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The 
resolution having been agreed to, a motion was then offered to resolve 
into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 5878, 5879, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange transpired:

        Mr. [William S.] Hill [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hill: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how I was recorded? I had 
    a pair with the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Jonkman. I voted 
    ``no.'' I wish to withdraw my vote and vote ``present.''
        The Speaker: The vote has been announced and the time when the 
    gentleman could have announced how he would have voted has passed. 
    . . . He should have addressed the Chair and requested that he be 
    recorded as ``present.'' (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For a comparable instance, see 118 Cong. Rec. 34166, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 5, 1972, where Mr. Philip M. Crane (Ill.), who had 
        formed a live pair with Mr. Roman C. Pucinski (Ill.), appeared 
        to be cognizant of the fact he had waited too long to withdraw 
        his ``nay'' vote and chose not to ask the Chair for permission 
        to do so. Instead, he merely stated that he was ``unable to 
        exercise'' the live pair and announced how Mr. Pucinski would 
        have voted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal of Vote Relating to Vetoed Bill; Pairing on Votes Requiring 
    Two-thirds for Adoption

Sec. 4.12 Where a Member with a ``live pair'' withdraws his vote on 
    overriding a vetoed bill and answers ``present,'' the pair clerks 
    include the name of a third Member who would have voted, if 
    present, to override the veto [by the required two-thirds vote] in 
    order to pair two Members in favor with one against the question.

    On June 25, 1970,(8) the House reconsidered a bill (H.R. 
11102) to amend the Public Health Service Act in order to extend 
existing hospital construction programs and to provide additional funds 
for the construction of hospitals and for the guarantee and subsidy of 
hospital loans, among other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 21552, 21553, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill having been previously vetoed, a two-thirds vote taken by

[[Page 11474]]

the yeas and nays was required by the Constitution.(9) The 
Speaker (10) put the question, it was taken; and enough 
votes were cast in the affirmative to override the veto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7.
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the vote and before the Chair announced the 
result, the following statements were made:

        Mr. [John H.] Kyl [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair 
    with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bush). If he were present, he 
    would vote ``nay.''
        I voted ``yea.'' I, therefore, withdraw my vote and vote 
    [answer] ``present.''
        Mr. [Dan H.] Kuykendall [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    live pair with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow). If he were 
    present, he would vote ``nay.'' I voted ``yea.'' I, therefore, 
    withdraw my vote and vote [answer] ``present.''

    Mr. Kyl and Mr. Kuykendall having voiced the statement quoted 
above, the pair clerks, pursuant to their usual practice, paired them 
in the Record, as follows:

        The Clerk announced the following pairs:

        On this vote:
        Mr. Kyl and Mr. Pollock for, with Mr. Bush against.
        Mr. Kuykendall and Mr. Smith of Iowa for, with Mr. Bow against. 
    . . .

    A similar situation occurred in the 99th Congress when a Member 
changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``present'' pursuant to a ``live 
pair'' with another Member who was absent and would have voted ``yea'' 
on the question of over-riding a Presidential veto. The pair clerks 
found another absent Member to ``round up'' the pair in the proper 2 to 
1 ratio, and the Congressional Record carried the following result of 
the vote: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 132 Cong. Rec. 19387, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 6, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk announced the following pairs:
        On this vote:

            Mr. Pepper and Mrs. Long for, with Mr. Foley against.

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    live pair with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Pepper]. If he were 
    present, he would have voted ``yea.'' I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw 
    my vote and vote ``present.''
        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa] changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
    ``present.''
        So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the veto of 
    the President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Sec. 4.13 Where a Member voted against the overriding of a veto and 
    then came into the well to announce his ``live pair'' with two 
    absent Members who would have voted

[[Page 11475]]

    in the affirmative, the tally clerk at the rostrum adjusted the 
    electronic voting system to reflect the Member's withdrawal of his 
    vote and to indicate his answer of ``present.''

    On Sept. 12, 1973,(12) the House reconsidered a 
previously vetoed bill (S. 504) to amend the Public Health Service Act 
to authorize assistance for planning, development and initial 
operation, research, and training projects for systems for the 
effective provision of health care services under emergency conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 29329, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following considerable discussion of the bill, the Speaker 
(13) put the question (14) which, as required by 
the Constitution,(15) had to be determined by the yeas and 
nays; and the vote was taken by electronic device. During the course of 
that procedure, Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, first voted ``nay,'' and 
then came forward into the well, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 29352, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
15. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from 
    Arkansas (Mr. Mills) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton). If they had been present they would have voted ``yea.'' 
    I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw my vote and vote [answer] ``present.''

    The tally clerk then adjusted the electronic voting system to 
indicate the withdrawal of Mr. Mahon's vote and his decision to answer 
``present'' without obliging the Member to reinsert his card or fill 
out a ballot at the rostrum.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Normally, the correct procedure for ``live 
pairs'' on a vote being taken electronically is for the Member to 
record himself as ``present'' with his voting card and then announcing 
his reasons for so doing in the well before the announcement of the 
result.

Erroneously Listed Pairs; Correcting the Record by Unanimous Consent; 
    Deleting Pairs

Sec. 4.14 While the House does not take cognizance of pairs, a Member 
    may, by unanimous consent, correct the Record where a pair is 
    erroneously listed. Thus, a Member, paired in favor of a 
    proposition without his consent, asked unanimous consent that the 
    pair be deleted from the permanent Record and Journal.

    On May 16, 1966,(16) Mr. John V. Tunney, of California, 
ad

[[Page 11476]]

dressed the Chair (17) to make the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Carl Albert (Okla.), Speaker Pro Tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, in the Congressional Record of May 10, 1966, I am 
    listed as paired in favor of an amendment to provide $20 million in 
    rent supplement contractual authority, and $2 million for payments 
    under contracts in fiscal year 1967. An error was made, and I ask 
    unanimous consent to have the permanent Record and Journal 
    corrected to eliminate this pair.
        Mr. Speaker, I was granted an official leave of absence by the 
    House to take part in the United States-British Interparliamentary 
    Conference on Africa on May 10. Had I been present on this, I would 
    have opposed this amendment.

    The Speaker Pro Tempore then asked the Members if there were any 
objection, and, none being voiced, the Member's request was granted.

Sec. 4.15 By unanimous consent, a Member who had been incorrectly 
    paired in opposition to the adoption of a conference report was 
    permitted to delete the ``pair'' from the permanent Record.

    On Sept. 20, 1972,(18) Mr. LaMar Baker, of Tennessee, 
rose to address the Chair (19) and make the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the 5th of September, on rollcall No. 
    351, record vote on adopting the conference report on H.R. 12350, 
    the OEO authorization, I was recorded as absent. I was paired as 
    opposed to adopting the conference report. If present and voting, I 
    would have voted ``yea'' to adopt the conference report. I ask 
    unanimous consent that my pair be deleted from the permanent 
    Record.

    There being no objection to the Member's request, the Record was so 
corrected.

Adding Pairs

Sec. 4.16 The Congressional Record was corrected, by unanimous consent, 
    to add the names of two Members to the list of those shown as 
    ``paired'' on a roll call.

    The House having agreed to the conference report (20) on 
a bill (H.R. 7885) to further amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
as amended, the names of two Members who were paired on the roll call 
were inadvertently omitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 109 Cong. Rec. 23850, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, on Dec. 10, 1963,(1) Mr. Charles A. Mosher, 
of Ohio, rose to address the Speaker (2) with the following 
request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record 
    be corrected as follows:

[[Page 11477]]

        On rollcall No. 224, immediately following the last live pair 
    of Mr. Martin of Massachusetts for, with Mrs. St. George against, 
    add the following pair: Mr. Rhodes of Arizona for, with Mr. Michel 
    against.

    There being no objection to Mr. Mosher's request, the permanent 
Record was corrected.

Converting Pairs

Sec. 4.17 The Majority Leader corrected the Congressional Record, by 
    unanimous consent, to show that Members paired as ``for'' and 
    ``against'' a motion to suspend the rules actually had been only 
    ``general'' pairs.

    On Aug. 3, 1965,(3) Majority Leader Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, addressed the Chair (4) with respect to a roll 
call vote taken the previous day (5) on a motion to suspend 
the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 8027) providing assistance to state and 
local law enforcement personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 18976, 18977, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the following excerpt reveals, the Majority Leader's request 
resulted in a correction of the permanent record:

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to correct the 
    Record.
        On rollcall No. 215, page 18262 of the [temporary edition of 
    the] Congressional Record for August 2, 1965, all pairs are shown 
    to have been for or against, whereas all pairs should have been 
    general pairs.
        I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record be corrected 
    accordingly.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 4.18 The Congressional Record was corrected, by unanimous consent, 
    to show that Members listed as having ``live'' pairs on a 
    particular vote actually had only ``general'' pairs.

    On May 23, 1963,(6) the House agreed to a resolution (H. 
Res. 362) making in order a bill (H.R. 6060) to prohibit sex 
discrimination in the payment of wages by employers engaged in commerce 
or in the production of goods for commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 9194, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The temporary Record for that day having erroneously listed many 
Members as comprising halves of numerous ``live pairs,'' Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, subsequently initiated the following 
(7) exchange on the next legislative day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 27, 1963.

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

[[Page 11478]]

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 54 there were listed 
    as live pairs the names of sundry Members. These should have been 
    listed as general pairs.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record 
    be corrected accordingly.
        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 5. Tie Votes; Supermajority Votes

    Under a rule in effect since the First Congress, a question which 
results in a tie vote is lost.(9) The Speaker, who 
ordinarily does not vote on all legislative propositions before the 
House, has the prerogative of voting; and in Rule I clause 6, he is 
``required to vote . . . where his vote would be decisive.'' In the 
days preceding the advent of electronic voting, when the yeas and nays 
were taken by a call of the roll, the Speaker's name was not on the 
roll and was not called unless the Speaker directed that it be called. 
However, the Speaker can count himself on a division vote, can submit 
his card where a vote is taken by tellers with clerks, and can exercise 
his responsibility to be the decisive vote on a vote taken by 
electronic device.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule I clause 6: He shall not be required to vote in ordinary 
        legislative proceedings, except where his vote would be 
        decisive, or where the House is engaged in voting by ballot; 
        and in cases of a tie vote the question shall be lost. House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (1995).
10. See Sec. 5.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority required to pass an amendment to the Constitution, to 
override a veto, or to adopt a motion to suspend the rules is two-
thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 5.2, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.1 Before announcing the result of a vote taken by electronic 
    device, the Speaker may cast a decisive vote by advising the tally 
    clerk of his vote to break a tie and verifying that vote for the 
    record by submitting an appropriate ballot card.

    On Oct. 17, 1990,(12) Speaker Thomas S. Foley, of 
Washington, cast the decisive vote on an amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 136 Cong. Rec. 30229, 30230, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the previous question 
    is ordered.

[[Page 11479]]

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the so-called Solarz amendment, as amended.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    other amendment?
        If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment on 
    which a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Page 25, after line 18, add the following:

               title vi--incentives for peace in angola . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker Pro Tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    207, nays 206, not voting 21, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: On this vote the yeas are 206, and the nays are 
    206.
        The Chair votes ``aye.''
        The yeas are 207.
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.

Two-thirds Votes

Sec. 5.2 The majority required in the House to pass an amendment to the 
    United States Constitution is, like the majority required to pass a 
    bill over the President's veto (13) and to adopt a 
    motion to suspend the rules,(14) two-thirds of those 
    Members voting either in the affirmative or negative, a quorum 
    being present, and Members who only indicate that they are 
    ``present'' are not counted in the computation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1111.
14. See Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill's Dec. 16, 1981, ruling at 127 Cong. 
        Rec. 31856, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Nov. 15, 1983,(15) Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, 
propounded a parliamentary inquiry pertaining to the vote required on 
an amendment to the Constitution, to which Speaker Pro Tempore James C. 
Wright, Jr., of Texas, responded. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 32667, 32668, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: In the short time available to us, Mr. Speaker, I 
    have reviewed the precedents on the subject of the consideration by 
    this House of a proposed amendment to the Constitution under a 
    motion to suspend the rules.
        Mr. Speaker, precedents are rare on this question, although I 
    believe it to be of profound significance to the deliberations we 
    are about to embark upon.

[[Page 11480]]

        The question which I would like the Chair to address is the 
    question as to whether those Members voting present on any proposed 
    constitutional amendment are included in determining whether two-
    thirds have voted in the affirmative. With the indulgence of the 
    Chair, I would like to review the applicable provision under which 
    this question is raised.
        Mr. Speaker, there are no precedents, at least none available 
    to this Member, under the provisions of rule XXVII of the rules of 
    the House--the so-called suspension of the rules provisions--which 
    address the question of counting those Members voting present on 
    the passage of a constitutional amendment.
        There are no precedents under the provisions of article V of 
    the Constitution, the article which delineates the manner and mode 
    of proposing and ratifying amendments to the Constitution.
        There is only one precedent which is available on this 
    question, Mr. Speaker, and that precedent occurred on August 13, 
    1912. I refer specifically to section 1111 of volume 7, Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, which states:

            The two-thirds vote required to pass a bill notwithstanding 
        the objections of the President is two-thirds of the Members 
        voting and not two-thirds of those present.

        That precedent addressed the question of whether those 
    answering ``present'' should be taken into consideration or 
    excluded in determining whether two-thirds have voted for passing a 
    bill over the President's veto. That question should be considered 
    separate and distinct from the one we have before us today.
        If the Chair were to examine that one precedent to which I 
    refer, he will find that it is based wholly on the language of 
    article I, section 7 of the Constitution, which states in part:

            If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House 
        shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with 
        the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise 
        be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, 
        it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both 
        Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of 
        the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on 
        the Journal of each House respectively.

        Matters of law are measured and judged on every word, comma, 
    and period of our great Constitution.
        The provisions providing for the passage of a vetoed bill and 
    only those voting for and against being entered upon the Journal of 
    the House are substantially different from the provisions of 
    article V dealing with those instances ``whenever two thirds of 
    both Houses shall deem it necessary'' to propose amendments to our 
    Constitution.
        I think this question requires the closest examination, as do 
    all matters involving our Constitution.
        I will state my inquiry one more time, if I might, Mr. Speaker.
        On the question of the House of Representatives proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution, should those answering ``present'' 
    be taken into consideration in determining whether two-thirds shall 
    have deemed it necessary to propose such an amendment?
        And the most important language upon which our only precedent 
    is based is that which states:

[[Page 11481]]

            But in all such Cases the Votes of the Houses shall be 
        determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons 
        voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal 
        . . .

        That is a profound distinction from the procedure required 
    under the provision of article V dealing with constitutional 
    amendments. The one precedent is founded on the requirement of a 
    yea and nay vote, and that only those votes be entered on the 
    Journal. Article I, section 7, does not contemplate ``present'' 
    votes, but article V is silent on this question, and because we 
    have no precedent, at least that this Member could find, we need a 
    ruling that would apply to the situation we are facing today.
        That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have propounded this parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The distinguished gentleman from 
    Illinois, the minority leader, has requested the Chair to interpret 
    the requirement of article V of the U.S. Constitution that a two-
    thirds vote of the House is necessary to propose an amendment to 
    the Constitution.
        It is a well-settled rule, as indicated by the precedents cited 
    in section 192 of the Constitution and House Rules and Manual, that 
    the vote required on a joint resolution proposing a constitutional 
    amendment is two-thirds of those voting, a quorum being present, 
    and not two-thirds of the entire membership.
        The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed the same 
    issue and concluded in 1920, in the National Prohibition cases, 
    volume 253 of the U.S. Reports, page 386, that--

            The two-thirds vote in each House which is required in 
        proposing an amendment is a vote of two-thirds of the members 
        present--assuming the presence of a quorum--and not a vote of 
        two-thirds of the entire membership, present and absent.

        Now, as to the status of Members who vote present on a rollcall 
    vote on a proposition which requires a two-thirds majority for 
    passage, the Chair has no doubt that under the rules and under the 
    practices and precedents of the House, and under parliamentary law 
    in general, Members who indicate their presence only and do not 
    vote either yea or nay on a question of this type are not to be 
    counted, as they are not counted on any other question, in 
    determining whether the proposition has been approved by the 
    appropriate or required majority.
        Speaker Champ Clark delivered an extensive ruling in 1912, in 
    the 62d Congress, on that precise issue. It involved the passage of 
    a bill over Presidential veto. Although the passage of a bill over 
    Presidential veto requires a vote by the yeas and nays, the two-
    thirds majority which is required for that action, under article 
    II, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution is the same, identical 
    two-thirds majority required to propose a constitutional amendment. 
    In 1912 the issue before the Chair was stated as follows:

            On a roll call on passing a bill over the President's veto, 
        in determining whether two-thirds have voted for it, should 
        those answering ``present'' be taken into consideration or 
        excluded therefrom?

        Speaker Clark ruled as follows, and I quote from his ruling:

            The Constitution does not provide for a Member voting 
        ``present,'' but

[[Page 11482]]

        the rules of the House in order to eke out a quorum, have 
        provided that they can vote ``present.'' They have to answer 
        ``aye'' or ``nay'' on the roll call in order to be counted on 
        passing a bill over the President's veto. That is a requirement 
        of the Constitution, and if the contention were on a 
        proposition which required only a majority it would be the same 
        way. In fact, that is one unvarying rule of procedure whenever 
        the roll is called on any proposition. The Chair announces: 
        ``so many ayes, so many nays, so many present; the ayes-or 
        nays, as the case may be--have it.'' Those voting ``present'' 
        are disregarded except for the sole purpose of making a quorum.

        Speaker Clark went on to say:

            These gentlemen were here simply for the purpose of making 
        a quorum. It is clear that to count them on this vote would be 
        to count them in the negative, and the Chair does not believe 
        that any such contention as that is tenable.

        Now, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois has emphasized 
    the requirement of article I, section 7, that the names of the 
    persons voting for and against a bill over Presidential veto be 
    entered on the Journal, in order to distinguish the status of 
    Members only recording their presence on a veto override as opposed 
    to Members only recording their presence on passage of a 
    constitutional amendment.
        It appears to the Chair that the requirement of the Journal 
    entry on veto override merely emphasizes that the vote in that 
    circumstance must be taken by the yeas and nays, with the names of 
    the Members recorded. If the yeas and nays are ordered by one-fifth 
    of the Members present on any other question, article I, section 5, 
    clause 3 requires that the yeas and nays of the Members be entered 
    on the Journal, and makes no mention of Members who are present for 
    the vote but do not cast their votes on one side or the other. The 
    fact that the House has determined to authorize Members to be 
    present and record that fact without taking a position affords no 
    constitutional status to such a decision except to be counted for a 
    quorum.
        The Chair would also point out that the present Speaker, Mr. 
    O'Neill, has ruled on the status of Members who vote ``present'' on 
    a motion to suspend the rules. On December 16, 1981, Speaker 
    O'Neill ruled, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, following a 
    rollcall vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5274, 
    that a motion to suspend the rules may be agreed to by two-thirds 
    of the Members voting yea or nay, a quorum being present, and 
    Members voting ``present'' are only counted to establish a quorum 
    and not to determine a two-thirds majority.
        Thus, as stated in chapter 21, section 9.21 of Deschler's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, a motion to suspend the 
    rules is an appropriate parliamentary method for consideration of a 
    constitutional amendment and has previously been utilized for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for responding to my 
    parliamentary inquiry and I am sure that will clarify much more 
    clearly and demonstrate a precedent for the future.
        I thank the Chair.

Sec. 5.3 Debate on issues surrounding constitutionality of 
    supermajority votes.

[[Page 11483]]

    In the 104th Congress, the House adopted a new provision in Rule 
XXI which required a three-fifths vote of the Members voting to pass 
any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a 
tax rate increase.(16) Under the provisions of House 
Resolution 5, 104th Congress, providing for the consideration of House 
Resolution 6, establishing the rules for that Congress, section 106 of 
the rules package, which contained the new requirement for the 
supermajority vote of three-fifths, was subject to separate debate and 
a separate vote.(17) When this provision was reached during 
the consideration of House Resolution 6, questions regarding the 
constitutionality of the provision were raised in the debate. The 
proceedings related to this constitutional issue were as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XXI clause 5(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 846c (1995).
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1995.
18. Id. at p. ____.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Section 106 of the 
    resolution is now debatable for 20 minutes. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] will be recognized for 10 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jim Kolbe (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Maxine] Waters [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have an 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not recognize the 
    gentlewoman at this time for an amendment. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is recognized for 10 minutes.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Ms. Waters: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman will state her 
    inquiry.
        Ms. Waters: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk in 
    this section. This is a section that increases the vote requirement 
    for raising taxes from a simple majority to a three-fifths 
    majority. I wish to protect Social Security from being cut by a 
    simple majority. Why can I not add this amendment at this time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman should be advised that 
    under the rule that amendment is not in order at this time. . . .
        Mr. [Jon D.] Fox [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield 
    2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
        Mr. [Jim] Saxton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I commend the 
    gentleman for bringing this amendment to our attention.
        As you know, this amendment to the House Rules provides for a 
    three-fifths or 60 percent vote as a necessity to pass any income 
    tax increase. I first introduced this concept in the form of a rule 
    change on Tax Freedom Day, May 8, 1991. I recognized then, as I do 
    now, that our choices in methods used to balance the budget involve 
    two very difficult types of decisions. First, do we raise taxes, or 
    second, do we hold down spending to bring the budget into balance.

[[Page 11484]]

        History shows quite clearly that when faced with those two 
    difficult options, this House has historically opted to increase 
    taxes. Why? Simply because it has always been the easier of the 
    two. . . .
        Some have indicated a concern regarding the constitutionality 
    of this measure. Let me put those concerns to rest. I would like to 
    quote from an article that appeared in the Washington Times on 
    December 20, 1994 by Bruce Fein.

            Supermajority voting rules are constitutional and 
        legislative commonplaces.

            The U.S. Supreme Court blessed the constitutionality of 
        supermajority restraints on the tax and spending propensities 
        of government in Gordon vs. Lance (1971). At issue were 
        provisions of West Virginia laws that prevented political 
        subdivisions from incurring bonded indebtedness or increasing 
        tax rates beyond limits fixed in the West Virginia Constitution 
        without the approval of 60 percent of the voters in a 
        referendum election. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice 
        Warren Burger stressed the political incentive for prodigality 
        when the cost can be saddled on future generations without any 
        political voice: ``It must be remembered that in voting to 
        issue bonds voters are committing, in part, the credit of 
        infants and of generations yet unborn, and some restriction on 
        such commitment is not an unreasonable demand.'' . . .

        Mr. [John] Lewis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of 
    debate only, I yield 21/2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
    [Mr. Skaggs].
        Mr. [David E.] Skaggs [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, civilization 
    depends upon civility, and civility rests upon an implicit trust 
    that we each abide by a shared sense of bounds, of what is within 
    the rules. Each of us must be able to expect of the others that we 
    will play by the rules, and not play with the rules.
        The proposed rule does violence to this essential aspect of a 
    civil society. It is a proposal to go beyond the bounds, to play 
    with the rules, instead of by them. And in a most uncivil way, it 
    would abuse the discretion given this House by the Constitution to 
    determine the rules of its proceedings, by using the rules of the 
    House to subvert part of the Constitution: the principle of 
    majority rule that is central to the operation of the legislative 
    branch. . . .
        The Constitution is the most fundamental statement of American 
    values, the very charter of our democracy. The oath of office we 
    took this afternoon was to support and defend the Constitution and 
    to bear true faith and allegiance to it. The first responsibility 
    of our job in Congress is to honor that charter and remain true to 
    its basic principles.
        The gentleman from New York, the new chairman of the Rules 
    Committee, has written that the Constitution says the House may 
    write its own rules. Yes. And the gentleman has quoted an 1892 
    Supreme Court decision, United States versus Ballin, which says 
    this rulemaking power ``is absolute and beyond the challenge of any 
    other body or tribunal'' so long as it does ``not ignore 
    constitutional constraints or violate fundamental rights.''
        But there's the rub. The rulemaking power of the House does not 
    give us a license to steal other substantive provisions of the 
    Constitution, especially not

[[Page 11485]]

    one so central as the principle of majority rule.
        The gentleman from New York conveniently failed to point out 
    that a unanimous Supreme Court in that very same case determined 
    that one constitutional constraint that limits the rulemaking power 
    is the requirement that a simple majority is sufficient to pass 
    regular legislation in Congress. To quote the Court:

            The general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when 
        a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the 
        act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so 
        far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under 
        which the body is assembled have prescribed specific 
        limitations. *** No such limitation is found in the Federal 
        Constitution, and therefore the general law of such bodies 
        obtains.
            The Court expressed the same understanding as recently as 
        1983, when, in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. 
        Chadha, it stated:
            *** Art. II, sect. 2, requires that two-thirds of the 
        Senators present concur in the Senate's consent to a treaty, 
        rather than the simple majority required for passage of 
        legislation.
            This principle, while not written into the text of the 
        Constitution, was explicitly adopted by the Constitutional 
        Convention. It was explicitly defended in The Federalist, the 
        major contemporary explanation of the Framer's intent. It was 
        followed by the first Congress on its first day, and by every 
        Congress for every day since then. And, as I've already 
        indicated, this principle has been explicitly found by the 
        Supreme Court to be part of our constitutional framework.

        The Framers were very much aware of the difference between a 
    supermajority and a simple majority. They met in Philadelphia 
    against the historical backdrop of the Articles of Confederation, 
    which required a supermajority in Congress for many actions, 
    including the raising and spending of money. It was the paralysis 
    of national government caused by the supermajority requirement, 
    more than any other single cause, that led to the convening of the 
    Constitutional Convention.
        In that Philadelphia Convention, the delegates repeatedly 
    considered, and rejected, proposals to require a supermajority for 
    action by Congress, either on all subjects or on certain subjects. 
    In only five instances did they specify something more than a 
    majority vote. These are for overriding a veto, ratifying a treaty, 
    removing officials from office, expelling a Representative or 
    Senator, and proposing amendments to the Constitution. Amendments 
    to the Constitution later added two others: restoring certain 
    rights of former rebels, and determining the existence of a 
    Presidential disability. . . .
        Some argue that a three-fifths requirement to raise taxes would 
    be like a two-thirds vote requirement to suspend the rules and pass 
    a bill, or the 60-vote requirement to end debate in the Senate. 
    Wrong. Those rules address procedural steps. A bill not approved 
    under suspension of the rules in the House can be reconsidered and 
    passed by a simple majority. After debate is over in the Senate, 
    only a simple majority is required to pass any bill.
        So this proposed rule is not like any rule adopted in the 206 
    years in which we have operated under our Constitution. As 13 
    distinguished professors of

[[Page 11486]]

    constitutional law recently said in urging the House to reject this 
    rule:

            This proposal violates the explicit intentions of the 
        Framers. It is inconsistent with the Constitution's language 
        and structure. It departs sharply from traditional 
        congressional practice. It may generate constitutional 
        litigation that will encourage Supreme Court intervention in an 
        area best left to responsible congressional decision. . . .
            What is at stake here is the Constitution. Have respect for 
        this foundation document of our democracy. Don't return us to 
        the failed approach of the Articles of Confederation. Don't 
        subvert the Constitution's basic principles. And don't ask us 
        to break the oath of office we just took.

        Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support and defend the 
    Constitution of the United States.

    The provision was adopted on a separate vote by a majority of 279-
152.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ________, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Representative Skaggs and other Members filed a suit in the 
    U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality of the 
    supermajority requirement contained in section 106 of the rules. 
    (See Skaggs v Carle, 898 F Supp. 1, DDC, 1995). The court concluded 
    that the appellants lacked standing to challenge Rule XXI clause 
    5(c), stating, in part:

            They [the appellants] argued that the three-fifths majority 
        required by Rule XXI(5)(c) is repugnant to the principle of 
        majority rule they see embodied in the presentment clause of 
        Article I, Sec. 7 of the Constitution (``Every Bill which shall 
        have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, 
        before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the 
        United States''). . . .

        Robin H. Carle, the Clerk of the House, moved to dismiss the 
    complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 
    12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion, concluding that 
    prudence counsels against deciding the merits of a partisan 
    political dispute:

            Whether expressed in terms of a failure of standing, or 
        ``equitable'' or ``remedial'' discretion, the fundamental 
        consideration underlying those decisions is one of prudent 
        self-restraint: federal courts should generally refrain, as a 
        matter of policy, from intruding in the name of the 
        Constitution upon the internal affairs of Congress at the 
        behest of lawmakers who have failed to prevail in the political 
        process. . . .

        The appellants call upon the court to consider the 
    constitutionality of two rules governing the internal workings of a 
    coordinate branch of the Government. . . . The Clerk responds, 
    among other things, that the appellants lack standing because they 
    have suffered no concrete injury.
    A. Rule XXI(5)(c)

        According to the appellants, the presentment clause establishes 
    that a simple majority of the Members voting in each House of the 
    Congress is all that is needed to pass a bill. Therefore, we are 
    told, by providing that legislation carrying an income tax increase 
    will not be considered to have passed in the House even if it 
    receives the support of a majority (but not of a three-fifths 
    majority), Rule XXI(5)(c) runs afoul of the presentment clause.

[[Page 11487]]

        The Clerk contends that the appellants lack standing to raise 
    this challenge because they have suffered no injury by reason of 
    Rule XXI(5)(c) and are unlikely ever to do so. The House has never 
    failed to deem passed a bill that has received the support of a 
    simple majority and it is unclear whether the House will ever do 
    so. . . .
        In sum, the appellants claim that they face imminent injury 
    because a simple majority of the House of Representatives cannot 
    commit the House to raising income tax rates. We are unpersuaded, 
    however, that Rule XXI(5)(c) prevents a simple majority from doing 
    just that. At most the appellants have shown that Rule XXI(5)(c) 
    could, under conceivable circumstances, help to keep a majority 
    from having its way--perhaps, for example, because a simple 
    majority in favor of an income tax increase might not be prepared, 
    for its own political reasons, to override the preference of the 
    House leadership against suspending or waiving the Rule in a 
    particular instance. But that prospect appears to be, if not purely 
    hypothetical, neither actual nor imminent. We conclude therefore 
    that the appellants lack standing to challenge Rule XXI(5)(c).

Corrections Calendar; Three-fifths Vote Requirement

Sec. 5.4 The House amended its rules to create a Corrections Calendar. 
    Measures called up from the Corrections Calendar are considered in 
    the House under special procedures including a three-fifths 
    affirmative vote requirement for passage.

    On June 20, 1995,(1) the House adopted House Resolution 
168 to create an expedited procedure which, according to the chairman 
of the Rules Committee,(2) ``would repeal or correct laws, 
rules, and regulations that are obsolete, ludicrous, duplicative, 
burdensome, or costly.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ________, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Gerald B. H. Solomon (New York) at Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amended Rule XIII clause 4,(3) governing the 
Corrections Calendar, provides the Speaker the authority, in 
consultation with the Minority Leader, to place bills already on the 
House or Union Calendars on the Corrections Calendar and to call the 
Corrections Calendar at his discretion on the second or fourth Tuesday 
of each month. The rule provides for consideration in the House for one 
hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the 
primary committee of jurisdiction. It restricts amendments to those 
recommended by the committee or offered by its chairman; provides for 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions; and re

[[Page 11488]]

quires a three-fifths affirmative vote for passage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 745a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corrections Calendar Procedure First Used

Sec. 5.5 The Speaker ordered the call of the Corrections Calendar and 
    the House adopted a bill under the three-fifths affirmative vote 
    passage requirement.

    On July 25, 1995,(4) the Speaker Pro Tempore 
(5) directed the Clerk to call the Corrections Calendar and 
H.R. 1943, the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act of 1995, was 
considered as the first item on the calendar. The conclusion of the 
proceedings on that bill follow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ________, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Scott McInnis (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the passage of the 
    bill.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Norman Y.] Mineta [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    269, noes 156, not voting 9, as follows: . . .
        So--three-fifths having voted in favor thereof--the bill was 
    passed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Federal Income Tax Rate Increase Requires Three-fifths Vote

Sec. 5.6 As part of its first-day proceedings, the House adopted a 
    requirement that any bill or joint resolution, amendment, or 
    conference report carrying a federal income tax rate increase shall 
    not be considered as passed or agreed to unless three-fifths of the 
    Members vote in the affirmative. During the debate over adoption of 
    this provision, the constitutionality of such a requirement was 
    contested.

    On Jan. 4, 1995,(6) the House considered and adopted 
House Resolution 6, section 106 of which provided for the tax rate 
increase voting requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ________, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of the requirement's constitutionality (7) 
was taken to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. David 
E. Skaggs, of Colorado, several other Members, six of their 
constituents and the League of Women Voters filed suit against Robin E. 
Carle,

[[Page 11489]]

Clerk of the House, to invalidate the rule on Feb. 8, 
1995.(8) The court granted a motion filed on Ms. Carle's 
behalf to dismiss the suit concluding that prudence counseled against 
deciding the merits of a partisan political dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 5.3, supra.
 8. Skaggs v Carle, Action No. 95-00251 (D.D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Skaggs and his fellow complainants, appealed the decision of 
the district court to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the lower courts decision on a 2-
1 vote finding that the appellants lacked standing.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Skaggs v Carle, Action No. 95-5323 (D.C. Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement for a three-fifths vote is contained in Rule XXI 
clause 5(c).(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 846c (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.7 The three-fifths affirmative vote requirement for federal 
    income tax rate increases was first applied to an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute containing a provision to raise the top 
    corporate income tax rate.

    On Mar. 24, 1995,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act. During 
consideration of the bill, the following transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ________, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mrs. mink of 
                                   hawaii

        Mrs. [Patsy] Mink of Hawaii: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the 
    rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a susbstitute.
        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John Linder (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
    follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. 
        Mink of Hawaii:
            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:
        section 1. short title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``Family Stability and Work 
        Act of 1995''. . . .

           sec. 501. increase in top marginal rate under section 11.

            (a) In General.--The following provisions of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 are amended by striking ``35'' and 
        inserting ``36.25'': . . . .

    During the debate, Mrs. Mink inserted a statement into the record, 
a section of which follows:

        Corporate America benefits from billions of dollar [sic] worth 
    of corporate welfare--subsidies, tax breaks, credits, direct 
    federal spending--every major corporation and business receives 
    some kind of benefit from the Federal gov

[[Page 11490]]

    ernment. Corporations must do their share in investing in our 
    nation's most vulnerable in our society.
        The Mink bill is financed through raising the top corporate 
    income rate by 1.25% to 36.25 percent. This is estimated to raise 
    $20.25 billion over 5 years.

    After further debate, the Chair put the question, as follows:

        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that three-
    fifths of those present not having voted in the affirmative, the 
    noes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mrs. Mink of Hawaii: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    96, noes 336, not voting 2, . . . .
        So, three-fifths of those present not having voted in the 
    affirmative, the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
    rejected.
        The result was announced as above recorded.

Sec. 5.8 A special order reported by the Committee on Rules, adopted by 
    a majority vote, may waive the three-fifths requirement for passage 
    of a measure containing a federal income tax rate increase.

    On Oct. 26, 1995,(13) the Speaker Pro 
Tempore,(14) responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding 
the application of Rule XXI clause 5(c) (15) to H.R. 2491, 
Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, being considered 
under the provisions of House Resolution 245, a special order reported 
by the Committee on Rules. The inquiry and the Speaker Pro Tempore's 
response follow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ________, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Dan Burton (Ind.).
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 846c (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael D.] Ward [of Kentucky]: My inquiry is, I have 
    studied the rules and rule XXI applies to bills. This is a bill, 
    and it is a tax increase. Why does rule XXI not apply to this bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the House, 
    by adopting House Resolution 245, has waived that requirement of 
    the rule. Therefore, the Chair's response at this point would be 
    purely hypothetical, and the Chair cannot respond further at this 
    point.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 6. Finality of Votes Once Cast

    When a vote is cast by a system where there is human intervention 
in recording the result, such as a vote cast by a roll call or by

[[Page 11491]]

tellers with clerks, and there is an error in the recordation of the 
vote,(16) the Chair has the discretion to entertain a 
request to correct the vote if it does not change the result of the 
vote as previously announced from the Chair. Obviously, where a vote is 
taken by voice, and the Chair has heard the responses from the ``ayes'' 
and the ``noes,'' a Member cannot change his response. Similarly, when 
a vote is by division, and the Chair has counted those standing in the 
affirmative and the negative and has announced the result, a Member 
cannot change his mind. The same is true of all votes cast: a vote once 
given cannot be retracted or changed. A Member who casts a vote by 
mistake can admit his error and state for the Record how he intended to 
vote, and by unanimous consent such an explanation may be inserted in 
the Record following the vote in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 38.1, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.1 A Member may not change a vote once cast, even by unanimous 
    consent, after the result has been announced.

        On June 17, 1986,(17) Mr. Fernand J. St Germain, of 
    Rhode Island, asked the Chair if he could change his vote from yea 
    to nay ``because his attention was diverted at the time he voted 
    and he did not understand the issue.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 132 Cong. Rec. 14038, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. St Germain: Mr. Speaker, on this vote, rollcall No. 168, my 
    attention was diverted at the time I voted. By mistake or through 
    distraction, I cast a ``nay'' vote, whereas I should have cast a 
    ``yea'' vote. Subsequently I was called to the phones.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my vote be changed in 
    the permanent Record to reflect a ``yea'' vote on rollcall No. 168.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair would advise 
    the gentleman that he cannot change his vote. The gentleman's 
    statement will appear in the Record, immediately following the 
    vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.2 The Speaker cannot permit voting corrections after the 
    announcement of the result of a vote by electronic device, based 
    upon the presumed infallibility of that device and upon the 
    responsibility of each Member to correctly cast and verify his 
    vote.

    On Apr. 18, 1973,(19) the Speaker declined to entertain 
a unanimous-consent request that the Record be corrected to indicate 
that a Member had voted by electronic device on a recorded vote in 
Committee of the Whole despite

[[Page 11492]]

assurances by that Member that he had verified his vote by reinserting 
his card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 13081, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert O.] Tiernan [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, 
    yesterday here, on rollcall No. 100, the vote on the Roybal 
    amendment to strike out the funds for the extension of the west 
    front of the Capitol, I voted ``no''
        Mr. Speaker, I placed my card in the box. It registered ``no.'' 
    I actually took the card back out and put it back in, and it showed 
    a red ``no'' again.
        Last night, to my chagrin, I was told that I was not recorded 
    as voting. I was here. Other Members of the House were present with 
    me and saw me vote and record my vote as ``no.''
        I hope that the House committee which is in charge of this 
    electronic voting system will check that out, because there is no 
    question of it.
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair hopes the same thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tiernan: Apparently there is no way of correcting the 
    Record at this time.
        The Speaker: Not under the procedure which has been adopted. 
    The Chair is powerless to act.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 7. Voice Votes


    The voice vote is the first voting procedure referred to by the 
House rules.(1) Specifying how the Speaker is to fulfill his 
duty to present matters for a decision, Rule I prescribes 
(2) that he:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 629, 630 (1995).
 2. Id. at Sec. 629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . shall put questions in this form, to wit: ``As many as 
    are in favor (as the question may be), say `Aye'.''; and after the 
    affirmative voice is expressed, ``As many as are opposed, say 
    `No'.'' . . .

    The voice vote, as the term is used in the House, means a vocal 
response, in unison, as indicated above. The Chair listens to the 
response and announces the vote as he discerns it. His ``call'' on a 
voice vote is not subject to direct challenge.(3) Putting 
the question in this prescribed form is the duty of the Chair and must 
precede any demand for a yea or nay or recorded vote.(4) The 
remedy available to any Member not agreeing with the Chair's 
announcement on the voice vote is to demand a division or recorded 
vote. The Speaker, if he is in doubt as to whether he correctly heard 
the will of the House on the voice vote, or any Member, can ask for a 
division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 7.2, infra.
 4. See Sec. 7.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The voice vote, like the unanimous-consent request, serves as

[[Page 11493]]

an efficient mechanism to expedite the determination of issues on which 
House sentiment is clear.(5) Often, it is merely the prelude 
to a determination ultimately reached by a division, recorded vote, or 
by the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 8.2, infra, for an example of where a voice vote was used 
        in lieu of a roll call where the sentiment of the House was 
        clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vote ``viva voce,'' which is also specified in the rules, must 
be distinguished from the ``voice vote.'' The former procedure is used 
in elections, when Members respond on a roll call, not by answering 
``yea'' or ``nay'' but by the name of the candidate of their choice. 
Under Rule II, Elections of Officers,(6) the elections of 
the Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Chief Administrative Officer and 
the Chaplain are to be conducted by a viva voce vote. Since the 
election of these officers normally precedes the adoption of the rules 
of the House, in that period of transition where the House is operating 
under general parliamentary law, this prescription for the method of 
voting is ignored,(7) and the officers are chosen by the 
adoption of a resolution. The Speaker's election, the manner of which 
is not dictated in the standing rules, is, however, conducted by a viva 
voce vote.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Rule II, House Rules and Manual Sec. 635 (1995).
 7. Since the rules of one House do not bind its successor, Rule II is 
        not in effect at the time of the organization of a new 
        Congress. The election of the officers normally precedes the 
        adoption of the rules for the new Congress. See, e.g., adoption 
        of H. Res. 1 (electing officers for the 103d Congress) and H. 
        Res. 5 (establishing the rules for that Congress) on Jan. 5, 
        1993.
 8. The Speaker, who was selected by ballot in the early Congresses, 
        has been chosen by viva voce vote, by surname responses from 
        those nominated, since 1839. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 187; 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 27 
        (1995).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.1 Pursuant to clause 5(a) of Rule I, the Speaker must put the 
    pending question to a voice vote prior to entertaining a demand for 
    a recorded vote or the yeas and nays; and where the Speaker ordered 
    a record vote on a question and did not first put the question to a 
    voice vote, the Speaker explained why the Record described the yeas 
    and nays as having been ordered by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 5, 1992,(9) the House had under consideration 
House

[[Page 11494]]

Concurrent Resolution 287, the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1993-1994. When the resolution was before the House for 
final adoption, the question was divided. The Speaker (10) 
directed the votes on the divided portions to be taken by the yeas and 
nays, without first putting them to a voice vote and then entertaining 
a demand for the yeas and nays and determining if there was a 
sufficient second to the demand. On the next legislative day, the 
Speaker made the announcement, which follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 138 Cong. Rec. 4579, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
11. 138 Cong. Rec. 4698, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 9, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair wishes to make a statement.
        On rollcall 41 and rollcall 42, as shown in the Record of March 
    5, 1992, it appears that the yeas and nays were ordered by 
    unanimous consent on adoption of the divided portions of House 
    Concurrent Resolution 287. In fact, the Chair put the question on 
    the adoption of those portions of House Concurrent Resolution 287 
    to a vote by electronic device without first putting the question 
    by a voice vote and without first asking whether one-fifth of those 
    present supported a demand for the yeas and nays.
        The Chair was in error in so ordering the vote to be taken by 
    the yeas and nays without first going through the required 
    procedure, but at the time members of the committee on both sides 
    of the aisle were on their feet, and the Chair assumed that a 
    demand for a record vote would be made immediately by one or the 
    other of the members of the committee. When the Chair ordered the 
    vote to be taken as he did, no objection was raised by either side 
    of the House, and the House was implicitly granting unanimous 
    consent for the vote to be taken by the yeas and nays, and the 
    Parliamentarian suggested the Record should so reflect that.

Sec. 7.2 A count by the Chair (on a vote by voice) is not subject to 
    challenge.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See the introduction to this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 13, 1994,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the bill, H.R. 518, the California Desert 
Protection Act, Mr. Randy Cunningham, of California, had offered an 
amendment to strike out section 609. While the motion to strike was 
pending, Mr. George Miller, of California, offered a perfecting 
amendment which was agreed to by voice vote. The motion to strike out 
the section, being broader in scope than the Miller amendment, was then 
put to a vote. Mr. Cunningham sought to challenge the Chair's call of 
the voice vote on his amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    to strike offered by

[[Page 11495]]

    the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Pete Peterson (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        So the . . . amendment to strike was rejected.
        The Chairman: Are there further amendments?
        Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 
    No Member said, ``no.'' There was not a single ``no.'' How could 
    the ``noes'' have it?
        The Chairman: The Chair announced that the ``noes'' had it.
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I could not 
    hear.
        The Chairman: The Chair put the question to a vote on the 
    amendment to strike as submitted by the gentleman from California 
    [Mr. Cunningham]. In the vote, as voice voted, the Chair recognized 
    that the ``noes'' had it.
        Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cunningham: If there were ``ayes'' and there were 
    absolutely no recorded ``noes,'' how does the Chair say that the 
    ``noes'' have it?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognized the ``noes,'' and the Chair 
    himself votes ``no.''



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 8. Voting by Division

    While the House has ``modernized'' its voting practices by the 
installation of the electronic voting system,(15) which is 
used for taking yea and nay and recorded votes, the process of voting 
by division has remained largely unchanged since the First Congress 
convened.(16) Should the Speaker be uncertain as to the 
outcome of a voice vote or should any Member so request,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 118 Cong. Rec. 36005-12, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1972.
16. For the sake of historical accuracy, however, the reader should 
        note that for several months in the First Congress, divisions 
        were accomplished in a teller-like fashion. Those Members 
        voting in the affirmative passed to the right of the Chair 
        while those voting in the negative passed to the Chair's left. 
        See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . the House shall divide; those in the affirmative of the 
    question shall first rise from their seats, and then those in the 
    negative. . . .(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 629 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Chair's count usually can be verified by a demand for a 
record vote, there are few instances where the integrity of the Chair's 
count have arisen.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6002, and, for comparison, 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 3115. For an instance where complaints were 
        made about the accuracy of the Chair's count of the House and 
        on demands for recorded votes, see the remarks made under a 
        special order on June 27, 1985. 131 Cong. Rec. 17893-901, 99th 
        Cong. 1st Sess. See also the dispute surrounding the Chair's 
        count of the number standing to second a demand for a recorded 
        vote on a motion to recommit on that date. 131 Cong. Rec. 
        18550, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1985.

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

[[Page 11496]]

    The intervention of a parliamentary inquiry does not preclude a 
demand for a division vote on an amendment after a voice vote has been 
taken.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 121 Cong. Rec. 7953, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 1975. See 
        Sec. 9.7, infra.

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

Sec. 8.1 Where a demand for a division vote on an amendment is 
    immediately followed by a motion that the Committee of the Whole do 
    now rise, the division vote is not commenced until and unless the 
    preferential motion to rise has been rejected.

    On June 13, 1947,(20) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
3342) pertaining to the cultural relations program of the State 
Department.
    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of 
Wisconsin, offered an amendment to strike out three sections of the 
bill. Following brief debate on this proposal, Mr. Keefe modified his 
amendment and the Chair commenced to put the question on the amendment 
as so modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 6963, 6996-98, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) . . . The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and Mr. Angell demanded a division.
        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Reed of New York moves that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Rayburn) there were--ayes 93, noes 95.

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Reed demanded tellers. Tellers were 
ordered; the Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that 
there were--ayes 101, noes 110. Thus, the motion to rise was rejected.
    The Chair then felt obliged to review the parliamentary situation, 
prompting a resultant inquiry as follows:

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that before the motion was 
    made that the Committee do now rise the ques

[[Page 11497]]

    tion was being taken on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Keefe]. There was a voice vote and then a division 
    was requested.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: The Chair had stated that a standing vote had 
    been requested, but I think the Chair failed to state that the 
    Chair announced the ``ayes'' had it on the voice vote.
        The Chairman: No. No announcement was made on the division. The 
    preferential motion intervened.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. While there would appear to be some confusion as to whether the 
        Chair did, indeed, announce the voice vote, this would have no 
        effect on the priority accorded the motion to rise over the 
        commencement of the division count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Presidential Reorganization Plan

Sec. 8.2 Providing that a majority of the authorized membership votes 
    in the affirmative, the House may adopt a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan of the President by a voice, division, or ``yea 
    and nay'' vote.

    On Aug. 11, 1949,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a resolution (H. 
Res. 301) disapproving of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 11296, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After some debate, the Committee rose,(4) and the 
following exchange took place between Mr. Charles H. Halleck, of 
Indiana, and the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 11314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: . . . Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that 
    under the terms of the Reorganization Act under which we are 
    operating the proponents of the resolution who by that resolution 
    would seek to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 2 would have to 
    have 218 votes actually present and voting in order to carry the 
    resolution?
        The Speaker: (5) That is correct; that is the law, 
    and the Chair will take this opportunity to read the law:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 6. (a) Except as may be otherwise provided pursuant to 
        subsection (c) of this section, the provisions of the 
        reorganization plan shall take effect upon the expiration of 
        continuous session of the Congress, following the date on which 
        the plan is transmitted to it; but only if, between the date of 
        transmittal and the expiration of such 60-day period there has 
        not been passed by either of the two Houses, by the affirmative 
        vote of a majority of the authorized membership of that House, 
        a resolution stating in substance that that House does not 
        favor the reorganization plan.

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, posed a 
parliamentary inquiry, as follows:

[[Page 11498]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: How will the Chair determine whether there 
    are 218 votes cast in favor of the resolution?
        The Speaker: By the usual method: Either by a viva voce vote 
    [sic], division vote, or a vote by the yeas and nays.
        The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair the resolution not 
    having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the 
    authorized membership of the House, the resolution is not agreed 
    to.
        So the resolution was rejected.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 9. Demand for Division Vote

By Speaker

Sec. 9.1 The Speaker may himself order a division vote, without waiting 
    for such a demand to be made from the floor.

    On July 9, 1940,(6) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, 
requested unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of House 
Resolution 547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 9359, 9360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas there have long existed historical ties of 
        friendship between the United States of America and Argentina; 
        and
            Whereas these ties, based on the respect and admiration of 
        two free and independent nations, happily grow firmer day by 
        day; and
            Whereas on July 4, 1940, the Chamber of Deputies of the 
        Argentine Congress graciously paid tribute to the anniversary 
        of the independence of the United States of America and to this 
        House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States 
        of America; and
            Whereas today, July 9, 1940, marks the anniversary of the 
        Declaration of Independence of the Argentine Republic, a 
        memorable day in the progress of democratic institutions; 
        therefore be it
            Resolved, That this House pay tribute to the Chamber of 
        Deputies of Argentina and to the great Argentine Nation on this 
        their anniversary of the signature by a group of 28 patriots in 
        the city of Tucuman on July 8, 1816, of the Declaration of 
        Independence of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata; 
        and be it further
            Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded 
        through the Secretary of State to His Excellency the Ambassador 
        of Argentina at Washington for transmission to the Chamber of 
        Deputies of the Argentine Republic.

    After some brief remarks by Mr. Bloom and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., 
of New York, the Speaker (7) put the question on agreeing to 
the resolution and simultaneously demanded a division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House divided, and the resolution passed by a vote of 350 yeas 
and no nays.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. It should be noted, parenthetically, that in the Senate the Chair 
        does not announce the number of Members voting ``aye'' or 
        ``nay.'' See 90 Cong. Rec. 398, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 19, 
        1944.

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

[[Page 11499]]

Chair May Order Division Vote

Sec. 9.2 The Chair may on his own initiative under Rule I clause 5, 
    order and conduct a division vote before entertaining a demand for 
    a recorded vote.

    Where the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole was unsure that a 
voice vote on an unexpected motion that the Committee rise expressed 
the will of the Committee, he directed that a division vote be taken on 
the motion, even though another Member had asked for a recorded vote. 
Following the division, the demand for a recorded vote was then 
entertained. The proceedings of Oct. 20, 1977,(9) which 
demonstrate the role of the Chair, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 34717, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           preferential motion offered by mr. edwards of alabama

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Edwards) has 
    offered a preferential motion that the Committee do now rise.
        The question is on the preferential motion that the Committee 
    do now rise offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Edwards).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair will first take this vote by division.
        The Committee divided; and there were--ayes 186; noes 93.
        The Chairman: The Committee will rise.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        The Chairman: A recorded vote has been demanded by the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer).
        So many as are in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote 
    will stand and remain standing until counted.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) has a 
    parliamentary inquiry, and the gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the motion is that 
    the Committee do now rise, but we only lack about a page and a half 
    of completing the reading of the bill.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Regular order.
        The Chairman: The regular order is being followed. The 
    gentleman from

[[Page 11500]]

    Texas (Mr. Mahon) has a parliamentary inquiry, and the gentleman is 
    being recognized for his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    Would it not be possible to read through the title? There is only 
    about half a page remaining. Then we would have this matter behind 
    us, and perhaps then we could rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair will make this statement: The Chair 
    first announced that the ayes had it on the preferential motion to 
    rise. Then there was a vote by division. The gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) has now demanded a recorded vote on the 
    preferential motion that the Committee do now rise. The Chair will 
    count all those Members standing on the demand for a recorded vote.
        Evidently a sufficient number have arisen.
        A recorded vote is ordered.

Sec. 9.3 A recorded vote may be demanded in the Committee of the Whole 
    after the Chair announces the result of a voice vote or states that 
    the Chair is in doubt.

    Where the Chair is in doubt of a voice vote, he may on his own 
initiative ask for a division. However, he can entertain a demand for a 
recorded vote without first conducting a division. The proceedings of 
May 6, 1992,(11) are illustrative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 138 Cong. Rec. 10515, 10516, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) Pursuant to the 
    provisions of clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair announces that 
    he 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 
    Gekas amendment, as amended by the Frank substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    222, noes 196, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], as amended.
        The question was taken.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Barney] Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Gerald B.H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, that is 
    premature. The Chair did not announce the vote.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will repeat himself.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11501]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the Chair announce 
    the yeas and nays, the result.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is in doubt on the voice 
    vote.
        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: This is a 5-minute vote.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yes 
    221, noes 196, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows: . 
    . .

Timeliness; Effect of Announcement of Voice Vote

Sec. 9.4 A demand for a division vote does not come too late following 
    the refusal to order tellers where the result of the voice vote has 
    not been announced by the Chair.

    On Nov. 9, 1971,(13) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 10729) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 40020, 40027, 40038, 40046, 40054, 92d Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Frank E. Evans, of 
Colorado, offered an amendment to a substitute amendment offered by Mr. 
John H. Kyl, of Iowa, for the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by Mr. John G. Dow, of New York.
    The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the Chair 
was in doubt. Mr. Evans then demanded tellers which were refused 
whereupon he immediately sought a division.
    This, in turn, prompted the following exchange between Mr. Gerald 
R. Ford, of Michigan, and the Chair:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I object. The gentleman did 
    not ask for the division timely.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair has not announced the 
    result of the vote, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans) can 
    demand a division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Recognition Sought Prior to Announcement of Voice Vote


Sec. 9.5 The announcement of a voice vote does not preclude a 
    subsequent demand for a division providing the proponent of the 
    request for division was on his feet seeking recognition at the 
    time of the announcement and no in

[[Page 11502]]

    tervening business has transpired.

    On Sept. 20, 1967,(15) the House resolved itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
6418) to amend the Public Health Service Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 26119, 26122, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of debate, Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, 
rose and moved that all debate on section 12 of H.R. 6418 conclude 
within 45 minutes. The Chairman put forth the Staggers motion; the 
question was taken, and the Chair announced that the ayes appeared to 
have it.
    Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then rose to demand a division whereupon 
Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, rose to a point of order culminating 
in the following exchange:

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's request comes too 
    late. There was intervening business, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: (16) Was the gentleman from Iowa on 
    his feet at the time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jack Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was, at the time, and I turned 
    around to get to the microphone.
        The Chairman: Under those circumstances, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For similar rulings, see also 108 Cong. Rec. 772, 87th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Jan. 23, 1962; and 94 Cong. Rec. 922, 80th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 2, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.6 The Chair has stated that where there was doubt among the 
    membership as to whether a particular Member was on his feet 
    seeking recognition to demand a division vote as the voice vote was 
    being announced, the Chair would resolve the doubt in favor of the 
    Member.

    On Feb. 2, 1948,(18) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
4790) to reduce individual income tax payments. The Chairman 
(19) put the question on an amendment before the Committee, 
and subsequently announced that the ayes had it.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 888, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Charles B. Hoeven (Iowa).
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 922, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, requested 
a division.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division.
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the request 
    comes too late.
        Mr. Dingell: No; it does not come too late. Let the Chair rule 
    on that.
        The Chairman: Was the gentleman on his feet when he made the 
    request?

[[Page 11503]]

        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we have always been 
    very liberal in the House about the matter of votes or whether 
    Members were on their feet. We have always been very liberal in the 
    matter of allowing division votes. As far as I am concerned I do 
    not care anything about it.
        The Chairman: If there is any doubt in the minds of the 
    membership the Chair will resolve the doubt in favor of the 
    gentleman from Michigan.
        The question was taken; and there were--ayes 202, noes 37.
        So the committee amendment was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair's resolution of this matter, as 
well as the attitude expressed by Mr. Rayburn, reveal the disposition 
toward a Member who states that he was on his feet seeking recognition 
when the voice vote was announced. Such a declaration is normally all 
that is required to protect the right to press for a division, teller, 
or record vote.

Demand for Division Not Precluded by Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 9.7 Where the Chair's announcement of the result of a voice vote 
    had been followed by a parliamentary inquiry concerning the nature 
    of the amendment being voted on--whether it was a substitute or a 
    perfecting amendment to the text--the Chair held that it was not 
    too late to demand a division vote after the inquiry had been 
    answered.

    Where there was pending an amendment offered as a motion to strike 
out a paragraph of pending text and insert new language, another 
amendment was then offered as a perfecting amendment to the text 
proposed to be strick-en. While the second amendment could have been 
considered as a substitute for the first, the Chair treated it as a 
perfecting amendment. When the perfecting amendment had been disposed 
of, the Chair put the question on the original amendment to strike and 
insert and announced that question had been decided in the affirmative. 
A parliamentary inquiry then followed as to the nature of the amendment 
being voted on. The proceedings on Mar. 21, 1975,(1) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 7952, 7953, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    not sure but that I have let the time go by, but I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Page 11, strike out 
        lines 1 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof: . . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.

[[Page 11504]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 11, 
        line 1, strike out ``25'' and insert in lieu thereof ``30''.

    On page 11, line 3, insert ``with respect to existing units and'' 
immediately after ``use''.

        The Chairman: (2) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill 
    and it will be voted on first. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the perfecting amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin).
        The perfecting amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Does the Chairman mean the amendment, as amended?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) was a 
    perfecting amendment to section 9(d) on page 11, line 1 through 
    line 8. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    (Mrs. Fenwick) is an amendment which would strike all of the 
    language in the paragraph of the bill and substitute her language.
        The Chair will now preserve the rights of Members who were 
    standing at the time of the vote when the Chair put the question 
    and stated that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) had carried.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) seek recognition?
        Mr. Ashley: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashley: It is on this basis, Mr. Chairman, that I 
    misunderstood the parliamentary situation. I had thought that the 
    gentleman's amendment was in the nature of a substitute. Inas-much 
    as the gentleman's amendment was adopted, is it also the fact that 
    the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) was 
    adopted?
        The Chairman: Yes, thereby deleting the language which 
    contained the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Oregon.
        Mr. Ashley: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a 
    division on the vote.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Bauman: It is too late. Other business had intervened.
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule that no further business had 
    intervened, that at the instant when the

[[Page 11505]]

    Chair was ready to declare the vote on the amendment of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) 
    was on his feet seeking recognition with respect to whether to ask 
    for a division vote on that amendment. The Chair has stated that he 
    would protect the rights of the gentleman from Ohio.
        The question is on the amendment of the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashley) there were--ayes 34, noes 60.

Parliamentary Inquiry Preceding Demand

Sec. 9.8 Recognition having been sought to demand a division prior to 
    the Chair's announcement of the voice vote, a parliamentary inquiry 
    which intervenes between the announcement and the Chair's 
    recognition of the division-seeking Member does not operate to 
    preclude the demand.

    On Apr. 29, 1947,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of further considering House 
Joint Resolution 153, providing for relief assistance to the people of 
countries devastated by war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 4214, 4217, 4218, 4222, 4233, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of debate, Mr. Lawrence H. Smith, of Wisconsin, 
offered an amendment to the resolution after which, Mr. William M. 
Colmer, of Mississippi, offered a substitute amendment therefor. This, 
in turn, led Mr. Karl E. Mundt, of South Dakota, to offer an amendment 
to the substitute amendment. And, upon the conclusion of debate, the 
Colmer substitute as amended by the Mundt amendment was agreed to.
    Following this sequence of events, the question then occurred on 
the Smith amendment as amended by the substitute. The question was 
taken; and the amendment was rejected. Mr. Mundt then rose to request a 
division vote whereupon Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, raised a 
point of order.
    Prior to addressing himself to the point of order, the Chairman 
(4) entertained a parliamentary inquiry from Mr. William C. 
Cole, of Missouri, and the following exchange transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. George B. Schwabe (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Cole of Missouri: I understand the amendment that was just 
    voted on, as amended by the Mundt amendment, was a substitute for 
    the Smith amendment. Then, why do we vote on the Smith amendment?
        The Chairman: That was the original amendment.
        Mr. Cole of Missouri: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman.

[[Page 11506]]

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: I make a point of order against the request 
    for a division. It came too late. The vote was announced. The 
    result was announced and the decision of the Committee was 
    announced. Therefore, the request for a division comes too late. 
    That is my point of order.
        Mr. Mundt: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order I would like to 
    be heard. There was confusion all over the Chamber. I was seeking 
    recognition to ask for a division. The fact that it was announced 
    prior to that has no bearing upon the point at all.
        Mr. Bloom: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman was not recognized for 
    the purpose. The whole thing was decided and the vote was given and 
    there was a pause. The Chair did not recognize the gentleman for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. Marcantonio: May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    Chair paused for an appreciable period of time after the decision 
    of the Committee was announced by the Chairman, and no demand for a 
    division was made.
        The Chairman: The purpose of any vote is to ascertain fairly 
    the judgment of the parliamentary body and we have not passed on to 
    the consideration of any other business. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Demands as Untimely

Sec. 9.9 A demand for a division vote comes too late when a Member was 
    not on his feet seeking recognition at the time the Chair announced 
    the result of the voice vote.

    On July 30, 1971,(5) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
8432) to authorize emergency loan guarantees to major business 
enterprises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 28340, 28399, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of considering the bill, Mr. John D. Dingell, of 
Michigan, offered an amendment, shortly after which the Chairman 
(6) put the question, and the following exchange transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was rejected.
        The Chairman: Are there any further amendments?
        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, on that I ask 
    for a division.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the request of the 
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) comes too late inasmuch as 
    the result of the vote had been announced to the committee.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As other precedents have 
indicated,(7) if Mr. Adams had been standing and seeking 
recognition in order

[[Page 11507]]

to demand a division at the time of the Chair's announcement, his 
request would have been timely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 9.10, 9.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.10 Where tellers were refused on an amendment and the Chair 
    announced that the amendment had been rejected, it was too late to 
    demand a division vote on the amendment if the Member had not 
    sought recognition prior to announcement of the result.

    On Sept. 24, 1970,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws so as to 
comprehensively deal with drug abuse prevention and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 33603, 33608, 33618, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of 
Florida, offered an amendment pertaining to central nervous system 
stimulants. The proposed amendment was debated after which the Chair 
(9) put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it. Mr. Pepper then demanded tellers. However, an 
insufficient number of Members supported this demand; so tellers were 
refused, and the Chair announced that the amendment was rejected.
    At this point, Mr. Pepper rose to a point of order, and the 
following colloquy ensued:

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.

        Mr. [William L.] Springer [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Springer: Is my understanding correct that the amendment 
    was defeated?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's understanding is correct.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet to demand a division 
    before the gentleman made a point of order that a quorum was not 
    present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    Chair had announced the noes appeared to have it on the amendment. 
    Tellers were requested, and an insufficient number supported the 
    demand for tellers, so tellers were refused.
        The Chair is presently in the process of counting to determine 
    whether a quorum is present.
        Mr. Hosmer: My inquiry is, Mr. Chairman: In either event, will 
    I still be recognized to demand a division?

[[Page 11508]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    amendment has been rejected. Therefore, a request for a division 
    comes too late.
        Mr. Hosmer: I thank the Chair.

    Immediately following the Chair's reply to the Hosmer inquiry, Mr. 
Pepper withdrew his point of order, and the Committee proceeded to the 
next section of the bill.

Sec. 9.11 When the Chair has announced that an amendment has been 
    rejected, and a Member makes the point of order that a quorum is 
    not present, it is too late, even prior to the point of no quorum, 
    to demand a division vote on the amendment.

    On Sept. 24, 1970,(10) the House resolved itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering certain drug 
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 33603, 33618, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the rejection of an amendment which he had offered, Mr. 
Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, raised the point of order that a quorum 
was not present. As the Chair (11) started to count, a 
parliamentary inquiry was posed by Mr. Craig Hosmer, of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Hosmer stated that he was on his feet to demand a division 
before Mr. Pepper had raised his point of order pertaining to the lack 
of a quorum. Accordingly, he inquired as to whether he would be 
recognized to demand a division.
    The Chair responded initially by reminding Mr. Hosmer that the 
Chair had already announced that the noes appeared to have it on the 
amendment; that tellers had been requested; that an insufficient number 
supported the demand for tellers, hence they were 
refused,(12) and that the amendment had been rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For the entire exchange, see Sec. 9.10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair further elaborated by stating that it was in the midst of 
counting to determine whether a quorum was present, and, finally, that 
the amendment having been rejected, the request for a division came too 
late.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 10. Interruption of Division Vote

For Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 10.1 A Member may not interrupt the actual count on a division 
    vote by a parliamentary inquiry.

    On Feb. 13, 1946,(13) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
offered

[[Page 11509]]

a privileged resolution (H. Res. 523) which called for the striking 
from the Record of all the matter spoken and inserted by the Member 
from Washington (Mr. Charles R. Savage) on page 1267 of the [daily] 
Record of Tuesday, Feb. 12, 1946. Mr. Smith's resolution stated that 
the insertion of extraneous matter in the Record, without previous 
specific authorization from the House constituted a violation of the 
rules, thereby mandating the removal of such matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 1274, 1275, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of a brief parliamentary inquiry posed by Mr. 
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, Mr. Smith held the floor until such 
time as he moved the adoption of the resolution. The Speaker 
(14) then put the question, immediately, and the question 
having been taken, he announced that the ayes seemed to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, Mr. Smith demanded a division, and the House 
proceeded to divide. In the midst of that procedure, Mr. Hugh De Lacy, 
of Washington, addressed the Chair, and the following exchange 
transpired:

        Mr. De Lacy (interrupting the division): Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The House is dividing now. Nothing else is in 
    order now.
        Mr. De Lacy: Are there not two sides to a debate, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The Chair is putting the question. The Chair is 
    going to be fair to everybody in this House; the Chair wants the 
    gentleman from Washington and everybody else to understand that. 
    The Chair has always thought that each man, being elected by his 
    own State has a right to speak.
        The division was concluded.
        The Speaker: On this vote by division the ayes are 74 and the 
    noes are 2.
        So the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 10.2 A parliamentary inquiry may not interrupt a division; but 
    such inquiries are entertained until the Chair asks those in favor 
    of the proposition to rise.

    On Sept. 29, 1966,(15) the Committee of the Whole having 
met to further consider the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1966 
(H.R. 15111), Mr. John N. Erlenborn, of Illinois, offered an amendment 
to an amendment offered by Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon. Following 
some discussion of the Erlenborn proposal, the Chair (16) 
put the question, it was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
Chair was in doubt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 24455-57, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following discussion took place:

[[Page 11510]]

        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division.
        Mr. William D. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. William D. Ford: In the event that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Erlenborn] which is offered to the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green] is 
    defeated at this time and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from Oregon [Mrs. Green] is also defeated, would the Erlenborn 
    amendment then be in order if offered separately?
        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. Is a parliamentary inquiry in order at this time during the 
    vote?
        The Chairman: The parliamentary inquiry was made before the 
    Chair put the question pursuant to the demand of the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Erlenborn] for a division.
        In response to the parliamentary inquiry by the gentleman from 
    Michigan, the Chair will state that the amendment may be offered 
    later as a separate amendment.

    Having permitted the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair then put the 
question on the Erlenborn proposal, it was taken; and on a division 
demanded by Mr. Erlenborn, there were--ayes 69, noes 27.

To Demand Yeas and Nays

Sec. 10.3 A demand for the yeas and nays is not in order while the 
    Chair is counting on a division vote.

    On June 10, 1937,(17) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
6391) to authorize the prompt deportation of [alien] criminals and 
certain other aliens, and for other purposes. Following considerable 
discussion of the bill, the Committee rose and its Chairman 
(18) reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
agreed to in committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 5547, 5573, 5574, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. William B. Umstead (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker (19) put the question on 
the passage of the bill, whereupon Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, 
offered a motion to recommit. The following colloquy then ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins].
        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio demands a division. All 
    those in favor of the motion will rise and stand until counted.
        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio (interrupting the count): Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's request is not in order while the 
    House is dividing.

[[Page 11511]]

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it has discretion to conclude the 
    count on a division before entertaining another request.
        Mr. Mapes: I never knew the Chair to make such a ruling before.
        The Speaker: The Chair now makes it.

    The Chair continued his count and announced the totals in both the 
affirmative and negative columns (20) before entertaining 
another demand for the yeas and nays from Mr. Jenkins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. It should be noted, parenthetically, that in the Senate the Chair 
        does not announce the number of Members voting ``aye'' and 
        ``no'' on a division vote. See Sec. .14.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Demand for Record Vote

Sec. 10.4 Where a vote by division is in progress, it cannot be 
    interrupted by a demand for a recorded vote.

    On June 10, 1975,(1) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole, William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, had put the question on a 
pending amendment and being in doubt as to the result of a voice vote, 
he directed a division vote. While the Members in the affirmative were 
standing to be counted, Mr. Sam Gibbons, of Florida, asked for a 
recorded vote. The Chair declined to interrupt his count and the 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 18048, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided.
        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair is counting, and a division vote in 
    progress cannot be interrupted by a demand for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman having announced that he was in doubt, and the 
    Committee having divided, there were--ayes 77, noes 66.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 11. Objections to Division Vote: Lack of Quorum

Generally

Sec. 11.1 Objection to a voice vote for lack of a quorum having been 
    withdrawn and demand then being made for a division, an objection 
    to the division vote for lack of a quorum is in order.

[[Page 11512]]

    On Feb. 5, 1957,(2) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 4249) 
making appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957. 
Discussion ensued, and the Committee eventually agreed to rise and to 
report the bill back to the House with various amendments and with the 
recommendation that the bill as amended, be passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 103 Cong. Rec. 1528, 1553, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the Speaker (3) inquired as to whether any 
Member demanded a separate vote on any amendment. In response thereto, 
Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, stated that he desired a separate 
vote on the amendment to Chapter III which had been adopted in the 
Committee. No other separate votes having been requested, the Chair put 
the remaining amendments en gros, and they were agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the Chair directed the Clerk to report the 
amendment on which a separate vote had been demanded. The Clerk read 
the amendment, after which Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, demanded the 
yeas and nays. This request having been refused, the question was put, 
taken, and agreed to by voice vote.

        At this point, Mrs. Green objected to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum was not present. After the Chair announced it would 
    count, Mrs. Green immediately withdrew the point of order and asked 
    for a division. The question was then taken on a division, and 
    there were--ayes 118, noes 46.

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present, and I make the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: The point of order is that that request 
    has already been made in reference to this vote, and the 
    gentlewoman withdrew it.
        The Speaker: The objection to the voice vote on the grounds 
    that a quorum was not present was withdrawn. The objection to the 
    vote by division, on the grounds that a quorum is not present, is 
    in order.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.

    The Speaker then directed the Clerk to call the roll.

Repeated Points of No Quorum

Sec. 11.2 While a division vote following a quorum call is 
    ``intervening business'' permitting an objection to the vote for 
    lack of a quorum under Rule XV clause 4, the Chair is not bound by 
    the result of

[[Page 11513]]

    the division but may count the House to determine whether a quorum 
    is in fact present.

    On Nov. 17, 1975,(4) the House was considering motions 
to suspend the rules. Pending the Chair's putting the question on one 
of these motions, a point of order was made that a quorum was not 
present:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 36914, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Evidently a quorum is 
    not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, a call of the House is ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The call was taken by electronic device, and the following 
    Members failed to respond: . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this rollcall 372 Members have 
    recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum.
        By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were 
    dispensed with. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Dominick V. Daniels) that the 
    House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 8618.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: 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 Pro Tempore: The Chair will point out to the 
    gentleman that the quorum has been established, and there has been 
    no intervening business.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I therefore demand the yeas 
    and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Ford 
    of Michigan) there were--ayes 115, noes 15.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: 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, as evidenced by the vote just cast.
        [After counting the House:]
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will point out to the 
    gentleman that a quorum had been established just prior to the 
    vote. The Chair determines that a quorum is still present.
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the bill was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

As Related to Adjournment

Sec. 11.3 A quorum not being required for purposes of adjournment, 
    objection to an affirmative division vote on a motion to adjourn--
    when based on the absence of a

[[Page 11514]]

    quorum--is not a proper point of order.

    On July 25, 1949,(6) the House met at 12 o'clock noon, a 
prayer was offered, and the Speaker (7) directed the Clerk 
to read the Journal of the last day's proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec.. 10092, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately following the Chair's instruction and before the Clerk 
proceeded, however, Mr. Ed Gossett, of Texas, moved that the House 
adjourn. This question was taken; and on a division there were--ayes 
46, noes 30.
    Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, then rose and the following exchange 
took place:

        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground there is no quorum present.
        The Speaker: That is not a proper point of order. The gentleman 
    may ask for the yeas and nays.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 102, nays 243, not 
    voting 87. . . .
        So the motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the absence of a quorum, only two 
motions are in order--a call of the House or a motion to 
adjourn.(8) In this particular instance, the motion to 
adjourn would have taken precedence over any simultaneously proposed 
motion for a call of the House; (9) hence no such motion was 
forthcoming despite the desire of the majority to avoid adjournment. 
Had the initial division vote been opposed to adjourning, however, an 
objection based on the lack of a quorum would have been in order, and--
assuming the point of order were sustained--an ``automatic'' roll call 
would have followed.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 769 (note); and Rule XV clause 
        2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 768 (1995).
 9. Id.
10. Rule XV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 773 (1995); see also 
        Sec. 11.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.4 While a quorum is not required to adjourn the House, a point 
    of no quorum following a negative division vote on adjournment, 
    when sustained, precipitates a call of the House under the rule 
    (Rule XV clause 4).

    On Dec. 11, 1963,(11) Mr. John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, sought unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk a 
bill (H.R. 4276) to provide for the creation of horizontal property 
regimes in the District of Columbia,

[[Page 11515]]

with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 24212, 24217, 24218, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the reading of the Senate amendment, Mr. Steven B. 
Derounian, of New York, rose to make the point of order that a quorum 
was not present. The Speaker (12) then asked the gentleman 
if he would withhold his point until the Chair could obtain the 
unanimous-consent request desired by Mr. McMillan. Mr. Derounian 
insisted on his point of order, however, whereupon Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, offered a preferential motion that the House adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of adjournment was taken; a division was demanded by 
Mr. Derounian and Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts; and, there 
were--ayes 60, noes 63. Immediately following the announcement of the 
vote, Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, objected to the vote on 
the ground that a quorum was not present. The Speaker sustained the 
point of order and ordered the Clerk to call the roll. The motion was 
agreed to, and the House adjourned.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For similar instances, see 97 Cong. Rec. 6621, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        June 15, 1951; and 97 Cong. Rec. 6097, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        June 4, 1951. For a comparable instance involving a point of no 
        quorum with respect to an affirmative division vote [on a 
        motion to adjourn] see Sec. 11.3, supra. And, for other 
        instances of objections to division votes precipitating 
        automatic roll calls, see Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.5 While a quorum is not required on an affirmative motion to 
    adjourn, a negative vote on that motion by division may precipitate 
    an ``automatic'' roll call pursuant to Rule XV clause 4.

    In the 100th Congress, on Nov. 2, 1987,(14) a similar 
instance occurred, where an automatic call pursuant to clause 4, Rule 
XV occurred when, following a vote by division, the House refused to 
adjourn but a quorum failed to respond on the vote. A quorum also 
failed to respond on the automatic vote, and the House found itself in 
that unenviable position where it could conduct no business and had 
only two alternatives, to persuade a majority to vote to adjourn in the 
absence of the required quorum or to obtain the presence of absentees 
so business could continue. A motion to direct the Sergeant at Arms to 
compel attendance of absent Members was also defeated, with a quorum 
still not responding on the vote. A sec

[[Page 11516]]

ond motion to adjourn was then made, the yeas and nays were taken, and 
the House continued to refuse to adjourn. Another yea and nay vote, on 
a motion to direct Speaker James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, who was 
presiding, to compel the attendance of absentees, was then adopted by 
less than a quorum; but under the operation of this order, additional 
Members finally entered the Chamber and recorded their presence. After 
some three hours, enough Members finally responded to make a quorum and 
a motion to adjourn taken by the yeas and nays was finally 
adopted.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 133 Cong. Rec. 30386-90, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The various steps taken to adjourn the House on Nov. 2, 1987, are 
        summarized above but annotations describing the various actions 
        in more detail are included here for clarity:
            The Speaker may in his discretion entertain parliamentary 
        inquiries relating to the pending parliamentary situation 
        during the pendency of a record vote although prior to the 
        announcement of the result where a quorum has not appeared.
            Where less than a quorum rejects a motion to adjourn, the 
        House may not consider business but may dispose of motions to 
        secure the attendance of absent Members.
            A privileged motion to compel the attendance of absent 
        Members is in order after the Chair has announced that a quorum 
        has not responded on a negative record vote to adjourn.
            Less than a quorum of the House rejected a motion directing 
        the Sergeant at Arms to arrest absent Members.
            Less than a quorum of the House rejected a second motion to 
        adjourn and then adopted a motion authorizing the Speaker to 
        compel the attendance of absent Members.
            The motion to compel the attendance of absent Members being 
        neither debatable nor amendable is not subject to a motion to 
        lay on the table.
            The House having authorized the Speaker to compel the 
        attendance of absent Members, the Speaker announced that the 
        Sergeant at Arms would proceed with necessary and efficacious 
        steps, and that pending the establishment of a quorum no 
        further business, including unanimous-consent requests for 
        recess authority, could be entertained.
            The House having authorized the Speaker to compel the 
        attendance of absent Members and having then obtained a quorum 
        by recording the names of additional Members who appeared 
        subsequent to the previous roll call on a negative motion to 
        adjourn, the motion to adjourn was then renewed and adopted by 
        roll call vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence Over Tellers

Sec. 11.6 An objection to a division vote on the ground that a quorum 
    is not present takes precedence over a demand for tellers on the 
    question.

    On June 18, 1953,(16) Mr. Robert B. Chiperfield, of 
Illinois,

[[Page 11517]]

moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of a bill (H.R. 5710) to amend further the Mutual 
Security Act of 1951, as amended. The question was taken; and Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, having demanded a division, there were--ayes 122, noes 
10. Immediately following the announcement of this result, Mr. Gross 
objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, then rose and demanded tellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 6840, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Faced with these two requests, the Speaker (17) stated 
that the point of order of Mr. Gross took precedence over Mr. Halleck's 
demand for tellers. The Chair then counted, and a quorum having been 
determined, the motion was agreed to.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
18. See also Sec. 15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Point of No Quorum Is in Order Where a Pending Question Is Put to a 
    Vote

Sec. 11.7 In the House, where the question of resolving into the 
    Committee of the Whole for consideration of a bill is taken by a 
    division vote, and the announcement of the result of the division 
    is followed by a point of order that a quorum is not present (but 
    not coupled with an objection to the vote for lack of a quorum 
    under Rule XV clause 4), the question is put de novo following the 
    quorum call.

    Rule XV clause 6(e) was adopted by the House in January 1977. It 
severely limited the right to make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present and specified that such a point of order can be made or 
entertained only when a pending question has been put to a vote. Since 
the adoption of this new rule, it has been the practice of the Speaker 
to put de novo a decisive question initially decided by fewer than a 
quorum, where the lack of a quorum was announced by the Chair in 
response to a point of order that a quorum was not present and a call 
of the House was thereafter ordered and taken, producing a quorum. This 
practice is disclosed by the proceedings of Sept. 22, 
1977,(19) which were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 30289, 30290, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7073) to 
    extend the Federal Insecticide,

[[Page 11518]]

    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la Garza).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, so that we 
    may have some record of the attendance of the House, as the 
    Constitution requires, in order to do business, I demand a 
    division.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) demands a division.
        Those in favor of the motion will rise and remain standing 
    until counted. The Chair will count all Members standing.
        The ayes will be seated and the noes will rise.
        On this vote, there are 18 ayes and no noes.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman object to the vote 
    on the ground that a quorum is not present?
        Mr. Bauman: No, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman allow the Chair, 
    then, to announce the vote?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman insists on his point of 
    order, and hopes that the point will be entertained by the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) desire an automatic rollcall?
        Mr. Bauman: No, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland simply 
    makes the point of order that a quorum is not present and the 
    Constitution does require a quorum to do business in the House.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) objecting to a quorum not being present or to the vote 
    as announced by the Chair?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the Chair 
    was in the process of announcing the vote and that the Chair did 
    not count for a quorum. The Chair was simply taking count of the 
    Members who were standing. It was the Chair's understanding that 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) in making his point of 
    order that a quorum was not present, was doing so in order that a 
    quorum be called in order to establish the presence of a quorum.
        Will the gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza, withdraw his 
    motion and move a call of the House?
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Speaker, if it is permissible to withdraw 
    my motion without asking unanimous consent then I will do so, and 
    if it is not, then I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
    motion.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11519]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, has the Chair entertained my point of 
    order of no quorum?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is in the process of 
    entertaining the gentleman's point of order.
        Mr. Bauman: I object to the withdrawal of the motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: While the motion may be withdrawn if 
    the gentleman from Texas asks, the House having taken no final 
    action on the motion, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) must 
    in the meantime decide within his own mind--and the Chair will 
    protect the gentleman's rights, and is so doing--whether the 
    gentleman from Maryland wants to object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present or the Chair would recognize someone 
    for a motion for a call of the House. If the Chair sustains the 
    point of order, the gentleman from Maryland may have one but he may 
    not have both.
        Mr. Bauman: The only point of order that the gentleman from 
    Maryland has made is that a quorum is not present, and there is 
    pending a motion at this time regarding resolving into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House, if a 
    quorum is not present, the motion on a call of the House would 
    still take precedence over the pending motion to resolve into 
    Committee.
        The gentleman from Maryland makes the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present and evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move a 
    call of the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.
        The call was taken by electronic device, and the following 
    Members failed to respond: . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this rollcall 286 Members have 
    recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum.
        By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were 
    dispensed with.

     federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act authorization

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The pending business is the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la Garza) that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 7073, on 
    which the Chair will again put the question.
        The motion was agreed to.

                       in the committee of the whole

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill H.R. 7073, with Mr. Danielson in the chair.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The practice was otherwise before the 
adoption of clause 6(e), Rule XV. A division vote having been taken on 
an amendment pending in the House, even though immediately followed by 
a point of no quorum and a call of the House, a second

[[Page 11520]]

demand for a division would not have been entertained. While the yeas 
and nays or a recorded vote could yet be demanded after the call of the 
House, the issue could be decided by the division vote unless so 
challenged.

Practice Before 1977; Precipitation of Automatic Roll Calls

Sec. 11.8 A point of no quorum, following announcement of the result of 
    a division vote on an amendment as to which less than a quorum 
    voted, does not precipitate an automatic roll call under the rules; 
    and unless objection to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
    present is made and such objection sustained, a call of the House 
    solely on the point of order that a quorum is not present precludes 
    a vote de novo on agreeing to the amendment.

    On Feb. 21, 1967,(1) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 83 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution authorized 
the Committee on Agriculture to investigate and make studies into a 
variety of matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 4137, 4139, 4140, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate, the Chair (2) put the question on 
agreeing to the committee amendments. The question was taken; and, Mr. 
Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, having demanded a division, there were--
ayes 34, noes 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately following the announcement of the vote, Mr. Jones rose 
to make a point of order, and the following colloquy ensued:

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman make the straight point of 
    order that a quorum is not present?
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes the 
    point of order. I want to get a quorum here and then I will have a 
    division.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri makes the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chair will state that the vote is automatic at this point.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: The vote on the resolution is not 
    automatic. At this point we are only voting on the amendments.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Missouri make the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present and objects to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present?
        Evidently, a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 11521]]

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is whether or 
    not the gentleman from Missouri did object to the vote on the basis 
    that a quorum was not present as was stated by the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to understand clearly what 
    the gentleman from Missouri is demanding.
        Is the gentleman from Missouri demanding a straight quorum 
    call?
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: I was demanding a straight quorum call, 
    and then I am going to ask for a division when we come to adopting 
    the resolution.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move a call of 
    the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.

    Over 300 Members having answered to their names, a quorum was 
established,(3) and pursuant to unanimous consent, further 
proceedings under the call were dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. It should be noted that Mr. Jones intended to demand a second 
        division vote on the amendments following the quorum call. 
        During the call, however, he was advised that a vote de novo 
        would not be in order. Accordingly, when the call established 
        the presence of a quorum, Mr. Jones did not choose to press the 
        point. The gentleman could have obtained a second vote on 
        agreeing to the amendments through the automatic roll call 
        provision of Rule XV clause 4 [Rule XV clause 4, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 773 (1995)], if he had not decided to pursue a 
        ``straight quorum call'' under Rule XV clause 2(b) [Rule XV 
        clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 771b (1995)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker put the question on agreeing to the 
resolution as amended. The question was taken; and on a division 
demanded by Mr. Jones, there were--ayes 128, noes 25.
    At this point, Mr. Jones rose again, prompting the following 
exchange and resultant roll call:

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: 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: The gentleman from Missouri objects to the vote on 
    the ground that a quorum is not present, and makes the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 306, nays 18, not 
    voting 108.

Sec. 11.9 In Committee of the Whole, only one demand for a vote by 
    division on a pending question is in order.

    In the 98th Congress, during consideration of the Education 
Amendments of 1984 (H.R. 11) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman 
Abraham Kazen, Jr., of

[[Page 11522]]

Texas, put the question on a pending amendment offered by Mr. Pat 
Williams, of Montana. On a division vote, the Chair announced the 
result to be 19 in the affirmative, 21 in the negative. After 
intervening business--a quorum call and an unsuccessful attempt to get 
a recorded vote on the amendment--a second request for a division vote 
was denied. The proceedings of July 26, 1984,(4) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. 21259, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Williams of Montana) there were--ayes 19, noes 21.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is 
    not present.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. Forty-four 
    Members are present, not a quorum.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair 
    announces that he 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 pending question following the quorum call. Members 
    will record their presence by electronic device.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Three hundred and ninety-six Members 
    have answered to their names, a quorum is present, and the 
    Committee will resume its business.
        The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from 
    Montana [Mr. Williams] for a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        So the amendment was rejected.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, may I request the yeas 
    and nays on that last vote?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: A recorded vote had been requested 
    and refused.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: May I ask for the yeas and nays?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Not at this time.

        The Chair will tell the gentleman from Montana that that would 
    not be permitted in the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry; may I ask for a division?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: There has already been one.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: I understand that. My question is, May 
    I ask for another?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: No.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: I thank the Chairman.

    A similar sequence of events occurred in the Committee of the Whole 
in the 103d Congress. On June 29, 1994,(5) the House had

[[Page 11523]]

under consideration the Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 
1995. Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney, of New York, offered an amendment which 
was debated. When the question on adoption of the amendment was put by 
the Chair it appeared that the amendment was rejected on a voice vote. 
Mrs. Maloney then asked for a recorded vote and made a point of order 
that a quorum was not present. The Chair counted the Committee and 
announced that a quorum was present in the Chamber. Mrs. Maloney did 
not renew her demand for a recorded vote at this point, but instead 
asked for a division. After counting those standing in support of and 
in opposition to the amendment, the Chair announced that the ayes were 
20, the noes 69. Mrs. Maloney again made a point of no quorum and the 
Chair announced that after again counting the Members present a quorum 
was still present.(6) When Mrs. Maloney again asked for a 
vote by division, the Chair ruled that a second request was not in 
order. Mrs. Maloney then renewed her demand for a recorded vote but an 
insufficient number of Members rose to second her demand. The amendment 
was thus rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. In response to Mrs. Maloney's argument that the Chair should have 
        called for a quorum call when the vote by division showed less 
        than a quorum voting, she was advised that a vote by division 
        takes no cognizance of Members present but not voting, and 
        consequently the number of votes counted by division has no 
        tendency to establish a lack of quorum. See House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 630a (1995), June 29, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     amendment offered by mrs. maloney

        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney: Page 14, strike lines 4 
        through 22.

        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to cut the 
    single most ridiculous item in the budget.
        Let me make this simple and quick. Three simple facts: The 
    Civilian Marksmanship Program is obsolete. Created in 1903 during 
    the Spanish-American War, it is no longer needed to train men and 
    women to shoot straight. It is time to declare victory and cut this 
    boondoggle out of the budget. It is a boondoggle.
        It hands out millions of rounds of ammunition to private gun 
    clubs. The Army does not want it. The Department of Defense does 
    not want it. The Office of Management and Budget does not want the 
    money.
        If we cannot cut here, where? Where are we going to cut?
        Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask 
    for a vote on the amendment.

[[Page 11524]]

        The Chairman: (7) Do other Members seek to be 
    recognized for debate on the amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Robert G. Torricelli (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and I 
    make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman from New York has requested a 
    recorded vote.
        Those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and remain standing 
    until counted. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I note the absence of a quorum.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman makes a point of order that a 
    quorum is not present. The Chair will count for a quorum.
        A quorum is present.
        Mrs. Maloney: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman from New York has demanded a 
    division.
        Those in favor of the amendment will rise and remain standing 
    until counted.
        Those opposed will rise and remain standing until counted.
        On this vote, in the affirmative: 20; opposed: 69.
        Mrs. Maloney: In the absence of a quorum, I asked for a quorum.
        Mr. Murtha: Regular order.
        Mrs. Maloney: Notice of a quorum.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman has made a point of order of no 
    quorum. The Chair must again count for a quorum since there has 
    been a division vote.
        The Chair has counted more than 100 Members for a quorum. A 
    quorum is present.
        Mrs. Maloney: Division; I ask for a division.
        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman is not able to ask for a division 
    again. A division vote has been conducted.
        Mr. Murtha: Regular order.

Sec. 11.10 Objection to a voice vote taken in the House for lack of a 
    quorum having been withdrawn and demand then being made for a 
    division, an objection to the division vote for lack of a quorum is 
    in order and, if a quorum is not present the roll call is 
    automatic.

    On Feb. 5, 1957,(8) the House entertained consideration 
(9) of an amendment to a bill (H.R. 4249) making 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957. The amendment 
having been agreed to by voice vote, Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, ob

[[Page 11525]]

jected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. The 
Speaker (10) then announced he would count, after which Mrs. 
Green immediately withdrew her point of order and asked for a division. 
The division then being taken, there were--ayes 118, noes 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 1553, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. For greater detail see Sec. 11.1, supra.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, the following discussion ensued:

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present, and I make the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: The point of order is that that request 
    has already been made in reference to this vote, and the 
    gentlewoman withdrew it.
        The Speaker: The objection to the voice vote on the grounds 
    that a quorum was not present was withdrawn. The objection to the 
    vote by division, on the grounds that a quorum is not present, is 
    in order.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

Sec. 11.11 An objection to a division vote taken in the Committee of 
    the Whole and based on the absence of a quorum may not precipitate 
    an ``automatic'' roll call under the rules; ``automatic'' roll 
    calls are not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

        On June 7, 1973,(11) the House resolved itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 
    7446) to establish the American Revolution Bicentennial 
    Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 18509, 18518, 18521, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Lawrence G. 
Williams, of Pennsylvania, offered several amendments en bloc and, 
following debate on these amendments, the Chair (12) put the 
question before the Committee. The question was taken; and the Chair 
announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. Williams then demanded 
a recorded vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Henry B. Gonzalez (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the following discussion ensued:

        The Chairman: A recorded vote has been demanded.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that. I make the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present, and I object to the vote on 
    that basis.
        The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    that that procedure is not in order in the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. I object 
    to the

[[Page 11526]]

    vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and I request a 
    rollcall vote.
        I can object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
    present, and insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: Not in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
    wishes to advise.
        The gentleman may be advised that he may wish to raise a point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Williams: That is exactly what I have done.
        The Chairman: But the gentleman must be advised that during 
    proceedings of the Committee of the Whole, an automatic vote is not 
    a proper request.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    vote previously taken on the basis that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania raises the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present. Is that what the gentleman 
    wishes? (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Since an objection to a division vote in the Committee of the Whole 
        on the ground of no quorum will not lie, the only proper way to 
        obtain a record vote under the circumstances would have been to 
        raise a point of no quorum pending a demand for a recorded 
        vote.
            For additional information as to points of no quorum, see 
        Ch. 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Williams: No. I demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair will remind the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that that demand has been withdrawn.
        Mr. Williams: I did withdraw it before. I am now requesting a 
    recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania now demands a 
    recorded vote on his amendments.
        Mr. Williams' request for a recorded vote was refused, and the 
    amendments were rejected.

Where Parliamentary Inquiry Precedes Objection

Sec. 11.12 Although preceded by a parliamentary inquiry, an objection 
    to a division vote in the House on the ground that a quorum was not 
    present, does not come too late and is in order.

    On Mar. 7, 1956,(14) the House entertained consideration 
of a bill (H.R. 9739) making appropriations for various executive 
bureaus and bodies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 4215, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of debate, it was agreed that one of the proposed 
amendments to the bill would be voted on separately. The Chair being in 
doubt upon the taking of the question, a division was had, and there 
were ayes 17, noes 31.
    Immediately following the Chair's announcement to that effect, Mr. 
Gordon Canfield, of New Jersey, propounded a parliamen

[[Page 11527]]

tary inquiry asking if it were too late to request that that amendment 
be read to the House. The Speaker Pro Tempore (15) informed 
Mr. Canfield that the amendment having been read, the Chair assumed 
that every Member was aware of its content. Hence, the amendment was 
not reread by the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the Chair's ruling on the Canfield inquiry, Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, rose to object to the vote on the ground that a quorum 
was not present. Mr. Gross' objection prompted the following exchange:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman's point comes too late. There was a 
    parliamentary inquiry submitted since the division.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
    Canfield] addressed the Chair on a point of order. The gentleman 
    from Iowa [Mr. Gross] was justified in waiting until that point of 
    order had been determined by the Chair. Immediately upon that 
    determination the gentleman from Iowa made the point of order that 
    a quorum was not present and objected to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum was not present. The Chair feels that the gentleman 
    from Iowa exercised his rights under the rules in such manner that 
    a point of order against his point of order would not lie.

Where Yeas and Nays Refused

Sec. 11.13 Less than a quorum having voted on a division and a yea and 
    nay vote having been refused, it is not too late to object to the 
    division vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.

    On June 1, 1942,(16) Mr. Joseph J. Mansfield, of Texas, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 6999) to authorize the 
construction and operation of a pipe-line and a navigable barge canal 
across Florida, among other things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 4767, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate, the Speaker (17) put the 
question.(18) The question was taken; and Mr. John D. 
Dingell, of Michigan, having demanded a division, there were 85 ayes 
and 121 noes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 4774, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Mansfield thereupon requested the yeas and nays-prompting the 
Speaker to count those Members in favor. An insufficient number having 
arisen, the yeas and nays were refused.
    Mr. Herman P. Kopplemann, of Connecticut, then commenced the 
following discussion:

        Mr. Kopplemann: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order that 
    there is no quorum present, and I object to the vote on that 
    ground.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count.

[[Page 11528]]

        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman's point of order comes too late.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hold that it does not come too 
    late. The Chair will count. [After counting.] More than 218 Members 
    are present, a quorum.

    Two-thirds of those present not having voted in favor thereof, the 
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was rejected.

Objection Resulting in Postponement of Roll Call Vote

Sec. 11.14 Objection having been raised to a division vote on the 
    ground that a quorum was not present, the point of order that a 
    quorum was not present was made and further proceedings were 
    postponed pursuant to a previous unanimous-consent agreement that 
    any roll call votes would be put over until a later day.

    On Oct. 5, 1965,(19) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint 
resolution (S.J. Res. 106) to allow the showing in the United States of 
the U.S. Information Agency film ``John F. Kennedy-Years of Lightning, 
Day of Drums.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 25941, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After some discussion pertaining to the precedential nature of such 
an authorization as well as certain other concerns of various Members, 
the Speaker Pro Tempore (20) put the question. It was taken; 
and, on a division demanded by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, there were--
ayes 55, noes 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Gross then rose immediately to object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum was not present.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 25944, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response thereto, the Chair stated that pursuant to the order of 
the House of Oct. 1, 1965, further proceedings on the Senate joint 
resolution would be put over until Oct. 7, 1965.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The postponement of such proceedings was a result of a unanimous-
        consent agreement reached on Oct. 1, 1965. In light of 
        impending religious holidays, the House agreed that any roll 
        call votes, other than on questions of procedure, would be put 
        over until October 7. See 111 Cong. Rec. 25797, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 1, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Untimely

Sec. 11.15 Objection to a division vote on the ground that a

[[Page 11529]]

    quorum was not present comes too late after the vote has been 
    announced, the bill passed, and a motion to reconsider has been 
    laid on the table.

    On Sept. 17, 1962,(3) Mrs. Gracie B. Pfost, of Idaho, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 12761) to provide 
relief for residential occupants of unpatented mining claims. The 
Speaker Pro Tempore (4) following debate, put the question. 
Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, having demanded a division, the 
question was taken, and there were 49 ayes and 13 noes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 19650, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker Pro Tempore then announced that two-thirds having voted 
in the affirmative, the rules were suspended and the bill passed. He 
further stated that if there were no objection, a motion to reconsider 
would be laid on the table. The Record indicates there was no immediate 
objection.
    Shortly thereafter, however, Mr. Dingell objected to the vote on 
the ground that a quorum was not present. In response thereto, Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, rose to a point of order that the 
Dingell objection came too late. The Speaker Pro Tempore concurring in 
that conclusion, Mr. Dingell withdrew the point of order.

In the Committee of the Whole

Sec. 11.16 In the Committee of the Whole, objection will not lie to a 
    division vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.

    On Aug. 1, 1966,(5) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
14765) to assure nondiscrimination in federal and state jury selection, 
to facilitate desegregation of public education and other public 
facilities, to provide judicial relief against discriminatory housing 
practices, to prescribe penalties for certain acts of intimidation, and 
for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 112 Cong. Rec. 17831, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of 
Colorado, moved that all debate on title II and all amendments thereto 
terminate at 4 o'clock that day.(6) The Chair (7) 
put the question; it was taken, and on a division demanded by Mr. Joe 
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, there were-ayes 51, noes 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 17844.
 7. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John V. Dowdy, of Texas, thereupon rose to object, as follows:

[[Page 11530]]

        Mr. Dowdy: Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that such an 
    objection is not valid in the Committee of the Whole.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A point of order that a quorum is not 
present will lie in the Committee of the Whole; however, objection will 
not lie to any vote in the Committee on the ground that a quorum is not 
present. See, for example, the proceedings of Dec. 17, 
1970,(8) where the Chairman ordered a quorum call following 
a point of order that a quorum was not present, but ruled an objection 
to a voice vote on the same ground to be out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 42232, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 12. Determining Presence of Quorum as Related to Division Vote

Counting Those Present

Sec. 12.1 In determining the presence of a quorum on a division vote, 
    the Chair counts those Members who are present but not voting.

    On Aug. 13, 1940,(9) Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, called up House Resolution 406 which provided that upon 
the adoption of the resolution, the House would resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole in order to consider H.R. 8157, a bill to 
establish a national land policy and to provide homesteads free of debt 
for farm families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 10251, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate on the resolution, the previous question was 
ordered (10) and the question taken on the resolution; 
(11) and there were on a division (demanded by Mr. Colmer)--
ayes 47, noes 123. This result prompted Mr. Knute Hill, of Washington, 
to object to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. The 
Speaker (12) counted and announced that the count disclosed 
235 Members present--a quorum. The yeas and nays were requested and 
refused; so the resolution was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 10257.
11. Id. at p. 10258.
12. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.2 The Speaker having counted a quorum after putting the 
    question on a pending amendment, and less than a quorum having 
    voted by division on the same question immediately thereafter, the 
    Speaker, in reply to a point of order, ruled that a

[[Page 11531]]

    quorum was present, and said that the Chair was not responsible if 
    all Members did not vote.

    On Apr. 2, 1943,(13) the House entertained further 
consideration of the war security bill (H.R. 2087) which was intended 
to provide for the punishment of certain hostile acts against the 
United States, among other things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 2877, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Harry Sauthoff, of 
Wisconsin, offered an amendment to strike out certain portions of the 
bill which he believed to present a threat to civil 
liberties.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 2879.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate on the Sauthoff amendment, the question was put by 
the Speaker,(15) whereupon Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, raised the point of order that a quorum was not 
present.(16) The Chair counted and having found 219 Members 
present, proceeded to put the question. A division was had, and the 
vote resulted in 62 ayes, and 112 noes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 2886, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Sauthoff rose to object to the vote, as 
follows:

        Mr. Sauthoff: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair has just counted, and a quorum was 
    present. The Chair is not responsible if all Members in the House 
    do not vote. The Chair must hold that a quorum is present.

    So, the amendment was rejected.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For a comparable instance in which a quorum was ascertained 
        immediately following a division vote of less than a quorum, 
        see 86 Cong. Rec. 10258, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 13, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 13. Division Vote as Related to Demand for Tellers

Where Tellers Refused Prior to Division

Sec. 13.1 The House has agreed to adjourn by division vote after 
    refusing both the yeas and nays and a teller vote on the motion.

    On May 15, 1946,(18) Mr. Graham A. Barden, of North 
Carolina, was recognized and moved that the House adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 5067, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, and Mr. 
Andrew J. Biemiller, of

[[Page 11532]]

Wisconsin, demanded the yeas and nays.
    The yeas and nays having been refused, Mr. Marcantonio then 
demanded tellers which were also refused. The latter refusal prompted 
him to seek a division. This request was subsequently honored following 
a brief, intervening inquiry from Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts. The Speaker (19) put the question; it was 
taken; (20) and there were--ayes 99, noes 81. Accordingly, 
the House adjourned until the following day, May 16, 1946, at 12 
o'clock noon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 5068, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.2 A demand for a teller vote in the Committee of the Whole 
    having been refused, a second demand for such a vote following a 
    division vote on the pending question was not in order.

    On June 13, 1957,(1) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6127) to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil 
rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 9018, 9030, 9034, 9035, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. William M. Tuck, of 
Virginia, offered an amendment. Following debate, the Chair 
(2) put the question, and the Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it. Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of Michigan, was 
recognized immediately thereafter, and demanded tellers. This request 
having been refused, Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, then rose to 
ask for a division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following a brief discussion between the Chair and two Members as 
to whether a division was permissible, the Chair held Mr. Keating was 
within his rights. Accordingly, the Committee divided; and there were--
ayes 106, noes 114.
    This turn of events prompted the following colloquy:

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Colmer: Would it be in order to have tellers?
        The Chairman: Tellers have been refused.
        Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, the tellers were refused 
    after the Chair had ruled and said that the amendment was agreed 
    to. Then tell

[[Page 11533]]

    ers were demanded, and those people who now want tellers felt that 
    the amendment was agreed to, so they did not rise to ask for 
    tellers; and I can get the House to agree with me. I make that 
    point of order and ask the Chair to rule on it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule that on the demand for 
    tellers an insufficient number of Members rose to their feet.

        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I disagree with the ruling of the Chair 
    and ask for a vote on the ruling of the Chair. I say that he had 
    already ruled on the vote.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman appeal from the ruling of the 
    Chair?
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. [William J.] Green [Jr.] of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Green of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, it is too late for the 
    gentleman to appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has appealed from the ruling of the 
    Chair.
        The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
    judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes apparently had it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
        The Committee divided; and there were--ayes 222, noes 4.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, is it now in order to ask for 
    tellers after the rising vote?
        The Chairman: It is not in order. The question was taken on the 
    amendment and the question was decided.

    Accordingly, the amendment was rejected.

Where Tellers Sought Following Division and Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 13.3 A demand for tellers did not come too late where the Member 
    was on his feet when the division was announced but first 
    propounded a parliamentary inquiry before making the demand.

    On Sept. 20, 1967,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of further considering a bill 
(H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health Service Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 26119, 26120, 26130, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John Jarman, of 
Oklahoma, offered a perfecting amendment to section 12 of the bill. Mr. 
Jarman's amendment was discussed, and upon the expiration of the time 
allotted for its consideration, the Chairman put

[[Page 11534]]

the question, the question was taken, and, on a division demanded by 
Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, there were--ayes 43, noes 102. 
Thereafter, the following discussion transpired:

        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, was that vote on the Jarman 
    perfecting amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that is correct.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Mr. [James J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    demand comes too late; the Chairman had already announced the vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the point of order is 
    overruled.

    Accordingly, tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed Mr. 
Jarman and Mr. William L. Springer, of Illinois, as tellers.

Where Tellers Sought Following Division and Point of No Quorum

Sec. 13.4 The right to demand tellers was not prejudiced by the fact 
    that a point of no quorum and a call of the House intervened 
    following a division vote on the question on which tellers were 
    requested.

    On Sept. 25, 1969,(4) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 12884) to 
amend title 13, United States Code, to assure confidentiality of 
information furnished in response to inquiries of the Bureau of the 
Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 27018, 27036, 27041, 27042, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Jackson E. Betts, of 
Ohio, offered an amendment, and the question was subsequently put by 
the Chair.(5) The question was taken; and, Mr. Betts 
demanding a division, there were--ayes 32, noes 22. Mr. Thaddeus J. 
Dulski, of New York, then raised a point of no quorum. The Chair's 
count revealing only 75 Members present, the Clerk was directed to call 
the roll; the Committee rose, and the Speaker (6) resumed 
the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. George W. Andrews (Ala.).
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a quorum responded to the call, the Committee resumed its 
sitting, and the following discussion then ensued:

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson [of California]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: The Committee will be in order.

[[Page 11535]]

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    California rise?
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, on the Betts amendment I 
    demand tellers.
        Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the demand for tellers is out of order. The 
    time is past for that. The Chair asked for a division vote and the 
    vote was 32 to 22, and the amendment was agreed to. The Chairman 
    announced that the amendment was agreed to. Then the chairman of 
    the full Committee on Post Office and Civil Service made the point 
    of order that a quorum was not present and there was a call of the 
    House.
        My point of order is that when the chairman of the Committee on 
    Post Office and Civil Service made the point of order that a quorum 
    was not present, that that cut off the teller vote.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I just ask for tellers and 
    I assume I am following the correct procedure in asking for 
    tellers. There has been no intervening business, and it is my 
    understanding that----
        Mr. Montgomery: There was intervening business. There was a 20-
    minute delay.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on this point of order?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: May I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: There was no intervening business between 
    the division vote and the point of order being made that a quorum 
    was not present. We went through the quorum call immediately, and 
    subsequently the gentleman from California asked for tellers.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that is the way the Chair 
    recalls the procedure.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Missouri to be heard on the point of order.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the point of order should 
    not be sustained inasmuch as the record will indicate that the 
    Chair had announced the division vote, but it had not said that the 
    amendment was agreed to. The Chair had not made the final decision. 
    The right of any Member of the House to ask for a teller vote, to 
    ask for a reconsideration, or to ask for any other privileged 
    motion had not inured; therefore the request, because the quorum 
    call could not be interrupted, to ask for tellers is quite in 
    order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair again 
    recognize me for one other observation?

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan 
    on the point of order.

[[Page 11536]]

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet awaiting the 
    opportunity to ask for tellers at the time the gentleman from New 
    York made the point of order that a quorum was not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Missouri is 
    correct in his recollection. The Chair had not said that the 
    amendment was agreed to, therefore no intervening business had 
    taken place when the point of order of no quorum was made.
        The Chair will read from Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
    Representatives, volume 8, page 646, section 3104:

            The right to demand tellers is not prejudiced by the fact 
        that a point of no quorum has been made against a division of 
        the question on which tellers are requested.

        That precedent was established on December 13, 1917.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. It should also be noted that where a division vote has been 
        followed by a point of no quorum which, in turn, is followed by 
        agreement to a privileged motion that the Committee rise, 
        neither of the foregoing constitutes ``intervening business'' 
        which would preclude a demand for tellers on the pending 
        question immediately following the resumption of business in 
        the Committee. Generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.5 Where a point of no quorum was made and withdrawn immediately 
    after a division vote, it was not then too late to demand a teller 
    vote on the pending proposition.

    On Mar. 8, 1946,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
5605) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 2061, 2081, 2084, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John W. Heselton, of 
Massachusetts, offered an amendment pertaining to the distribution of 
funds for soil conservation in accordance with the conservation needs 
of the particular states.
    Mr. Heselton's amendment was debated, and subsequently put before 
the Committee for a vote. The question was taken; and on a division 
demanded by Mr. Heselton, there were--ayes 42, noes 28.
    Mr. Reid F. Murray, of Wisconsin, then rose to make the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. As the Chairman (9) 
announced his intent to count, Mr. Murray rose again to withdraw his 
point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, was then prompted to advance the 
following parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11537]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, is it too late to ask for tellers on 
    this vote?
        The Chairman: No; it is not too late to ask for tellers.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.

    Tellers having been ordered and appointed, the Committee again 
divided; and the tellers reported that there were--ayes 30, noes 43. 
Accordingly, the amendment was rejected.

Where Tellers Demanded Following Division and Point of No Quorum in the 
    Committee of the Whole

Sec. 13.6 Where a point of no quorum was made in the Committee of the 
    Whole and the roll was called as a demand for tellers on an 
    amendment remained pending, the question of ordering tellers was 
    put immediately after the Committee resumed its sitting, and a 
    division vote taken prior to the demand for tellers was not final.

    On May 10, 1946,(10) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6335) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 4827, 4833, 4834, 4837, 4840, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Henry C. Dworshak, 
of Idaho, offered an amendment to an amendment offered by Mr. J. W. 
Robinson, of Utah. Mr. Dworshak's proposal sought to decrease certain 
expenditures contained within the Robinson amendment, and was 
ultimately embraced by Mr. Robinson prior to the vote.
    The Chairman (11) subsequently put the question; it was 
taken; and, on a division demanded by Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, 
there were--ayes 41, noes 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, demanded 
tellers whereupon Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, made the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. The Chair then counting only 87 
Members present, the Clerk was directed to call the roll.
    A quorum having responded to the roll call, the Committee rose; the 
Chairman submitted the absentees' names to be spread upon the Journal; 
and the Speaker (12) directed the Committee to resume its 
sitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, the following exchange transpired:

[[Page 11538]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demands 
    tellers on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
    Dworshak] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
    Robinson].
        Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Granger: As I understood the situation when the quorum was 
    called, the Chair had already announced that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Idaho to the amendment had been agreed to; 
    and the request comes too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair had announced that on a division the 
    amendment to the amendment had been agreed to. Thereupon, the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demanded tellers. At that 
    point a point of order was made that a quorum was not present.
        The gentleman's demand for tellers is now pending.

    Having clarified the situation, the Chairman proceeded to order 
tellers, and the amendment to the amendment was subsequently rejected.

Sec. 13.7 The demand for tellers on an amendment did not come too late 
    where the absence of a quorum had prevented the Chair from 
    announcing the adoption of the amendment by division vote.

    On Sept. 24, 1970,(13) the House resolved itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws in 
order to deal more comprehensively with the problems attendant upon 
drug abuse prevention and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 33603, 33628, 33634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Richard H. Poff, of 
Virginia offered an amendment. Following debate, the question was taken 
on the amendment, and, on a division demanded by Mr. Robert C. 
Eckhardt, of Texas, there were--ayes 35, noes 22. This result prompted 
Mr. James C. Corman, of California, to raise the point of order that a 
quorum was not present. The Chair (14) then counting only 71 
Members, a quorum call was ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A quorum having responded, the Committee rose; the Chairman 
reported the results to the Speaker,(15) and the Committee 
resumed its sitting. Thereafter, a subsequent demand for tellers was 
honored as the following excerpt reveals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: When the point of order was made on the absence 
    of a quorum, the Chair had just announced the vote by division on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Poff)--35 
    ayes, 22 noes.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

[[Page 11539]]

        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Poff and Mr. Eckhardt.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 147, noes 61.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 13.8 Where the Chair had announced the result of a division vote 
    on an amendment but was precluded from announcing the adoption of 
    the amendment by a point of order of no quorum, it was in order to 
    demand tellers on the amendment upon the resumption of proceedings 
    in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 24, 1970,(16) the House having resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws, an 
amendment was offered and, subsequently, put to a vote by the 
Chairman.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 33634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
17. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A division having been demanded, there were--ayes 35, noes 22. 
Before the Chair could announce the adoption of the amendment, however, 
a point of order of no quorum was raised whereupon the Chair was 
obliged to count.
    The count revealing the absence of a quorum, the Clerk was directed 
to call the roll, and 335 Members responded to their names. The 
Committee rose; the Chairman informed the Speaker (18) of 
the preceding events--entering the names of absentees on the Journal--
and, in accordance with the rules,(19) the Committee resumed 
its sitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
19. See Rule XXIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 863 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas, demanded 
tellers which were ordered as requested.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 14. Division Vote as Related to Demand for Yeas and Nays

In General

Sec. 14.1 A demand for the yeas and nays in the House takes precedence 
    of a request for a division.

    Where the vote on the approval of the Journal was postponed to 
follow debate on certain motions to suspend the rules, the yeas and 
nays were demanded when the Chair eventually put the ques-tion. The 
proceedings of Mar. 29, 1993,(20) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 139 Cong. Rec. 6666, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 11540]]

                  announcement by the speaker pro tempore

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Debate has concluded on 
    all motions to suspend the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, the Chair will now put the 
    question on agreeing to the approval of the Journal and on each of 
    the first two motions to suspend the rules on which further 
    proceedings were postponed earlier today in the order in which each 
    arose.
        Votes, therefore, will be taken in the following order:
        On agreeing to the Journal, de novo:
        H.R. 175, by the yeas and nays; and H.R. 829, as amended, by 
    the yeas and nays.

                                the journal

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, the 
    pending business is the question of the Chair's approval of the 
    Journal.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a division.
        Mr. [John] Lewis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will announce that this will 
    be a 15-minute vote, and subsequent votes on the two motions to 
    suspend the rules upon which proceedings were postponed will be 5-
    minute votes.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    231, nays 137, not voting 62, as follows: . . .

Sec. 14.2 The House, first by division vote resulting in a tie, and 
    then by the yeas and nays, rejected a preferential motion to recede 
    and concur in a Senate amendment.

    On Dec. 10, 1963,(2) the House agreed to the conference 
report on a bill (H.R. 8747) making appropriations for various 
executive bureaus and offices for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 23949-53, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the House entertained discussion as to those Senate 
amendments remaining in disagreement. One of these was Senate amendment 
No. 92. Mr. Harold C. Ostertag, of New York, offered a preferential 
motion that the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate 
amendment and concur therein.
    Following debate, the Speaker (3) put the question on 
the preferential motion; it was taken; and on a division demanded by 
Mr. Ostertag, there were--ayes 102, noes 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, then sought the yeas and nays, and a 
sufficient number having seconded his demand, they were ordered. The 
question was taken; and there were--yeas 171, nays 204, not voting 59. 
Accordingly,

[[Page 11541]]

the motion to recede and concur was rejected.

Where Demand Is Refused

Sec. 14.3 The Chair having abstained from a division vote to adjourn, a 
    demand for the yeas and nays was seconded by 20 percent of those 
    participating in the vote--but refused when the Chair noted that, 
    counting himself, less than the minimum number of Members present 
    had seconded the demand.

    On June 30, 1937,(4) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, moved 
that the House adjourn. The Speaker (5) put the question; it 
was taken and on a division vote demanded by Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, there were--ayes 41, noes 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 6642, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Rankin demanded the yeas and nays. The 
Speaker then proceeded to count those in favor of that demand, and soon 
announced that:

        . . . Thirteen gentlemen have arisen, not a sufficient number. 
    The rule provides that the yeas and nays may be ordered by one-
    fifth of the Members present.

    Since the Speaker had counted himself in reaching the total number 
of Members present, the 13 seconding Members--while clearly comprising 
one-fifth of those who had risen on the division vote--did not comprise 
one-fifth of those present. Accordingly, the demand was refused.

In the Senate

Sec. 14.4 In the Senate the Chair does not announce the number of 
    Members voting ``aye'' and ``no'' on a division vote, and after a 
    request that such announcement be made, the Chair has held that it 
    was too late to ask for a yea and nay vote.

    On Jan. 19, 1944,(6) the Senate entertained 
consideration of a bill (S. 469) relating to the use of the emblem and 
name of the Red Cross in the United States and its territorial 
possessions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 387, 390, 398, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Senator Joseph C. 
O'Mahoney, of Wyoming, offered an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Millard E. Tydings, of Maryland, the Presiding Officer (7) 
put the question, and the following exchange transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Hattie W. Caraway (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Presiding Officer: The question now recurs on the amendment 
    of

[[Page 11542]]

    fered by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'Mahoney] in behalf of the 
    Senator from Maryland [Mr. Tydings]. [Putting the question.] The 
    ``noes'' seem to have it.
        Mr. Tydings: Mr. President, I ask for a division.
        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. President, will the Chair 
    restate the question.
        The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the 
    amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming in behalf of the 
    Senator from Maryland. A division has been requested.
        Mr. Pepper: Would a vote ``aye'' be in favor of the amendment.
        The Presiding Officer: Yes.
        On a division, the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. Tydings: Mr. President, for the Record will the Chair 
    please announce the vote?
        The Presiding Officer: Under the rules the Chair does not 
    announce the result on a division.
        Mr. Tydings: I know that the Chair is not obliged to announce 
    the result. However, I do not wish to ask for a roll call, and if 
    the Chair will accommodate the Senator from Maryland he will try to 
    cooperate with the Chair and get on with the discharge of business. 
    There can be no reason why the result of the vote should be secret.
        The Presiding Officer: Is there objection to the request of the 
    Senator from Maryland that the Chair announce the result of the 
    vote?
        Mr. [Robert M.] Lafollette [Jr., of Wisconsin]: I object.
        The Presiding Officer: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Tydings: Mr. President, I ask for the ``yeas'' and 
    ``nays.''
        Mr. Lafollette: I make the point of order that the request 
    comes too late.
        The Presiding Officer: The Chair rules that the request comes 
    too late.
        The point of order is sustained.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 15. Voting by the Chair on Division Votes

Affirmative Tie-breaking Votes

Sec. 15.1 The Speaker has voted in the affirmative on a division vote 
    to break a tie.

    On July 15, 1937,(8) the House agreed to the conference 
report on the bill (H.R. 6958) making appropriations for the Department 
of the Interior for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, and for other 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 7184, 7197, 7198, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Senate amendments 
remaining in disagreement were discussed in chronological order. Among 
them was Senate amendment No. 89, which provided funds for a project in 
Arizona to divert certain waters.
    With respect to this amendment, Mr. James G. Scrugham, of Nevada, 
moved that the House recede and concur in the amendment. Mr. Abe 
Murdock, of Utah, then demanded a division of the

[[Page 11543]]

question. The Speaker (9) having honored this request, the 
question before the House was whether or not to recede.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question was taken; and on a division demanded by Mr. Robert F. 
Rich, of Pennsylvania, there were-ayes 58, noes 58. The Chair then 
immediately voted ``aye,'' breaking the tie.
    The Speaker's vote notwithstanding, the House subsequently decided 
not to recede by a vote by the yeas and nays.

Sec. 15.2 The Chairman has voted in the affirmative, on a division 
    vote, to break a tie.

    On Mar. 8, 1961,(10) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
4510) to provide a special program for feed grains for 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 3491, 3508, 3511, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Ralph Harvey, of 
Indiana, offered an amendment authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture 
to fix price supports for corn up to 75 percent of parity.
    Following some discussion of this amendment, Mr. Harold D. Cooley, 
of North Carolina, moved that all debate on the Harvey amendment close 
in five minutes. The Chairman (11) put the question; it was 
taken; and on a division demanded by Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, 
there were-ayes 121, noes 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, the Chair immediately voted ``aye.'' (12) 
And, while a teller vote remained to be held,(13) the 
outcome did not change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For a similar instance, see 101 Cong. Rec. 6244, 84th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 12, 1955.
13. See Sec. 15.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.3 Where the Chair had voted in the affirmative on a division 
    vote-thereby breaking a tie on a motion to terminate debate, 
    tellers were demanded, and the motion was agreed to.

    The House having resolved into the Committee of the Whole for the 
further consideration of a bill (H.R. 4510) (14) pertaining 
to feed grain programs,(15) discussion ensued, and a motion 
was ultimately proposed to close debate within five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 15.2, supra.
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 3491, 3511, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 8, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question was taken; a division was demanded by Mr. Leslie C. 
Arends, of Illinois; and there were--ayes 121, noes 121. The

[[Page 11544]]

Chairman voted ``aye,'' immediately thereafter, whereupon Mr. Arends 
demanded tellers.
    Tellers having been ordered, the Committee again divided, and the 
tellers reported that there were-ayes 149, noes 123. Accordingly, the 
motion to close debate was agreed to.

Negative Tie-breaking Votes

Sec. 15.4 The Chairman has voted in the negative, on a division vote, 
    to break a tie.

    On Feb. 26, 1964,(16) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
9022) to amend the International Development Association Act to 
authorize the United States to participate in an increase in the 
resources of the International Development Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 3628, 3648, 3649, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following considerable discussion of the bill, Mr. Frank T. Bow, of 
Ohio, offered a preferential motion that the Committee rise and report 
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken out.

    When the question was taken, on a division demanded by Mr. Bow, 
there were--ayes 94, noes 94. The Chair (17) then 
immediately voted ``no,'' thereby breaking the tie, although the 
Chair's vote was not decisive.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
18. While a teller vote followed, the motion was still rejected; see 
        Sec. 15.5, infra. For a comparable instance in which the teller 
        vote altered the outcome, however, see Sec. 15.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.5 Where the Chair had voted in the negative on a division vote-
    thereby breaking a tie on a preferential motion-tellers were 
    demanded and the motion was defeated.

    The House having resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole in 
order to consider a bill (H.R. 9022) (19) pertaining to the 
International Development Association,(20) Mr. Frank T. Bow, 
of Ohio, ultimately offered a preferential motion that the Committee 
rise and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that 
the enacting clause be stricken out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also Sec. 15.4, supra.
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 3628, 3648, 3649, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 
        1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question was put and, a division having been demanded by Mr. 
Bow, there were--ayes 93, noes 94. Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of 
Georgia, then announced that he was voting in the negative, although 
his vote was not decisive, whereupon Mr. Bow demanded tellers.

[[Page 11545]]

    Tellers having been ordered, the Committee again divided; and the 
tellers reported that there were--ayes 120, noes 128. Accordingly, the 
motion was rejected.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For a comparable instance in which the Chairman also cast a 
        negative division vote to break a tie, see 106 Cong. Rec. 
        11301, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960, where a subsequent 
        teller vote reversed the outcome, thereby resulting in the 
        adoption of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tie-creating Vote

Sec. 15.6 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has voted by 
    division to make a tie and thus defeat an amendment.

    On June 16, 1966,(2) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 14025) to 
extend the Defense Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 13351, 13366, 13367, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. H. R. Gross, of 
Iowa, offered an amendment and, following brief debate, the Chairman 
(3) put the question before the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question was taken and, on a division demanded by Mr. Gross, 
there were--ayes 30, noes 29. The Chair voted ``no,'' thereby forcing a 
tie, and preventing adoption. A subsequent teller vote obtained similar 
results, and the amendment was rejected.

Sec. 15.7 A division vote on a motion to recede and concur having 
    resulted in a tie, the Speaker Pro Tempore abstained from voting, 
    and the motion was rejected.

    On Sept. 18, 1962,(4) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on a bill (H.R. 12648) making appropriations for 
the Department of Agriculture and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 19708, 19714, 19715, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During these proceedings, the Senate amendments in disagreement 
were taken up, one of which was Senate amendment No. 2 which mandated 
an increase in the funding of research on agricultural production and 
product uti-lization. Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, who opposed 
the amendment, offered a motion to insist upon disagreement. Mr. James 
F. Battin, of Montana, then offered a preferential motion that the 
House recede and concur in the amendment and that motion was put to a 
vote.

[[Page 11546]]

    On a division demanded by Mr. Battin, there were--ayes 37, noes 37. 
The Speaker Pro Tempore (5) chose not to vote and the motion 
to recede and concur was therefore rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is apparent from the rule (6) 
that the Speaker, as Presiding Officer of the House, would be required 
to vote to break a tie if his vote were intended to result in the 
question being agreed to, and to make a tie if his vote were intended 
to result in the question being lost. In oth-er words, the Speaker's 
vote is ``decisive'' only if the result would be different were he to 
refrain from voting. The language of the rule is intended to reach all 
situations where the Speaker's vote would change the result. Similarly, 
a Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, appointed by the Speaker to preside over the consideration of a 
bill, must vote to make or break a tie where his vote would be 
decisive. But, although both the Speaker and the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may exercise their prerogatives as 
constitutional Members of the House to vote on any question, the 
traditional approach was to refrain. Since the advent of electronic 
voting in the House and recorded votes in Committee of the Whole, 
Members serving in the chair routinely exercise the right to vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule I clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 632 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nondecisive Votes

Sec. 15.8 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has voted by 
    division even though his vote was not decisive.

    On Nov. 16, 1967,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (S. 
2388) to amend the Economic Opportunity Act, to authorize funds for the 
continued operation of economic opportunity programs, and to authorize 
emergency employment legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 32636, 32687-89, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of 
Ohio, offered an amendment to limit the number of ``supergrades,'' 
i.e., GS-16, 17, and 18 positions to be approved for the Office of 
Economic Opportunity. Following debate, on a division vote demanded by 
Mr. Ashbrook, there were-ayes 74, noes 74. The Chairman (8) 
then voted ``no,'' (9) and Mr. Ashbrook

[[Page 11547]]

immediately demanded a teller vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
 9. While the Chair's action broke a tie on the issue, since his vote 
        was cast in the negative, its practical effect on the 
        amendment's adoption, of course, was no different from a 
        decision to abstain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tellers having been ordered, the Committee again divided, and the 
tellers reported that there were-ayes 118, noes 110. Accordingly, the 
amendment was agreed to, and the Chairman's division vote did not prove 
to be dispositive of the issue.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 16. Voting by Tellers; In General

    Counting votes by the use of tellers was a more precise system than 
voice or division votes for determining the sentiment of the House. 
Teller votes served as an essential voting procedure in the House until 
the 103d Congress.(10) Teller votes could be taken by 
direction of the Chair if he remained uncertain as to the outcome of a 
division or at the behest of the Members if one-fifth of a quorum 
(11) so desired. The procedure entailed the appointment by 
the Chair of ``one or more Members from each side of the question'' who 
proceeded to station themselves along the center aisle of the Chamber. 
Members voting in the affirmative then passed through the center aisle 
where their votes were tallied, though not recorded, by the Member-
teller or tellers. Immediately thereafter, Members voting in the 
negative proceeded up the center aisle, their votes being similarly 
tallied by the designated Member-teller or tellers. Where the Chair 
chose to vote, he did not need to pass through the tellers, but merely 
announced his position. When the tellers completed their respective 
counts, the tallies were reported to the Chair who then announced the 
result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1991). The 
        rule permitting teller votes was deleted from the rules at the 
        beginning of the 103d Congress. See H. Res. 5, 139 Cong. Rec. 
        49, 99, 100, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
11. Assuming there were no vacancies in the full House, this would 
        require 44 Members; in the Committee of the Whole the requisite 
        number would be 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Historically, teller votes never revealed the position particular 
Members took on a given issue. In 1971,(12) however, the 
``recorded teller vote'' came into being as the result of a rules 
change (13) promulgated by the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970.(14) The re

[[Page 11548]]

corded teller vote was itself supplanted by the ``recorded vote'' in 
1973.(15) Both procedures are considered in later sections 
of this chapter.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 144, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
13. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 631 (1971).
14. 84 Stat. 1140.
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 27, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1973.
16. See Sec. Sec. 30, 33-35, 40, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following precedents remain illustrative of general principles 
governing voting in the House and remain useful when researching older 
precedents where a result may have been determined by a vote conducted 
with tellers.

Teller Votes Used To Decide Both Procedural and Substantive Motions

Sec. 16.1 The House has adjourned by teller vote.

    On Jan. 23, 1950,(17) following an unsuccessful request 
for the yeas and nays on a motion to adjourn, the Speaker 
(18) put the question on the motion. Immediately thereafter, 
Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, demanded tellers and tellers were 
ordered. The House divided; and the tellers reported that there were--
ayes 167, noes 109. So the motion was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 785, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.2 Following a voice vote and division vote to the same effect, 
    the Committee of the Whole rejected a motion that it rise, by 
    teller vote--although the Member moving that the Committee rise was 
    in charge of the bill.

    On June 16, 1948,(19) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6401) which was eventually to become the Selective Service Act of 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8502, 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate, the Member in charge of the bill, Mr. Walter G. 
Andrews, of New York, moved that the Committee rise inasmuch as several 
Members who had been afforded time to speak were not then present. The 
Chairman (20) put the question, and, on a division demanded 
by Mr. Andrews, there were--ayes 79, noes 94. Thereafter, the following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Andrews of New York and Mr. Smathers.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 76, noes 139.
        So the motion was rejected.

Effect of Tie

Sec. 16.3 Where a teller vote in the Committee of the Whole

[[Page 11549]]

    resulted in a tie, the question was lost, as on other tie votes.

    On Aug. 16, 1967,(1) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
2516) to prescribe penalties for certain acts of violence or 
intimidation which interfered with citizens' civil rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 22743, 22768, 22769, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Albert W. Watson, of 
South Carolina, offered an amendment. Following debate on the 
amendment, the Chairman (2) put the question and, on a 
division demanded by Mr. Watson, there were--ayes 55, noes 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following proceedings then occurred:

        Mr. Watson: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Watson and Mr. Rogers of Colorado.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 90, noes 90.
        So the amendment was rejected.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For similar instances, see 110 Cong. Rec. 16859, 88th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., July 23, 1964; and 109 Cong. Rec. 24752, 88th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Dec. 16, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Limitation of Debate

Sec. 16.4 Where time for debate was limited to a certain hour rather 
    than a certain number of minutes, that portion of time taken by 
    teller votes came out of the time remaining for debate.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(4) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 4453) to 
prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, 
or national origin. During consideration of the bill, Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, offered a motion that all debate on the 
pending amendment and all amendments thereto close at 2:30 a.m. The 
motion was agreed to by teller vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240, 2246, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate and the ordering of tellers on an amendment to the 
pending amendment, the Chairman (5) recognized Mr. Francis 
H. Case, of South Dakota, for a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: The limitation on time fixed the time 
    at a precise hour rather than so many minutes. The effect of teller 
    votes, then, is simply to take time out of the time allowed for 
    debate?
        The Chairman: Of course, it comes out of the time.

Disclosure of Members' Names and Positions

Sec. 16.5 A Member could announce, in debate, the party

[[Page 11550]]

    division on a simple teller vote, but a disclosure of the names of 
    Members voting in the affirmative or negative was not in order.

    On Aug. 6, 1963,(6) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 4995) to 
strengthen and improve the quality of vocational education and to 
expand the vocational education opportunities in the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 14258, 14285, 14294, 14295, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Alphonzo Bell, of 
California, offered an amendment and following debate thereon, the 
Chair put the question. Mr. Bell demanded tellers and, tellers having 
been ordered, the Committee divided; and there were--ayes 146, noes 
194. Accordingly, the amendment was rejected.
    Shortly thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: Mr. Chairman, for 
    obvious reasons the Nation's press is not able to report the 
    partisan lineups which occur on teller votes. I observed the number 
    of Democrats going through the ``yea'' line for the Bell amendment 
    and the number of Republicans going through the ``nay'' line and 
    would like to report the results of that observation for the 
    record.
        My count shows that 143 Republicans----
        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that that can be 
    done under the rules of the House.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may not mention the names of the 
    Members who voted. . . .
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Gubser].
        Mr. Gubser: Mr. Chairman, my count shows that 142 Republicans 
    voted against discrimination and 185 Democrats voted for 
    discrimination.

Sec. 16.6 There was no rule of the House prohibiting members of the 
    press from publishing the names of Members passing through the 
    aisle on a teller vote, and if such a publication recorded a Member 
    improperly, his only recourse was to reply to it.

    On Mar. 6, 1946,(8) shortly after the House convened, 
Mr. Walter K. Granger, of Utah, was recognized by the Speaker 
(9) and granted unanimous consent to address the House for 
one minute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 1971, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Granger: Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of 
    propounding a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 11551]]

        Mr. Granger: On yesterday or the day before there appeared in 
    the Washington Post what was purported to be a poll of certain 
    Members who passed through the aisle on a teller vote. Included was 
    the name of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Murdock], who only a 
    few moments before had vigorously supported the premium payments in 
    the housing bill, the very matter which was stricken out as a 
    result of the teller vote. The printing of his name in this account 
    in the newspaper made him appear to speak one way and vote another.
        The query is: What is the rule of the House in respect to that 
    matter, and what protection has a Member other than having it 
    denied in the press, which would mean that the gentleman from 
    Arizona might have to explain that inconsistency for the next 10 
    years?
        The Speaker: There is no rule of the House with reference to 
    it.
        The only remedy a Member has when something is published in the 
    newspaper that affects him improperly, is to reply to it.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 17. Demand for Tellers

Generally

Sec. 17.1 A demand for tellers was in order following the announcement 
    of a division vote.

    On Sept. 20, 1967,(10) the House having resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole in order to further consider a bill 
(H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health Service Act, a perfecting 
amendment was proposed by Mr. John Jarman, of Oklahoma, and, following 
debate, the question was taken on a division vote. Mr. Richard L. 
Ottinger, of New York, who was seeking recognition at the time the 
division was announced, demanded tellers following the announcement of 
the vote and the Chair's (11) response to his parliamentary 
inquiry. The point of order having been raised that the demand for 
tellers was untimely, the Chairman overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 26119, 26120, 26130, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Jack Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.2 Tellers could be demanded and ordered following a refusal to 
    order the yeas and nays, a division vote, an objection to the vote 
    on the ground of no quorum, and the Chair's announcement that the 
    bill had passed--providing the Member demanding tellers was on his 
    feet seeking recognition prior to the announcement.

    On June 5, 1940,(12) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
called up a bill (H.R. 6381) for the admis

[[Page 11552]]

sion to citizenship of aliens who came into the United States prior to 
Feb. 5, 1917, and asked unanimous consent that the bill be considered 
in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 86 Cong. Rec. 7623, 7626, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate, Mr. Dickstein moved the previous question and it 
was ordered. A request for the yeas and nays on final passage having 
been refused, a division was demanded by Mr. John J. Cochran, of 
Missouri, and there were--ayes 94, noes 87.
    Immediately following this vote, Mr. Cochran objected on the ground 
that a quorum was not present. In response thereto, the Chair 
(13) commenced to count, and the following exchange took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.), Speaker Pro Tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . [After counting.] Two hundred 
    and twenty-five Members are present, a quorum. The bill is passed.
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I ask for tellers.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's request 
    comes too late.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not think so.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dickstein: Do I understand that after the Speaker announces 
    the passage of the bill they can go back and ask for tellers?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . yes.
        Mr. Dickstein: That is news to me, and I think it is going a 
    little too far.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Dickstein] is out of order and he will take his seat. The Chair 
    thinks the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cochran] was endeavoring to 
    ask for a division [Tellers].

    Tellers were then ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Dickstein 
and Mr. Cochran to act as tellers.
    Parliamentarian's Note: It would appear that Mr. Dickstein 
momentarily misinterpreted the ruling of the Speaker Pro Tempore when 
he assumed the Chair had permitted a demand for tellers following 
announcement of the bill's passage. The Chair's subsequent statement, 
i.e., the point that Mr. Cochran was on his feet seeking recognition 
prior to the announcement, clarified the ruling, however.

Sec. 17.3 A demand for a teller vote in the Committee of the Whole 
    having been refused, a second demand for such a vote following a 
    division vote on the pending question was not in order (an appeal 
    of the ruling sustained the Chair's decision).

    On June 13, 1957,(14) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee

[[Page 11553]]

of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 6127) to 
provide means of further securing and protecting the civil rights of 
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 9018, 9030, 9034, 9035, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. William M. Tuck, of 
Virginia, offered an amendment and, following debate, the Chair 
(15) put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it. Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of Michigan, was 
recognized immediately thereafter, and demanded tellers. This request 
having been refused, Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, then rose to 
ask for a division.
    Following a brief discussion between the Chair and two Members as 
to whether a division was permissible, the Chair held that Mr. Keating 
was within his rights. Accordingly, the Committee divided; and there 
were--ayes 106, noes 114. This prompted the following inquiry and 
resultant discussion:

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Would it be in order to have tellers?
        The Chairman: Tellers have been refused.
        Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, the tellers were refused 
    after the Chair had ruled and said that the amendment was agreed 
    to. Then tellers were demanded, and those people who now want 
    tellers felt that the amendment was agreed to, so they did not rise 
    to ask for tellers; and I can get the House to agree with me. I 
    make that point of order and ask the Chair to rule on it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule that on the demand for 
    tellers an insufficient number of Members rose to their feet.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I disagree with the ruling of the Chair 
    and ask for a vote on the ruling of the Chair. I say that he had 
    already ruled on the vote.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman appeal from the ruling of the 
    Chair?
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I appeal from the ruling of the Chair.

        Mr. [William J.] Green [Jr.] of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Green of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, it is too late for the 
    gentleman to appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has appealed from the ruling of the 
    Chair.
        The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
    judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes apparently had it.
        Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.

[[Page 11554]]

        The Committee divided; and there were--ayes 222, noes 4.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, is it now in order to ask for tellers after the 
    rising vote?
        The Chairman: It is not in order. The question was taken on the 
    amendment and the question was decided.

    Accordingly, the amendment was rejected.

Effect of Competing Demands, Motions, and Objections

Sec. 17.4 When a request was made for tellers and almost simultaneously 
    a demand for the yeas and nays was made, the demand for the yeas 
    and nays, being a constitutional right, superseded the request for 
    tellers.

    On Dec. 10, 1963,(16) the House having agreed to the 
conference report on a bill (H.R. 8747) making appropriations for 
various independent executive offices, those amendments remaining in 
disagreement between the two bodies were then considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 23949, 23950, 23952, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among these was Senate amendment No. 92, which provided that 
$1,722,000 be used for the sites and planning expenses involved in the 
construction of a Veterans' Administration hospital at Bay Pines, 
Florida. A motion having been offered that the House insist on its 
disagreement to this amendment, Mr. Harold C. Ostertag, of New York, 
then offered a preferential motion that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur therein.
    Following brief discussion of the preferential motion, the previous 
question was ordered, and the following events transpired:

        The Speaker: (17) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Ostertag].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 11555]]

        The gentleman from Texas has demanded the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.

Sec. 17.5 A demand for tellers gave way to a timely objection to a 
    division vote on the ground that a quorum was not present.

    On June 18, 1953,(18) Mr. Robert B. Chiperfield, of 
Illinois, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 5710) to amend further the 
Mutual Security Act of 1951, as amended. The question was taken; and 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, having demanded a division, there were--ayes 
122, noes 10. Immediately following the announcement of this result, 
Mr. Gross objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not 
present. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, then rose and demanded 
tellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 99 Cong. Rec. 6840, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (19) stated that the point of order of Mr. 
Gross took precedence over Mr. Halleck's demand for tellers. The Chair 
then counted, and, a quorum having been determined, the motion was 
agreed to,(20) and the House immediately resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
20. For a comparable instance, see 112 Cong. Rec. 9839, 89th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., May 4, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.6 An amendment having been defeated on a division vote, it was 
    not too late to demand tellers even though a motion that the 
    Committee rise had been made without recognition from the Chair.

    On Apr. 16, 1943,(1) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
2481) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 89 Cong. Rec. 3473, 3495, 3502, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John Taber, of New 
York, offered an amendment designed to reduce certain portions of the 
appropriations. Following discussion of the proposal, the Chairman 
(2) announced the expiration of the time allotted for 
debate, and the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question recurs on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber]. The question was taken; 
    and on a division (demanded by Mr. Taber) there were ayes 83 and 
    noes 111.
        The Chairman: The amendment is rejected.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.

[[Page 11556]]

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order that it is 
    too late to demand tellers.
        Mr. Taber: I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Tarver: The Chair had announced the result of the vote, and 
    a motion had been made that the Committee rise.
        Mr. Taber: The gentleman from Georgia had not been recognized 
    by the Chair.
        Mr. Tarver: The Chair had announced the vote.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York demands tellers.
        The gentleman from Georgia makes the point of order that the 
    request comes too late. The Chair would say in deference to the 
    gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Georgia that there 
    had not been formal recognition of the gentleman from Georgia.

    Accordingly, tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. 
Tarver and Mr. Taber to act as tellers.

Sec. 17.7 Where a Member demanded tellers on an amendment in Committee 
    of the Whole and then made a point of order that a quorum was not 
    present, the demand for tellers was held in abeyance pending the 
    establishment of a quorum; and when the Committee of the Whole 
    resumed its sitting upon the establishment of a quorum, the pending 
    question was the ordering of tellers which were demanded 
    immediately prior to the point of no quorum.

    On May 20, 1970,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 17604) to 
authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 16244, 16256, 16258, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Otis G. Pike, of New 
York, offered an amendment to strike out the $322 million allocated for 
the Safeguard ABM system. Mr. Pike's proposal was discussed briefly 
after which the Chair (4) put the question, it was taken; 
and on a division demanded by Mr. Pike, there were--ayes 11, noes 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas J. Steed (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, demanded 
tellers, and pending that, made the point of order that a quorum was 
not present. The Chair proceeded to count and finding only 56 Members 
present, he directed the Clerk to call the roll. Three hundred fifty-
nine Members having responded to their names, the Committee rose; the 
Speaker Pro Tempore (5) re

[[Page 11557]]

sumed the Chair, and the Chairman of the Committee reported the 
preceding events in addition to spreading the names of the absentees on 
the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee having resumed its sitting, the Chairman stated:

        When the point of order of no quorum was made there was pending 
    a demand for tellers on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Pike).

    A sufficient number of Members supported the demand, and tellers 
were ordered.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For a similar instance, see 116 Cong. Rec. 8563, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Mar. 23, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.8 A demand for a teller vote in the Committee of the Whole 
    being displaced by a motion to rise before the demand for tellers 
    was seconded, the question of ordering tellers was regarded as 
    pending and was first disposed of when the Committee resumed its 
    sitting if the motion to rise was agreed to.

    On Mar. 9, 1935,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6021) to provide additional home mortgage relief, to amend the Federal 
Home Loan Bank Act, the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, and the National 
Housing Act. In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Jesse P. 
Wolcott, of Michigan, offered an amendment to increase the amount of 
insurance provided by the government on improved property. A brief 
discussion ensued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 3289, 3312, 3315, 3316, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Chairman (8) put the question 
and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Emanuel Celler (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott], which the Clerk will again 
    report.
        The Clerk read the Wolcott amendment.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 118, noes 89.
        Mr. [Franklin W.] Hancock [Jr.] of North Carolina: Mr. 
    Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    Committee determines to rise, the request for tellers will be 
    considered as pending?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York 
    that the Committee do now rise.

[[Page 11558]]

Point of No Quorum as Affecting Demand

Sec. 17.9 The right to demand tellers was not prejudiced by the fact 
    that a point of no quorum and a quorum call intervened following a 
    division vote on the question on which tellers were requested.

    On Sept. 25, 1969,(9) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 12884) to 
amend title 13, United States Code, to assure confidentiality of 
information furnished in response to inquiries of the Bureau of the 
Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 27018, 27042, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Jackson E. Betts, of 
Ohio, offered an amendment limiting the categories of information to be 
required under penalty of law. When the Chair (10) put the 
question, Mr. Betts demanded a division, and there were--ayes 32, noes 
22. Mr. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, then raised a point of no 
quorum. The Chair's count revealing only 75 Members present, the Clerk 
was directed to call the roll; the Committee rose, and the Speaker 
(11) resumed the chair. A quorum having responded to the 
call, the Chairman so informed the Speaker and spread the names of 
absentees on the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. George W. Andrews (Ala.).
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee then resumed its sitting, and the following 
discussion ensued:

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson [of California]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: The Committee will be in order.
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    California rise?
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, on the Betts amendment I 
    demand tellers.
        Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the demand for tellers is out of order. The 
    time is past for that. The Chair asked for a division vote and the 
    vote was 32 to 22, and the amendment was agreed to. The Chairman 
    announced that the amendment was agreed to. Then the chairman of 
    the full Committee on Post Office and Civil Service made the point 
    of order that a quorum was not present and there was a call of the 
    House.
        My point of order is that when the chairman of the Committee on 
    Post Office and Civil Service made the point of order that a quorum 
    was not present, that that cut off the teller vote.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?

[[Page 11559]]

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I just ask for tellers and 
    I assume I am following the correct procedure in asking for 
    tellers. There has been no intervening business, and it is my 
    understanding that----
        Mr. Montgomery: There was intervening business. There was a 20-
    minute delay.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on this point of order?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: May I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: There was no intervening business between 
    the division vote and the point of order being made that a quorum 
    was not present. We went through the quorum call immediately, and 
    subsequently the gentleman from California asked for tellers.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that is the way the Chair 
    recalls the procedure.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Missouri to be heard on the point of order.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the point of order should 
    not be sustained inasmuch as the record will indicate that the 
    Chair had announced the division vote, but it had not said that the 
    amendment was agreed to. The Chair had not made the final decision. 
    The right of any Member of the House to ask for a teller vote, to 
    ask for a reconsideration, or to ask for any other privileged 
    motion had not inured; therefore the request, because the quorum 
    call could not be interrupted, to ask for tellers is quite in 
    order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair again 
    recognize me for one other observation?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan 
    on the point of order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet awaiting the 
    opportunity to ask for tellers at the time the gentleman from New 
    York made the point of order that a quorum was not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Missouri is 
    correct in his recollection. The Chair had not said that the 
    amendment was agreed to, therefore no intervening business had 
    taken place when the point of order of no quorum was made.
        The Chair will read from Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
    Representatives, volume 8, page 646, section 3104:

            The right to demand tellers is not prejudiced by the fact 
        that a point of no quorum has been made against a division of 
        the question on which tellers are requested.

        That precedent was established on December 13, 1817.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should also be noted that where a

[[Page 11560]]

division vote has been followed by a point of no quorum which, in turn, 
is followed by agreement to a privileged motion that the Committee 
rise, neither of the foregoing constitutes ``intervening business'' 
which would preclude a demand for tellers on the pending question 
immediately following the resumption of business in the Committee.

Sec. 17.10 Where a point of no quorum was made and withdrawn 
    immediately after a division vote, it was not then too late to 
    demand a teller vote on the pending proposition.

    On Mar. 8, 1946,(12) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
5605) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 2061, 2081, 2084, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John W. Heselton, of 
Massachusetts, offered an amendment which was debated, and subsequently 
put before the Committee for a vote. The question was taken; and on a 
division demanded by Mr. Heselton, there were--ayes 42, noes 28.

    Mr. Reid F. Murray, of Wisconsin, then rose to make the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. As the Chairman (13) 
announced his intent to count, Mr. Murray rose again to withdraw his 
point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, then made the following 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, is it too late to ask for tellers on 
    this vote?
        The Chairman: No; it is not too late to ask for tellers.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.

Sec. 17.11 The demand for tellers on an amendment did not come too late 
    where the absence of a quorum had prevented the Chair from 
    announcing the adoption of the amendment by division vote.

    On Sept. 24, 1970,(14) the House resolved itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws in 
order to deal more comprehensively with the problems attendant upon 
drug abuse prevention and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 33603, 33628, 33634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Richard H. Poff, of

[[Page 11561]]

Virginia, offered an amendment. An amendment to the Poff amendment 
having been rejected, the Chairman (15) put the question on 
the Poff amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question was taken; and on a division demanded by Mr. Robert C. 
Eckhardt, of Texas, there were--ayes 35, noes 22. Mr. James C. Corman, 
of California, raised the point of order that a quorum was not present. 
The Chair then counting only 71 Members, a quorum call was ordered.
    A quorum having responded, the Committee rose; the Chairman 
reported the results to the Speaker,(16) and the Committee 
resumed its sitting. Thereafter, a subsequent demand for tellers was 
honored as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: When the point of order was made on the absence 
    of a quorum, the Chair had just announced the vote by division on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Poff)--35 
    ayes, 22 noes.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Poff and Mr. Eckhardt.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 147, noes 61.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

Refusal To Entertain During Count for Quorum

Sec. 17.12 The Chair did not entertain a demand for a teller vote in 
    the Committee of the Whole pending his count of a quorum.

    On Aug. 21, 1950,(17) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 9313) to amend the Agricultural Act of 
1949, Mr. James C. Davis, of Georgia, offered an amendment. A division 
vote was taken and, with 49 Members voting, Mr. Davis made the point of 
order that a quorum was not present, whereupon the Chair 
(18) indicated it would count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 12960, 12961, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Carl T. Durham (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following proceedings then occurred:

        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        The Chairman: The gentleman withdraws his point of order that a 
    quorum is not present?
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: I do not withdraw it. A parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Was my point of order that a quorum is 
    not present in order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman can make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present. . . .

[[Page 11562]]

        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Can the motion for tellers be made after 
    a quorum is present?
        The Chairman: Yes.

Chair's Count for Quorum; Not Verifiable by Tellers

Sec. 17.13 The Chair did not recognize a demand for tellers to verify 
    its count of a quorum.

    On May 20, 1949,(19) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 4591) to 
provide pay, allowances, and physical disability retirement for members 
of the armed forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 6546, 6556, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During debate, Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, rose to address 
the Chair (20) and initiated the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count. [After counting.] One 
    hundred and five Members are present, a quorum.
        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia has demanded tellers. 
    The gentleman from Wisconsin made the point of order that a quorum 
    was not present. The Chair counted 105 Members present. At this 
    time there is no question before the House on which tellers can be 
    ordered.

    The Chairman having so ruled, Mr. Vinson then made the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. The Chair counted and found 114 
Members in attendance. Accordingly, the Committee proceeded to its 
business.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 18. Ordering Tellers

Generally

Sec. 18.1 Tellers were ordered by one-fifth of a quorum--20 Members in 
    the Committee of the Whole (44 Members in the House).

    On Jan. 23, 1968,(1) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 8696) to 
amend section 408 of the National Housing Act, as amended, to provide 
for the regulation of savings and loan holding companies and subsidiary 
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 694, 705, 706, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Del M. Clawson, of 
California, offered an amendment and, following debate on the

[[Page 11563]]

measure, the Chairman (2) put the question; and on a 
division demanded by Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, there were--ayes 18, 
noes 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Del Clawson demanded tellers which were 
refused, thereby prompting the following exchange:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: The Chair stated that there were 18 Members 
    who rose in favor of tellers, and that that was not a sufficient 
    number. I would ask the Chairman, is that not a sufficient number 
    of the Members on the floor?

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that 20 Members are required 
    in order that tellers be ordered.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, is that 20 Members, 
    regardless of the number of Members on the floor?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the number required is 
    one-fifth of a quorum in the Committee of the Whole. This would 
    then represent 20 Members, since 100 Members constitute a quorum. 
    Therefore, tellers are refused.

Sec. 18.2 Tellers have been ordered on the question of the passage of a 
    bill where a demand for the yeas and nays had been refused.

    On May 8, 1963,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 5555) to 
amend title 37, United States Code, to increase the rates of basic pay 
for members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 8044, 8082, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following extensive consideration of the bill, the Committee rose, 
the Speaker (4) resumed his chair; and the Chairman 
(5) of the Committee reported the bill back to the House 
with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee. A motion to recommit 
having been rejected, the Speaker put the question on the passage of 
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 5. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: (after counting). The yeas and nays are refused.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Rivers of South Carolina and Mr. Curtis.
        The House divided, and the tellers reported that there were--
    ayes 293, noes 10.

[[Page 11564]]

        So the bill was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 18.3 Where a point of no quorum was made in the Committee of the 
    Whole and the roll was called as a demand for tellers on an 
    amendment remained pending, the question of ordering tellers was 
    put immediately after the Committee resumed its sitting, and a 
    division vote taken prior to the demand for tellers was not final.

    On May 10, 1946,(6) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6335) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 92 Cong. Rec. 4827, 4833, 4834, 4837, 4840, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Henry C. Dworshak, 
of Idaho, offered an amendment to an amendment offered by Mr. J. W. 
Robinson, of Utah. The Chairman (7) subsequently put the 
question; it was taken; and, on a division demanded by Mr. John J. 
Rooney, of New York, there were--ayes 41, noes 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, demanded 
tellers whereupon Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, made the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. The Chair then counting only 87 
Members present, the Clerk was directed to call the roll.
    A quorum having responded to the roll call, the Committee rose; the 
Chairman submitted the absentees' names to be spread upon the Journal; 
and, the Speaker (8) directed the Committee to resume its 
sitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, the following exchange took place:

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demands 
    tellers on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
    Dworshak] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
    Robinson].
        Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Granger: As I understood the situation when the quorum was 
    called, the Chair had already announced that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Idaho to the amendment had been agreed to; 
    and the request comes too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair had announced that on a division the 
    amendment to the amendment had been agreed to. Thereupon, the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Johnson] demanded tellers. At that 
    point a point of

[[Page 11565]]

    order was made that a quorum was not present.
        The gentleman's demand for tellers is now pending.

    The Chairman then proceeded to order tellers, and the amendment to 
the amendment was subsequently rejected.

In Committee of the Whole; Effect of Motion To Rise

Sec. 18.4 The Committee of the Whole having ordered tellers on a 
    proposition, a motion to rise remained in order following their 
    appointment providing the tellers had not taken their places and 
    the count had not begun.

    On Mar. 12, 1942,(9) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
6709) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2345, 2374, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Everett M. 
    Dirksen, of Illinois, offered an amendment to lower one portion of 
    the appropriation by $10 million. Immediately thereafter, Mr. 
    Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, offered a substitute amendment to 
    lower the same portion of the appropriation by $20 million. The 
    following proceedings then occurred:
        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 84, noes 88.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Case of South Dakota and Mr. Tarver.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: The gentleman cannot interrupt a 
    vote.
        The Chairman: The vote has not started.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: We had already started to vote on 
    the substitute and the Chair had announced the vote as 84 to 88.
        The Chairman: The tellers had not taken their places.
        The point of order is overruled.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, we had started the 
    vote when the first voice vote was taken.
        The Chairman: The point of order is overruled.
        The gentleman from Georgia moves that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The question is on the motion.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For a similar ruling, see 88 Cong. Rec. 5169, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 11, 1942.

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

[[Page 11566]]

Sec. 18.5 Where the Committee of the Whole had ordered tellers on an 
    amendment and then risen, the order for tellers could be vacated 
    and the vote taken de novo only by unanimous consent when the 
    Committee again resumed consideration of the matter.

    On July 2, 1947,(12) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
4002) making appropriations for civil functions administered by the War 
Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948. Immediately after 
the Committee sat, Mr. George A. Dondero, of Michigan, asked the Chair 
(13) whether a particular item dealing with flood control 
had been discussed as yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 8136, 8137, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair replied in the negative, and then summarized the 
situation, as follows:

        When the Committee rose yesterday, the so-called Rankin 
    amendment was pending. A voice vote had been taken. Tellers were 
    demanded and ordered.
        Without objection, the Clerk will again read the so-called 
    Rankin amendment.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, is it not in order to vacate or 
    disregard the standing vote and take the standing or voice vote 
    again?

        The Chairman: Tellers have already been ordered.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that 
    where a vote is not completed on one day it is taken again when the 
    question again comes up for consideration.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's inquiry is: Can the order for 
    tellers be vacated, and the Committee proceed de novo on the 
    amendment? That can be done by unanimous consent.

Sec. 18.6 Where the Committee of the Whole refused to rise on a teller 
    vote and the question recurred on the adoption of an amendment 
    which was then agreed to by division vote, the Chair held that 
    after the seconding of a demand for tellers on the amendment (and 
    the ordering of tellers with respect thereto), a motion that the 
    Committee rise was still in order; and, a teller vote on that 
    motion would take precedence over a teller vote on the amendment.

    On Mar. 23, 1944,(14) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee

[[Page 11567]]

of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 4443) making 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 2969, 2999, 3005, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Forest A. Harness, 
of Indiana, offered an amendment prohibiting the use of the 
appropriated funds for the salaries or expenses of certain persons. 
Discussion ensued with respect to this proposal until the Chair 
(15) announced that the time allotted for debate had 
expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, moved that the 
Committee rise. The question was taken; and on a division demanded by 
Mr. Tarver, there were-ayes 58, noes 96.
    Mr. Tarver thereupon demanded tellers. Tellers having been ordered 
and appointed, the Committee again divided; and the tellers reported 
that there were-ayes 65, noes 88. So, the motion was rejected.
    The question then recurred on Mr. Harness' proposed amendment. The 
question was taken; and on a division demanded by Mr. Tarver, there 
were-ayes 89, noes 69.
    At this point, Mr. Tarver was recognized again, and the following 
exchange transpired:

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    motion is not in order after the direction for the vote.
        The Chairman: Under the previous ruling of the Chair, the point 
    of order is overruled.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Georgia 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Tarver) there were-ayes 70, noes 88.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Tarver and Mr. Dirksen.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were-ayes 65, noes 90.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Harness]. Tellers have been ordered.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were-ayes 93, noes 65.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to rise may be repeated after 
intervening business. Here, the division vote on the amendment was 
intervening business.

[[Page 11568]]



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 19. Appointment of Tellers

Chair's Discretion

Sec. 19.1 The appointment of tellers was within the discretion of the 
    Chair, and he sometimes appointed the Member demanding tellers.

    On Sept. 21, 1965,(16) the House resolved itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (S. 2300) 
authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain 
public works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 24593, 24635, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate, Mr. John A. Blatnik, of Minnesota, rose to 
address the Chair:

        Mr. Blatnik: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The Chairman: (17) The question is on the motion of 
    the gentleman from Minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        The requisite number of Members having supported the demand for 
    tellers, they were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Cramer and 
    Mr. Blatnik as tellers.

Designation of Members of Opposing Views

Sec. 19.2 In appointing tellers on a vote the Chair usually named a 
    Member on each side of the question.

    On Sept. 21, 1965,(18) following lengthy consideration 
of a bill (S. 2300) authorizing certain construction and repair on 
rivers and harbors, a discussion ensued among certain Members of the 
Committee of the Whole as to whether they should rise:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 24635, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: I should like to ask the 
    Chairman if we are going to continue tonight or not. I should 
    think, in view of what has transpired in the last couple of weeks, 
    we should go ahead and finish our business. We have been 
    inconvenienced many times. Let us keep on doing it.
        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: We are prepared--I 
    certainly am; and, in fact, all of the Committee Members are--to go 
    ahead, but I believe in all fairness to Members who, by 
    coincidence, have a serious conflict with obligations, we should 
    not. Let me make the statement that I am prepared to move that the 
    Committee rise now. I shall not at this moment. I believe we are 
    over the hump. There are probably four amendments of any substance 
    left.
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: I say to the gentleman, 
    so far as I am concerned we are here. We are prepared to go ahead 
    and finish the bill. There seems to be a great demand for these 
    bills at this time. We have an opportunity to finish this bill 
    today. So far as I am concerned, I have had a

[[Page 11569]]

    number of requests on this side that we finish the bill today. If 
    the gentleman wishes, so far as we are concerned, we are ready to 
    go ahead and finish it.
        Mr. Blatnik: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The Chairman: (19) The question is on the motion of 
    the gentleman from Minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cramer: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

    A sufficient number of Members having supported the demand, tellers 
were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Blatnik and Mr. Cramer as 
tellers in light of their differing views on the motion.

Sec. 19.3 A point of order having been raised that each of the 
    appointed tellers was in favor of a particular proposition, the 
    Chair designated a Member in opposition to the measure to serve as 
    a teller.

    On Aug. 9, 1950,(20) the Committee of the Whole having 
under its consideration the Defense Production Act of 1950 (H.R. 9176), 
the question arose on an amendment to an amendment--whereupon the 
following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 12124, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The question is on the amendment 
    to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Flood) there were--ayes 80, noes 121.
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Flood and Mr. Spence.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] voted for 
    the amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there any member of the committee who is 
    opposed to the amendment? If so, will he kindly take his place as a 
    teller?
        In response to the Chair's request, Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of 
    Michigan, who was opposed to the amendment ``took his place as a 
    teller'' on the vote in question.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For an instance in which the Chair changed the appointment of a 
        teller for reasons not pertaining to the Member's position on 
        the issue, see Sec. 22.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.4 The Chair has declined to change his designation of tellers 
    after the appointed tellers had taken their places and Members had 
    passed between them to be counted.

        On June 28, 1967,(3) the Committee of the Whole 
    having under consideration a bill (H.R. 10340) authorizing

[[Page 11570]]

    appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space 
    Administration, Mr. Richard L. Roudebush, of Indiana, offered an 
    amendment to an amendment offered by Mr. James G. Fulton, of 
    Pennsylvania. The Roudebush amendment, which called for a reduction 
    in the amount of funds appropriated, was discussed at some length 
    after which the Chair (4) put the question; it was 
    taken; and the noes appeared to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 17739, 17748, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Immediately thereafter, Mr. George P. Miller, of California, 
    demanded tellers. A sufficient number of Members having supported 
    the demand, tellers were ordered and the Chair appointed Mr. 
    Roudebush and Mr. Miller as tellers. The Members were then directed 
    to pass through the tellers and commenced to do so.
        There being some doubt as to whether Mr. Miller was opposed to 
    the Roudebush amendment, an inquiry was directed to the Chair:

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The Committee is in the process of voting, and no 
    parliamentary inquiry can be made at this time.
        Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Rumsfeld: Is it not correct that there should be a teller 
    in favor of the amendment and a teller in opposition?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois has asked a question 
    rather than making a point of order.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: I am here. I am against the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Waggonner: Is it not necessary, under the rules of the 
    House, in the instance of a teller vote, that the Chair name one 
    Member as a teller who supports the amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Louisiana has not made a point of order, but rather has asked a 
    question. The Chair designated as tellers the gentleman from 
    Indiana [Mr. Roudebush], the author of the amendment, and the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. No point was raised until 
    the vote had begun to be taken.
        The vote will proceed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Chair has sole discretion in 
the appointment of tellers, he generally attempts to appoint tellers 
who represent each side of the question, that is, those that favor the 
proposition and those that oppose it.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 20. Interruptions of Teller Votes

For Parliamentary Inquiry or Point of Order

Sec. 20.1 The Chair refused to entertain a parliamentary inquiry during 
    a teller vote but

[[Page 11571]]

    has responded to a point of order concerning the conduct of the 
    vote.

    On June 28, 1967,(5) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
10340) to authorize appropriations to the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration. When the Committee had arisen the day before, 
there remained pending an amendment offered by Mr. James G. Fulton, of 
Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 17739, 17748, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Richard L. Roudebush, of Indiana, offered an amendment to the 
Fulton amendment and, when the question was put, the Chair 
(6) announced that the noes appeared to have it. At this 
point, Mr. George P. Miller, of California, demanded tellers whereupon 
the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Roudebush and Mr. Miller of California.
        The Chairman: Those in favor of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] will pass through the 
    tellers.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The Committee is in the process of voting, and no 
    parliamentary inquiry can be made at this time.
        Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Rumsfeld: Is it not correct that there should be a teller 
    in favor of the amendment and a teller in opposition?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois has asked a question 
    rather than making a point of order.
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: I am here. I am against 
    the amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Waggonner: Is it not necessary, under the rules of the 
    House, in the instance of a teller vote, that the Chair name one 
    Member as a teller who supports the amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Louisiana has not made a point of order, but rather has asked a 
    question. The Chair designated as tellers the gentleman from 
    Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] the author of the amendment, and the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. No point was raised until 
    the vote had begun to be taken.
        The vote will proceed.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 21. Voting by the Chair on Teller Votes

Passing Through Tellers

Sec. 21.1 The Chair could count himself on a teller vote with

[[Page 11572]]

    out passing through the tellers.

    On Sept. 21, 1965,(7) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration an amendment to a bill (S. 2300) authorizing 
certain construction and repair work to be performed on various rivers 
and harbors. Discussion having concluded, the Chairman (8) 
put the question, it was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it. Immediately thereafter, Mr. William C. Cramer, of 
Florida, demanded tellers, and, tellers having been ordered, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 24635, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Clark and Mr. Blatnik.
        The Committee divided.
        The Chairman: On this vote by tellers, the ayes are 100, noes 
    99.
        The Chair votes in the negative.
        So the amendment was rejected.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For similar instances, see 109 Cong. Rec. 15589, 88th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Aug. 22, 1963, and 90 Cong. Rec. 1499, 78th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 9, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing of Vote

Sec. 21.2 The Speaker has indicated that the Chair may vote ``aye'' or 
    ``no'' at any time prior to the announcement of the vote.

    On Apr. 6, 1971,(10) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, sought unanimous consent that the House adjourn to meet 
at 11 o'clock the next morning. The Speaker (11) then asked 
if there was any objection, and the following discussion ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 9784, 9785, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.
        On the record vote, on a teller vote when is it in order to 
    vote ``present''?
        The Speaker: Just immediately after the announcement of the 
    vote and before any further business is conducted.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: After the tellers have made their 
    announcement?
        The Speaker: After the Chair announces the vote.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: And when is it proper for the 
    Chairman to vote?
        The Speaker: The Chairman can vote at any time prior to his 
    announcement of the vote.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Prior to his announcement of a 
    teller vote?
        The Speaker: Prior to the announcement of the teller vote.

Sec. 21.3 The Chair could cast his vote, to make or break a tie

[[Page 11573]]

    on a vote by tellers, if the result of the vote had not been 
    finally and conclusively announced and the Committee had not 
    proceeded to other business.

    On Aug. 24, 1967,(12) the Chairman (13) of 
the Committee of the Whole put the question on an amendment to a bill 
(H.R. 12048) to further amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and 
for other purposes. Tellers having been ordered, the Committee divided, 
and the tellers reported that there were--ayes 139, noes 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 23926, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair then voted as follows, prompting several inquiries from 
the Minority Leader:

        The Chairman: On this vote by tellers, the ayes are 139, the 
    noes 138. The amendment is agreed to.
        The Chair votes ``no.''
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, the Chair had announced the 
    vote, and that the amendment had been agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair had not 
    completed the announcement.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, the Chair had announced the 
    vote, and the Chair had brought down the gavel.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair has the right 
    to make the vote a tie, and the Chair exercised that right.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: But the Chairman does not have that right 
    after the vote has been announced, and after the gavel has fallen.

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Committee had not 
    proceeded to any other business, and the Chair exercised its right 
    before the Committee proceeded to any other business. The Chair 
    exercised its right to vote.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair customarily announced his own 
vote (if he voted) before announcing the result of a teller vote. See 
Sec. 21.2, supra, for the preferred form of the Chair's vote and 
announcement.

Tie-creating Votes

Sec. 21.4 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole could vote on a 
    teller vote to make a tie and thus defeat an amendment.

    On Sept. 21, 1965,(14) a teller vote having been ordered 
in the Committee of the Whole on an amendment to a bill (S. 2300) au

[[Page 11574]]

thorizing certain construction and repair work on rivers and harbors, 
the tellers reported that there were--ayes 100, noes 99. The Chairman 
(15) then voted ``no,'' and the amendment was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 24635, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. William C. Cramer, of Florida, immediately rose to make the 
following inquiry:

        Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Is it proper for the Chair to make a tie or to break a tie, 
    from a parliamentary standpoint, on a teller vote?
        The Chairman: Under the rules, the Chair can vote to make or 
    break a tie, the Chair informs the gentleman.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Teller votes by the Chair resulting in a tie are not uncommon. For 
        similar instances in which an amendment was rejected because of 
        the resultant tie, see 109 Cong. Rec. 15590, 88th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Aug. 22, 1963; 103 Cong. Rec. 13176, 85th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 31, 1957; and 95 Cong. Rec. 9238, 81st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 11, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.5 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole could cast a 
    negative teller vote to make a tie, thereby defeating a motion to 
    rise and report a bill back to the House with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken out.

    On Aug. 1, 1957,(17) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 6763) to 
amend the Act of Aug. 30, 1954, entitled ``An Act to authorize and 
direct the construction of bridges over the Potomac River, and for 
other purposes.''
    Mr. John Taber, of New York, offered a preferential motion that the 
Committee rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. After debate, 
the Chair (18) put the question on the motion and the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 103 Cong. Rec. 13371, 13377, 13378, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 54, noes 49.
        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Taber and Mr. Davis of Georgia.
        The Committee again divided.
        The Chairman: On this vote by tellers, the ayes are 63; noes, 
    62. The Chair votes ``no.''
        So the motion was rejected.

Nondecisive Votes

Sec. 21.6 The Chair could cast a teller vote even though his vote was 
    not decisive.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(19) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee

[[Page 11575]]

of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (S. 2388) to 
provide an improved Economic Opportunity Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 32636, 32689, 32690, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of 
Ohio, offered an amendment to define ``administrative expenses,'' and 
to limit such expenditures. Mr. Ashbrook's amendment was discussed 
briefly whereupon the Chair (20) put the question on the 
amendment, it was taken; and on a division demanded by Mr. Ashbrook, 
there were--ayes 82, noes 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Ashbrook demanded tellers and the 
following events transpired:

        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Ashbrook and Mr. Perkins.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 131, noes 131.
        The Chairman: The Chair votes ``no.''
        So the amendment was rejected.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                         B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
 
Sec. 22. Recapitulations and Recounts of Teller Votes

    The Chair could order his count of Members seconding the demand for 
a teller vote to be retaken if there was confusion over the number 
seconding the request. A teller vote could be retaken at the Chair's 
discretion if there was a dispute over the number passing through the 
tellers.(1) His discretion (2) was absolute but 
was exercised only in those situations where the result was in doubt. 
The Speaker has declined to order a recapitulation of a vote taken by 
electronic device.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 22.3, 22.4, infra.
 2. See Sec. 22.1, infra.
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 25841, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1975; 
        Sec. 31.6, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Recount of Seconding Members

Sec. 22.1 Following a count and announcement by the Chair of the number 
    of Members seconding a demand for tellers, a unanimous-consent 
    request that the count be taken again was denied by the Chair.

    On Apr. 4, 1940,(4) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
9209) making appropriations for the military establishment for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1941. In the course of the bill's consider

[[Page 11576]]

ation, Mr. John M. Robison, of Kentucky, offered an amendment and, 
after some debate, the Chairman (5) put the question, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 4017, 4049, 4050, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 5. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the adoption of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Robison].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. May) 
    there were--ayes 43, noes 29.
        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        The Chairman: Those in favor of taking this vote by tellers 
    will rise and stand until counted. [After counting.] Seven Members 
    have risen, not a sufficient number, and tellers are refused.
        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    respectfully request by unanimous consent that the count be taken 
    again? There were more than seven standing.
        The Chairman: The Chair counted those who rose after the Chair 
    had announced that those in favor of tellers should stand, and the 
    Chair distinctly observed only seven, and therefore, the Chair 
    refuses again to submit the request.

Recapitulation of Teller Votes

Sec. 22.2 A vote by tellers was not subject to recapitulation.

    On Aug. 24, 1967,(6) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
12048) to further amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 23908, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. E. Ross Adair, of 
Indiana, offered an amendment, and, when the question was put, tellers 
having been ordered, there were--ayes 139, noes 138. The Chair then 
voted ``no,'' and announced that the amendment was rejected. This 
prompted a parliamentary inquiry from the Minority Leader, as follows:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a . . . 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, it is within the Rules of the 
    House that there should be a recapitulation of the vote?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state not on a teller vote.

Chair's Authority To Direct Recount

Sec. 22.3 Where representations were made prior to the announcement of 
    the result that the tellers' count was incorrect, the Chair stated 
    that it could direct the vote be retaken without unanimous consent 
    providing there was doubt on the part of the tellers.

[[Page 11577]]

    On May 25, 1953,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
5246) making appropriations for the Department of Labor, the Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare, and related independent agencies for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954. In the course of the bill's 
consideration, Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode Island, offered an 
amendment, and, following debate, the Chairman (8) put the 
question on that amendment. Tellers were subsequently ordered, 
following a division vote, and the Chairman appointed Mr. Fred E. 
Busbey, of Illinois, and Mr. Fogarty as tellers. The Committee then 
proceeded to divide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 99 Cong. Rec. 5474, 5476, 5484, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Donald W. Nicholson (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Busbey: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Busbey: Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
    Church], when she was passing through, claimed that I had dropped 
    10, that instead of saying 49 I said 39.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, is there any method by which the 
    vote can be had again when it has once been taken by tellers?
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I would object to 
    that. It cannot be done except by unanimous consent.
        The Chairman: If there is a doubt on the part of the tellers 
    about the count, it can be taken again, the Chair will rule.
        Mr. Rayburn: This is the first time I ever heard of that.
        Mr. Busbey: Mr. Chairman, we will pick it up on the rollcall, 
    so let it go.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A teller vote was not subject to 
recapitulation.(9) Therefore, a ``recount'' of a teller vote 
was equivalent to a vote de novo since the recount was not limited to 
Members who voted the first time (10) and did not prohibit 
Members from changing their votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 22.2, supra.
10. See Sec. 22.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.4 Where tellers have failed to agree on their count, and a 
    recount was requested, the Chair could exercise its discretion and 
    order that the vote be taken de novo.

    On Mar. 23, 1938,(11) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 9415) to 
amend the

[[Page 11578]]

Act entitled ``An act to establish a Civilian Conservation Corps, and 
for other purposes.'' In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. 
Gerald J. Boileau, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment. The Chairman 
(12) put the question on the amendment, it was taken; and on 
a division demanded by Mr. Boileau there were--ayes 40, noes 53. At 
that point, the following discussion ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 83 Cong. Rec. 3953, 3964, 3965, 3966, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
12. William B. Umstead (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mrs. 
    Norton and Mr. Boileau.
        The Committee again divided.
        Mr. Boileau (pending the report of the tellers): Mr. Chairman, 
    I desire to count the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins] and, Mr. 
    Chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Houston], whom the lady 
    from New Jersey counted as going through on her side, was voting 
    with me.
        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: I withdrew the count of 
    that vote.
        The Chairman: The tellers will first announce their count. How 
    many were in the affirmative?
        Mr. Boileau: There were 53 originally and 2 others, including 
    the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Houston], whom the gentlewoman from 
    New Jersey counted as going through on her side, the 2 others 
    making a total of 55.
        Mrs. Norton: May I say to the Chairman that the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey withdrew the count and the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey counted 57 correctly.
        Mr. Boileau: I do not desire to get into a controversy with the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey about the matter, and I ask for a 
    recount of the vote.
        The Chairman: May the Chair inquire how many votes the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin claims are at issue?
        Mr. Boileau: Two votes.
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boileau: Is it possible when tellers are counting the vote 
    and when there is an honest difference between the two persons 
    acting as tellers to have a recount of the vote? If so, I would ask 
    that without any further argument.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I want to submit a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's request is not in order. The 
    gentleman from Wisconsin has submitted a parliamentary inquiry and 
    the Chair will undertake to answer it.
        The Chair is informed that the Chair has the discretion, where 
    there is a discrepancy in the vote and a recount is requested, to 
    rule that there should be one. In this instance there is some 
    question as to whether or not two of the Members who passed through 
    the tellers voted in the affirmative or in the negative. If the 
    Chair understands the situation correctly, the 57 votes reported by 
    the gentlewoman from New Jersey includes the two votes that are 
    claimed in the affirmative.
        Mrs. Norton: No, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin admit there 
    were 57

[[Page 11579]]

    votes in the negative, exclusive of the 2 referred to?
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, I claim that there was only one vote 
    that the gentlewoman from New Jersey counted that I should properly 
    count on this side. However, there were several persons counted 
    here who did not go through the tellers, and I maintain while I was 
    attempting to talk to the Chair the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    kept on counting Members who indicated they wanted to go through 
    the tellers.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman claim, then, that if one vote 
    that was counted by the gentlewoman from New Jersey was transferred 
    to the yeas, as the gentleman contends should be done, that that 
    would meet his objection?
        Mr. Boileau: No; I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: In that event the Chair rules there should be a 
    recount of the vote.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Chairman, would the 
    Chair desire to hear me on the point?

        The Chairman: The Chair would be pleased to hear the gentleman 
    from New York.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: The gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    claims 57 votes without counting the vote of the gentleman from 
    Kansas [Mr. Houston], which is in dispute. The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin claims 55 votes, but if there was a mistake of that 1 
    vote, it would only mean a tie, and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin would not pass.
        The Chairman: May I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin if the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] has correctly stated his 
    position?
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, he has correctly stated it except in 
    this respect: While I was attempting to address the Chair, and 
    while there was confusion, Members were counted in the negative who 
    did not actually go through the tellers. I have no doubt that the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey attempted correctly to get the views of 
    the Committee and of Members. I believe, however, in view of the 
    situation that developed, and in all fairness, a recount would be 
    in order, and without making any charges of any kind I respectfully 
    ask a recount of the teller vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of opinion that under the 
    circumstances there should be a recount of the vote, and the Chair 
    so directs.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Parliamentarian's Note to Sec. 22.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Tellers Changed

Sec. 22.5 Where tellers in the Committee of the Whole were unable to 
    agree on a count, the Chair directed the vote to be taken over and 
    made a change in the appointment of tellers.

    On July 19, 1946,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
met to consider a bill (S. 1717) for the development and control of 
atomic energy, a teller vote was ordered

[[Page 11580]]

on a committee amendment, and the Chair (15) appointed Mr. 
Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, and Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, as 
tellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 92 Cong. Rec. 9466, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. John J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        The Committee divided; and the tellers were unable to agree on 
    the count.
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair will direct that the vote by 
    tellers be taken over. . . .
        The Chair appointed as tellers Mr. Thomason and Mr. Short.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were-ayes 102, noes 72.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

Members Eligible To Vote on Recount

Sec. 22.6 Where a teller vote was taken a second time because of a 
    discrepancy in the first count, all Members were entitled to pass 
    through the tellers and be counted, and did not need to qualify as 
    having voted the first time.

    On Mar. 23, 1938,(16) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 9415) to amend the Civilian 
Conservation Corps Act,(17) a difference of opinion arose 
between tellers with respect to the count of a teller vote on a 
proposed amendment to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 3965, 3966, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
17. See Sec. 22.4, supra, for greater detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman (18) ordered a recount of the vote, 
prompting the following question from Mr. Harry L. Englebright, of 
California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Umstead (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Englebright: Inasmuch as this is a recapitulation 
    (19) is any one entitled to vote on the recapitulation 
    who did not vote on the previous vote?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. It should be noted that a teller vote may be taken de novo when 
        warranted, but is not subject to recapitulation, per se; see 
        Sec. 22.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair any Member on the 
    floor when the vote is retaken has a right to pass through the 
    tellers and be counted.

[[Page 11581]]



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 23. The Yeas and Nays; In General


    The only method of voting expressly incorporated in the 
Constitution is voting by the yeas and nays.(1) The yeas and 
nays are taken on the ``Desire of one fifth of those [Members] 
Present,'' a computation which may result in more or fewer Members than 
the number required to constitute one-fifth of a quorum. One-fifth of a 
quorum is the necessary number to second a demand for a recorded vote 
in the House under Rule I clause 5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. Sec. 5, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a Member desires a vote to be recorded by name, showing whether 
a Member responds yes or no to a vote, he can pursue several options: 
when a voice vote is taken, any Member not liking the result announced 
by the Speaker, can ask for a division. If those who stand and are 
counted for and against the proposition do not constitute a quorum of 
the House, the Member can make a point of order that a quorum is not 
present and object to the vote under Rule XV clause 4. If a quorum does 
appear on the vote, or if the Speaker counts and declares a quorum 
present, it has been possible, since 1971, to ask for a recorded 
vote.(2) If that request is not supported by one-fifth of a 
quorum of the House (or 44 Members), then it is still possible to ask 
for the yeas and nays which can be ordered by one-fifth of those 
present.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 30, infra.
 3. See the proceedings of Oct. 14, 1978, for an occasion where voice 
        and division votes were taken in sequence, then objected to 
        under Rule XV clause 4; and when a quorum was found to be 
        present, and a recorded vote refused by an insufficient second, 
        the yeas and nays were finally ordered by one-fifth of those 
        present. 124 Cong. Rec. 38553, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
            An interesting example of the use of the yeas and nays 
        occurred on Nov. 4, 1983, when, during special-order speeches 
        at the end of the day, a Member made an unexpected motion to 
        adjourn. On a division vote, demanded by the proponent of the 
        motion to adjourn, there were only four Members present and the 
        vote was 3-1 in the affirmative. The majority, in an effort to 
        protect those Members whose special order had not yet been 
        called and to retain the option of filing a privileged report 
        from the Committee on Rules before adjournment, then objected 
        to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. Since 
        a quorum is not required on an affirmative motion to adjourn, 
        that objection was not in order. A recorded vote was then 
        requested, but obviously, 44 Members (one-fifth of a quorum) 
        were not present. The only alternative to adjourning was then 
        to demand the yeas and nays, which were ordered by one-fifth of 
        those present. On that vote, taken by electronic device, a 
        quorum responded and the motion to adjourn was defeated by a 
        vote of 99 to 120, with one Member answering present. 129 Cong. 
        Rec. 30946, 30947, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 11582]]

    The Constitution requires a vote on reconsideration of a 
Presidential veto to be taken by the yeas and nays.(4) 
Certain rules of the House also require that the yeas and nays be 
taken: in Rule XV clause 7 specifies that the yeas and nays shall be 
considered as ordered on passage of a bill making general 
appropriations, increasing federal income tax rates and on the final 
adoption of the budget or any conference report thereon.(5) 
Rule XXVIII clause 6, requires a roll call vote on any motion to close 
a conference meeting.(6) There are also some instances in 
law which attempt to mandate a yea and nay vote on an issue before the 
House (see, e.g., the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act 
of 1970, which requires a vote not to adjourn for the August recess to 
be taken by the yeas and nays).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2.
 5. See H. Res. 6, adopting the rules of the House for the 104th 
        Congress. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
        4, 1995.
 6. This rule was first adopted on Jan. 4, 1977 (H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. 
        Rec. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emergence of electronic voting (7) has substantially 
modified the actual voting process. While the Speaker may, in his 
discretion,(8) order that the vote be taken by the 
traditional approach (9) in which the Clerk calls the roll, 
and each Member votes on the question as he answers to his 
name,(10) the Chair usually employs the electronic voting 
system. In the latter situation, Members have ``not less than fifteen 
minutes from the ordering of the roll call. . . .'' (11) in 
which to have their vote or presence recorded which is accomplished by 
inserting a plastic card in one of many voting ``stations'' and 
depressing the appropriate (i.e., ``Yea,'' ``Nay,'' or ``Present'') 
pushbutton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 31, infra.
 8. Rule XV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 774b (1995).
 9. Id.
10. The roll is called twice, and Members appearing after their names 
        are called may still vote providing the result of the vote has 
        not been announced.
11. Rule XV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 774b (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of which method is utilized, the Clerk is required 
(12) to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id.

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

[[Page 11583]]

        . . . enter in the Journal and publish in the Congressional 
    Record in alphabetical order in each category, a list of names of 
    those Members recorded as voting in the affirmative, of those 
    Members recorded as voting in the negative, and of those Members 
    answering present, as the case may be, as if their names had been 
    called. . . .

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

Constitutional Origins

Sec. 23.1 The Constitution specifies that one-fifth of the Members 
    present may order a yea and nay vote.

    On Jan. 4, 1965,(13) a resolution (H. Res. 1) directing 
the Speaker to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from 
Mississippi was under discussion. Following a few preliminary 
inquiries, Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, initiated the discussion 
below with the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 19, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for 
    a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: I yield for a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Since the rules of the House have not 
    been adopted, am I correct in understanding that it would require 
    20 percent of the Members here to stand for a yea-and-nay vote?
        The Speaker: (14) The Chair will state that under 
    the Constitution, it would require one-fifth of the Members present 
    to rise to order a yea-and-nay vote.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
15. This prerogative emanates from art. I, Sec. 5, clause 3 of the 
        Constitution which states, in its entirety: ``Each House shall 
        keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time 
        publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment 
        require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either 
        House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of 
        those Present, be entered on the Journal.''
            See also Sec. 26.4, infra, and especially Sec. 26.10, 
        infra, where the yeas and nays were refused after 20 percent of 
        those voting had seconded the demand, but the Chair noted that, 
        counting himself, 20 percent of those present had not supported 
        the demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The yeas and nays may be demanded (1) while 
the Speaker is putting the question to a voice vote or (2) is 
announcing the result of a division, (3) as a vote by tellers is being 
demanded, and (4) even after the announcement of the vote if the demand 
is diligently made and the House has not passed to other business.

Sec. 23.2 The Constitution requires in all cases that a vote to pass a 
    bill over the President's veto must be had by the yeas and nays.

    On Oct. 20, 1951,(16) the Speaker (17) laid 
before the House the

[[Page 11584]]

following message from the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 13736, 13737, 13745, 13746, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the bill (S. 1864) 
    entitled ``An act to authorize payments by the Administrator of 
    Veterans' Affairs on the purchase of automobiles or other 
    conveyances by certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.'' 
    returned by the President of the United States with his objections, 
    to the Senate, in which it originated, it was

            Resolved, That the said bill do pass, two-thirds of the 
        Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

    The Clerk then read the President's veto message after which debate 
ensued until Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved the previous 
question. The previous question then being ordered, the Chair 
proceeded, stating:

        The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the 
    bill, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding?
        Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the 
    yeas and nays.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2:
            ``Every Bill which shall have passed the House of 
        Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, 
        be presented to the President of the United States; If he 
        approves he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with 
        his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, 
        who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and 
        proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two 
        thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be 
        sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by 
        which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two 
        thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such 
        Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and 
        Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the 
        Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House 
        respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the 
        President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall 
        have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like 
        Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their 
        Adjournment prevent its Return in which Case it shall not be a 
        Law.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 24. Demands

Precedence of Yeas and Nays Over Demand for Tellers

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

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

[[Page 11585]]

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

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

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

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

When in Order; Intervening Events

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11586]]

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

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

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

    Immediately thereafter, the following occurred:

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

[[Page 11587]]

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

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

Effect of Ordering of Alternative Voting Procedures

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

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

    The following proceedings then occurred:

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

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

[[Page 11588]]

        The yeas and nays were ordered.

With Respect to Particular Motions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11589]]

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

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

When Untimely

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11590]]

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

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

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

    After the engrossment and third reading of the bill,(12) 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. When the House votes affirmatively on the ``engrossment and third 
        reading'' of a bill, it is voting on the measure's final 
        language. An ``engrossed bill,'' itself, is the final copy of 
        the measure as passed by the House; it includes all amendments 
        which emanated from the floor, and is certified to by the Clerk 
        of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal of Demand

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

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

[[Page 11591]]

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

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

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

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

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

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


 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 25.--When Not in Order

Following Initial Refusal

Sec. 25.1 A demand for the yeas and nays having been refused, a second 
    demand following the denial of tellers is out of order.

    On Mar. 1, 1939,(16) the House voted to adopt the 
conference report on a bill (H.R. 2868) making deficiency 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939. Immediately 
thereafter, the Speaker directed the Clerk to report those amendments 
remaining in disagreement between the two bodies. Among these was 
amendment No. 13, as to which Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia, 
offered a motion to recede and concur with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 2095, 2100, 2103, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Debate on the Woodrum proposal ensued after which the following 
occurred:

        The Speaker: (17) The question is on the motion of 
    the gentleman from Virginia to recede and concur with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Woodrum of Virginia) there were--ayes 118, noes 96.

[[Page 11592]]

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the 
    yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Minnesota asks for the yeas and 
    nays. Those who favor taking this question by the yeas and nays 
    will rise and stand until counted. [After counting.] Thirty-four 
    Members have arisen, not a sufficient number.
        Mr. August H. Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    tellers.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
    vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa makes the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present, which is always a constitutional 
    question. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Two hundred and 
    forty-one Members are present, a quorum.
        Mr. August H. Andersen: Mr. Speaker, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were refused.

        Mr. [James F.] O'Connor [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The yeas and nays have been previously demanded 
    and refused. The demand is out of order.
        The Clerk will report the next amendment in 
    disagreement.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also Sec. 25.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.2 A demand for the yeas and nays having been refused, and 
    tellers then having been ordered, a second demand for the yeas and 
    nays is not in order after completion of the teller vote.

    On June 26, 1968,(19) the House considered a bill (H.R. 
18037) making appropriations for the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare, and the Department of Labor for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1969. In the course of the bill's consideration, separate 
votes were demanded on three amendments, and following agreement to the 
remaining amendments en gross, the House proceeded to entertain the 
three aforementioned provisions in the order in which they appeared in 
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 18938, 18939, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the Clerk read the first amendment on which a 
separate vote had been demanded, the following proceedings occurred:

        The Speaker: (20) The question is on the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: 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. 
    Ashbrook) there were--ayes 110, noes 109.
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    tellers.
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 11593]]

        Mr. Howard: Mr. Speaker, is this teller vote going to be on the 
    so-called Mink impact aid amendment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it is on the amendment 
    offered in the Committee of the Whole by the gentlewoman from 
    Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, if the amendment should be defeated 
    on this teller vote, are we past the point of a record vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer that affirmatively, yes.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Flood and Mr. Michel.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Until 1972, a recorded vote was not 
permitted under Rule I, and the yeas and nays or an automatic roll call 
under Rule XV, were the only ``record'' votes permitted in the House.

Sec. 25.3 A demand for the yeas and nays having been refused, a second 
    demand on the same question remains out of order notwithstanding 
    the intervention of a division, a teller vote, and a quorum count.

    On June 5, 1940,(1) the House considered a bill (H.R. 
6381) for the admission to citizenship of aliens who came into the 
United States prior to Feb. 5, 1917, the effective date of the first 
immigration act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 7623, 7626, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following some discussion of the bill, the question was put, and a 
demand for the yeas and nays was heard. An insufficient number of 
Members having responded, the yeas and nays were refused; a division 
was requested and had--and a point of no quorum was raised. The Speaker 
Pro Tempore (2) then counted a quorum and announced the 
passage of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point a demand for tellers was made and immediately 
objected to as being untimely. The Chair overruled the objection, 
however, pointing out that the requesting Member had been on his feet 
seeking recognition before the Chair's announcement. The House divided; 
and the tellers reported there were--ayes 111, noes 98.
    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Martin J. Kennedy, of New York, was 
recognized, and the following exchange occurred:

        Mr. Martin J. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The yeas and nays have already been 
    refused.

    The Speaker Pro Tempore having so ruled, the bill was passed,

[[Page 11594]]

and a subsequently offered motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See also 84 Cong. Rec. 9594, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 1939, 
        where a second demand for the yeas and nays was also ruled out 
        of order following the refusal of an earlier demand, a 
        division, and a quorum count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

During Count on Division

Sec. 25.4 A demand for the yeas and nays is not in order while the 
    Chair is counting on a division vote.

    On June 10, 1937,(4) the House having under 
consideration a bill (H.R. 6391) to authorize the prompt deportation of 
alien criminals and certain other aliens, Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of 
Ohio, offered a motion to recommit. The Chair proceeded to put the 
question on the Jenkins proposal, and the following discussion ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 5574, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (5) The question is on the motion to 
    recommit offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio demands a division. All 
    those in favor of the motion will rise and stand until counted.
        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio (interrupting the count): Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's request is not in order while the 
    House is dividing.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it has discretion to conclude the 
    count on a division before entertaining another request.
        Mr. Mapes: I never knew the Chair to make such a ruling before.
        The Speaker: The Chair now makes it.

    Parliamentarian's Note: To permit the interruption of a division 
vote by a demand for a recorded vote or the yeas and nays merely serves 
to confuse the count, as Members then standing would not necessarily 
stand to support the ordering of a ``record'' vote.

During Count of Those Supporting Demand for Tellers

Sec. 25.5 While the yeas and nays may be demanded pending a 
    simultaneous demand for tellers (or after tellers have been ordered 
    but before the count has begun), the demand for the yeas and nays 
    may not be made while the Chair is counting to ascertain whether 
    one-fifth of a quorum supports the demand for tellers.

    On Aug. 17, 1972,(6) the Speaker having put the question 
on an

[[Page 11595]]

amendment to a bill (H.R. 13915) intended to further equal educational 
opportunities, Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of Illinois, demanded a teller 
vote; and the following discussion occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 28915, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) All those in favor of taking a vote 
    by tellers will rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Speaker, I have demanded that the vote be 
    taken by tellers and I will ask that it be taken by tellers with 
    clerks.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois has demanded a vote by 
    tellers and a request has been made that the Members rise. The 
    Chair is counting.

    At this point, Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, advanced a 
parliamentary inquiry on a constitutional issue (8) after 
which the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 30.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand for tellers.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the vote be taken by the 
    yeas and nays.

    Mr. Quie having renewed his request (as indicated above) and the 
Chair no longer being in the process of counting those in favor of 
tellers, the demand for the yeas and nays was entertained.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 26. Ordering of Vote

Generally

Sec. 26.1 The House has voted by the yeas and nays on ordering the 
    previous question on approval of the Journal.

    On July 25, 1949,(9) immediately after the Clerk 
concluded the reading of the Journal, the following exchange took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 10092, 10093, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the Journal as read stand approved; and on that motion I move 
    the previous question.
        The Speaker: (10) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the yeas and nays on ordering the previous question.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.

    The question was then taken; and there were--yeas 259, nays 88, not 
voting 85. So, the previous question was ordered.

Sec. 26.2 The yeas and nays have been ordered on a motion to dispense 
    with further proceedings under the call for a quorum.

[[Page 11596]]

    On June 5, 1946,(11) shortly after the Chair's 
announcement that it was Calendar Wednesday, Mr. Dan R. McGehee, of 
Mississippi, made the point of order that a quorum was not present. The 
Chair's count revealing the absence of a quorum, Mr. Howard W. Smith, 
of Virginia, moved a call of the House which was so ordered. Two 
hundred seventy-two Members then responded to their names, and the 
Chair announced that a quorum was present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 6352, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following occurred:

        The Speaker: (12) On this roll call 272 Members have 
    answered to their names, a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas 
    and nays.
        The Speaker: Those Members desiring the yeas and nays will rise 
    and remain standing until counted. [After counting.] Forty-five 
    Members have risen. The Chair, in looking over the membership since 
    the announcement that 272 had answered, notes that 45 is more than 
    one-fifth of the Members present now.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a division.
        The Speaker: The yeas and nays are ordered.
        The Clerk will call the roll.

Sec. 26.3 Whether a proposition will be subject to a roll call vote at 
    a future time is a matter for the House, not the Chair, to decide.

    On June 29, 1961,(13) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of 
Maryland, called up a resolution (H. Res. 354) which called for the 
creation and dissemination to each Member of a flag symbolizing 
membership in the House. The Speaker (14) put the question 
on the resolution, it was taken; and he announced that the ``ayes'' 
appeared to have it. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then objected to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum was not present and made the point of 
order at the Speaker's request. Mr. Friedel sought to withdraw the 
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 11798, 11799, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Is it necessary to ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    the resolution?
        The Speaker: It is, but the Chair did not think anyone would 
    object to that unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11597]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Will this resolution be subject to a roll call vote 
    when it is called up again?
        The Speaker: That would be up to the House to decide.

Speaker's Determination as to Seconding Support

Sec. 26.4 In deciding whether to order the yeas and the nays, the 
    Speaker counts the total number of Members present in the Chamber 
    in order to determine if those seconding the demand constitute one-
    fifth of those present.

    On July 20, 1939,(15) the Committee of the Whole 
reported back to the House a bill (S. 1871) to prevent pernicious 
political activities with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee. 
Under the rule, the previous question was ordered and the Speaker 
inquired as to whether a separate vote was requested on any amendment. 
Mr. Claude V. Parsons, of Illinois, having demanded a separate vote on 
each amendment, the House proceeded to consider the amendments in 
chronological order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 9637, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House agreed to the first nine amendments by separate votes 
after which the Speaker put the question on the 10th amendment. Mr. 
Parsons then demanding the yeas and nays, the following exchange 
occurred:

        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from Illinois 
    demands the yeas and nays on the amendment just read. As many as 
    favor ordering the yeas and nays will rise and stand until counted. 
    [After counting.] The Chair will now count the number of Members 
    present to determine whether or not a sufficient number have arisen 
    to order the yeas and nays. [After counting.] Sixty-five Members 
    rose in favor of ordering the yeas and nays. The Chair counted 365 
    Members present, which would require 73 Members rising to order the 
    yeas and nays. Not a sufficient number rose and the yeas and nays 
    are refused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward W.] Creal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Creal: When the Chair takes the vote of those present and 
    then counts again after they come in from the cloakrooms, is that 
    number counted that comes in after the first number had risen?
        The Speaker: One-fifth of the Members present in the Chamber 
    are required to order the yeas and nays in the House. When the 
    demand is made, the Chair counts those who rise in favor of taking 
    the vote by the yeas and nays, and it is then the duty of the Chair 
    to determine the total number of

[[Page 11598]]

    Members present in the Chamber and divide that count in order to 
    determine whether or not one-fifth have seconded the demand for the 
    yeas and nays.
        The question is on agreeing to the amendment.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Mr. Creal's fundamental question, that is, does the Chair count as 
        present those who enter the Chamber after supporters of the 
        demand have already arisen in computing the ratio, was 
        considered by Speaker Rayburn 11 years later; see Sec. 26.9, 
        infra.
            For routine instances where insufficient support resulted 
        in denial of the yeas and nays, see 93 Cong. Rec. 6392, 80th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 4, 1947; and 84 Cong. Rec. 5613, 76th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., May 16, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.5 In determining whether a demand for the yeas and nays is 
    supported by one-fifth of those present, the Speaker may use as a 
    basis for such determination, the number of Members who responded 
    on an immediately preceding roll call.

    On Mar. 26, 1935,(18) the House had under consideration 
a resolution (H. Res. 174) which provided that upon its adoption, a 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 117) pertaining to relief appropriations 
would be taken from the Speaker's table, with Senate amendments 
thereto, and a conference would be agreed to by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 4474, 4475, 4476, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following considerable discussion, the question was put on ordering 
the previous question. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then 
demanded the yeas and nays which were ordered. The question was taken; 
and there were--yeas 265, nays 108, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 
57. Accordingly, the previous question was ordered.
    Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The question is on the 
    adoption of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Henry Ellenbogen (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. [After 
    counting.] Sixty-four Members have risen; not a sufficient number.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the count.
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair may state that according 
    to the roll call there were 371 Members present. It is very evident 
    that the number who arose was not one-fifth of the number present 
    as shown by the roll call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Joseph W. Burns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I counted 70 myself.
        The Speaker: It would take more than 70 to order the yeas and 
    nays.
        So the yeas and nays were refused.

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Rankin demanded a teller vote on

[[Page 11599]]

the passage of the resolution. This demand having been supported, 
tellers were ordered; the House divided; and there were--ayes 186, noes 
78. The result of this vote prompted further inquiries on the Chair's 
prior refusal to order the yeas and nays:

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order we were 
    entitled to a roll-call vote, because this vote shows there are not 
    five times as many Members in the House as stood up a while ago and 
    asked for a roll-call vote.
        The Speaker: By the gentleman's own count of 70, he was not 
    entitled to a roll-call vote, because it requires 75, according to 
    the roll call which has just been completed.
        Mr. Rankin: I beg the Chair's pardon; what was the report?
        The Speaker: This vote was on an entirely different question, 
    and the Chair has no doubt but what many Members have gone to their 
    offices since the roll call was completed.
        Mr. Rankin: No; Mr. Speaker, many Members have come in since 
    then.
        The regular order was demanded.
        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McFarlane: Is there any way by which we can get a roll-call 
    vote at this time?
        The Speaker: The House has refused a roll-call vote on the 
    passage of the resolution.
        So the resolution was agreed to.
        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to have a roll-call 
    vote on the basis of the number of Members present, as indicated by 
    the teller vote, if one-fifth of the number shown by the teller 
    vote would now ask for a roll-call vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that quite a 
    number of minutes--15 or 20, or perhaps one-half an hour--has 
    elapsed since the House refused the roll call, and that roll call 
    was requested immediately after a roll call of the House which 
    disclosed 371 Members present. It therefore took 75 Members to 
    order a roll call, and according to the count there were not 75 
    Members standing.

    The Chair having explained the situation, there were no further 
requests for a roll call vote on the passage of the resolution.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Using the number of Members responding on 
an immediately preceding roll call as a basis to determine whether the 
yeas and nays should be ordered is a practice which is not normally 
followed. See, for example, 92 Cong. Rec. 6352, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., 
June 5, 1946, where Speaker Rayburn stated, ``The Chair, in looking 
over the membership since the announcement [of an immediately preceding 
roll call] that 272 answered, notes that 45 is more than one-fifth of 
the Members present now.'' In the current prac

[[Page 11600]]

tice, this is the way the Chair would count, that is, he would not rely 
upon an immediately preceding vote.

Chair's Count for Second

Sec. 26.6 The Chair has reversed his determination that an insufficient 
    number have seconded a request for the yeas and nays where a 
    subsequent count of the House indicated that one-fifth of those 
    present had indeed stood to second the demand.

    On Aug. 10, 1976, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, had put the 
question of consideration with respect to a resolution called up in the 
House immediately after it had been reported by the Committee on Rules. 
The yeas and nays being demanded on the question, the Speaker counted 
60 Members standing to support the demand, and then based on his 
estimate of those present, declared that ``an insufficient number'' had 
risen. A point of no quorum was then made and the Chair counted the 
House, finding on his count 240 Members in the Hall. He then reversed 
his decision and affirmed that a sufficient number had in fact stood to 
second the demand.(1) The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 26793, 26794, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. While the count of 
        the Chair in determining whether a requisite number of those 
        Members present has sustained a demand for the yeas and nays is 
        not subject to verification or appeal (8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 3112-3118), the Chair may on his own initiative 
        reverse his determination when satisfied that his prior count 
        was erroneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sisk, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 1473, Rept. No. 94-1421), which was 
    referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

                                  H. Res. 1473

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's 
        table the bill (S. 3735) to amend the Public Health Service Act 
        to authorize the establishment and implementation of an 
        emergency national swine flu immunization program and to 
        provide an exclusive remedy for personal injury or death 
        arising out of the manufacture, distribution, or administration 
        of the swine flu vaccine under such program, and to consider 
        said bill in the House.

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 1473 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House 
    Resolution 1473?
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 11601]]

        The Speaker: Those Members in favor of taking this vote by the 
    yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted.
        Sixty Members are standing, an insufficient number.
        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: 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: The Chair will count the House.
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Speaker, did the Chair count the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair counted just those standing.
        Mr. Flowers: How many were standing, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: There were 60 Members standing.
        Mr. Flowers: How many are required, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: One-fifth of all the Members present.
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Speaker, if 60 Members were standing, I make 
    the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count.
        The Chair counts 240 Members present. A quorum is present, but 
    the Chair is going to reverse his decision and declare the yeas and 
    nays to be ordered. . . .
        The Chair is going to reverse his decision because he did not 
    initially count the House, and 60 is a sufficient number to order 
    the yeas and nays under the count just made.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, is a two-thirds vote necessary in 
    order to pass this and consider the legislation?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that in order to consider the 
    resolution, a two-thirds vote is necessary, not to adopt it, but to 
    consider it.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House 
    Resolution 1473, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    293, nays 70, not voting 68. . . .
        So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the House agreed 
    to consider House Resolution 1473.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk) is 
    recognized for 1 hour.

Sec. 26.7 While the Chair's count of one-fifth of those Members present 
    in the House to order the yeas and nays under section 5 of article 
    I of the U.S. Constitution is not subject to challenge, the Chair 
    may respond to a Member's inquiry as to the exact count.

    On May 3, 1994,(2) the following proceedings took place 
on the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 140 Cong. Rec. p. --------, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 11602]]

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Kennedy [II, of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    yield back the balance of my time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
    that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3191, as 
    amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. George Darden (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Porter J.] Goss [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All those in favor of the yeas and 
    nays will stand and remain standing.
        A sufficient number having arisen, pursuant to clause 5 of rule 
    I, and the Chair's prior announcement----
        Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair what the 
    rule is about a sufficient number of Members rising.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that one-fifth of 
    those present constitutes a sufficient number.
        Mr. Kennedy: I would ask if the Chair would just count them up, 
    please, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair already counted two Members 
    standing. There are less than 10 Members on the floor.
        Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 
    of rule I and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings 
    on this motion will be postponed.

Chair's Count for Second Not Subject to Appeal

Sec. 26.8 The Speaker's count of the House to determine whether one-
    fifth of those Members present have risen to support a request for 
    the yeas and nays is not subject to verification by appeal.

    Where the yeas and nays were demanded in the House on the question 
of passing a bill under suspension, the Speaker, after counting those 
standing to second the demand and then counting the House, declared 
that less than one-fifth of those present had risen to support the 
demand. The Speaker declared that no appeal on the Chair's count was in 
order. The proceedings were as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 28949, 28950, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman) that the 
    House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 12578, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, two-
    thirds have voted in the affirmative.
        Mr. [Harold A.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 11603]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Volkmer) demands the yeas and nays. All those in favor of taking 
    this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until 
    counted.
        Not a sufficient number have risen.
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        Is the requirement one-fifth of the Members present?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Yes. The Chair will state that the 
    requirement is that one-fifth of the Members present be standing 
    for the yeas and nays, and there is not one-fifth of the Members 
    standing.
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I count four Members standing.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, an 
    insufficient number have arisen.
        The Chair will be glad to count, if the gentleman desires.
        Mr. Volkmer: Would the Chair count, please? I believe there are 
    only 25 Members here.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. Thirty Members 
    are present.
        Two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the rules are 
    suspended and the bill, as amended, is passed, and without 
    objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, is it in order 
    to appeal the ruling of the Chair on the last vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    that no appeal lies on the count of the Chair.

Sec. 26.9 Where the Speaker counted the Members rising to second a 
    demand for the yeas and nays on a motion to adjourn and then 
    counted the total number of Members present to determine whether 
    one-fifth seconded such demand, he declined a Member's request that 
    a new count be taken on the ground that some Members entered the 
    Chamber and were counted after the count of those seconding the 
    demand.

    On Jan. 23, 1950,(6) toward the end of the day, Mr. John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, moved that the House adjourn. 
Immediately thereafter, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, demanded the 
yeas and nays. The Chair then counted and announced that ``fifty-four 
Members . . . [had] arisen, not a sufficient number.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 785, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following then occurred:

        Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. 
    There were many Members who came in and were counted after the 
    standing count was taken. I ask that the vote be taken again.
        The Speaker: (7) The Chair is not going to make the 
    count again because

[[Page 11604]]

    he has just counted both the total number of Members and the number 
    standing to demand the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion to adjourn.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also Sec. Sec. 26.4, supra and 31.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.10 Although a demand for the yeas and nays had been seconded by 
    20 percent of those voting, the Speaker noted that, counting 
    himself, less than the minimum number of Members present had 
    seconded the demand--so the yeas and nays were refused.

    On June 30, 1937,(9) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, moved 
that the House adjourn. The Speaker (10) put the question; 
it was taken, and on a division vote demanded by Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, there were--ayes 41, noes 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 6642, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Rankin demanded the yeas and nays. The 
Speaker then proceeded to count those in favor of that demand, and 
announced that:

        . . . Thirteen gentlemen have arisen, not a sufficient number. 
    The rule provides that the yeas and nays may be ordered by one-
    fifth of the Members present.

    Since the Speaker had counted himself in reaching his conclusion, 
the 13 seconding Members--while comprising one-fifth of those who had 
voted--did not comprise one-fifth of those present. Accordingly, the 
demand was refused.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 27. Interruption of Vote

For Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 27.1 The Speaker has permitted the interruption of a yea and nay 
    vote for a parliamentary inquiry where no Member had as yet 
    responded to his name when called.

    On June 27, 1935,(11) the House voted on the passage of 
a bill (H.R. 8555) to develop a strong merchant marine, among other 
purposes. A division having been demanded, there were--ayes 145, noes 
131. Mr. William D. McFarlane, of Texas, then demanded the yeas and 
nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 10288, 10289, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. McFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
        Mr. [Ralph O.] Brewster [of Maine]: Mr. Speaker--
        The Speaker: (12) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Maine rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 11605]]

        Mr. Brewster: To propound a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brewster: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of order. The Clerk has already begun the calling of the roll 
    and has called the first name, ``Allen.'' I make the point of order 
    the gentleman from Maine cannot interrupt the roll call.
        The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order. The 
    gentleman from Maine is entitled to propound a legitimate 
    parliamentary inquiry, and the Chair presumes that the inquiry 
    propounded is a proper one. The gentleman from Maine will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Brewster: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that a motion to 
    recommit cannot be submitted at this stage?
        The Speaker: Such a motion is not in order at this time.
        The inquiry having been answered, the question was then taken 
    by the yeas and nays.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Chair has also permitted a parliamentary inquiry where the yeas 
        and nays had been ordered but the Clerk had not yet been 
        directed to call the roll. See Sec. 27.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Unanimous--consent Request

Sec. 27.2 A yea and nay vote having been ordered, the Chair declined to 
    entertain a unanimous-consent request before the Clerk called the 
    roll.

    On May 3, 1940,(14) the House considered an amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to a bill (H.R. 5435) to amend 
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Chair having put the question 
on agreeing to the amendment, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 5499, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [Frank H.] Buck [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Buck: On what is the vote by yeas and nays ordered?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On the amendment as amended in 
    Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr. of Massachusetts]: I wanted the 
    House to have the benefit of that knowledge.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman 
    rise?
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: To [make] a unanimous-consent 
    request.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
    The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request at this 
    time.
        A parliamentary inquiry then followed, after which the Clerk 
    was directed to call the roll.

[[Page 11606]]


 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 28. Recapitulation of Roll Call Vote

    The term, ``recapitulation,'' refers to a procedure (16) 
whereby the count on a roll call vote is verified by the Chair. 
Undertaken at the Chair's discretion,(17) a recapitulation 
is had either before or after the announcement of the result. The sole 
purpose is to ascertain how Members are recorded. Occasionally 
requested on close votes,(18) the procedure enables 
incorrectly recorded Members to obtain corrections. Members may not 
change their votes during a recapitulation (19) [a 
correction, of course, does not constitute a ``change'' of vote]. 
However, if the Chair directs the recapitulation before announcing the 
result of the vote, Members may change their votes following the 
recapitulation and preceding the announcement of the 
result.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 28.8, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 28.1-28.5, infra.
18. See Sec. Sec. 8.4, 28.5, infra.
19. See Sec. 28.6, infra.
20. See Sec. 28.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in the 92d Congress, the House began using the electronic 
voting system (Sec. 31, infra). Most yea and nay votes have been taken 
with the electronic system since Jan. 23, 1973. Recapitulation has not 
been permitted since that time but would still be available on a vote 
taken by roll call.                          -------------------

Speaker's Discretion

Sec. 28.1 Either before or after the announcement of the result of a 
    roll call vote, the Speaker may, in his discretion, order a 
    recapitulation of the vote.

    On Sept. 2, 1959,(1) the House voted on overriding a 
Presidential veto of a bill (H.R. 7509) making appropriations for civil 
functions administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies 
of the Department of the Interior, and the Tennessee Valley Authority 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 105 Cong. Rec. 17752, 17753, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the votes were tallied, but before the Speaker announced the 
result, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, prompted the following 
discussion:

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recapitulation of the 
    vote.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, may we not 
    have the vote announced first?
        The Speaker: (2) The Chair holds that there can be a 
    recapitulation be

[[Page 11607]]

    fore or after the vote. Therefore, we will have a recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Upon request, will not the Speaker announce the 
    vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair has discretion in this matter.
        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, regular 
    order.
        The Speaker: The regular order is the Clerk will call the names 
    of those voting in the affirmative. . . .
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker. I renew my request for an 
    announcement of the vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already ordered a recapitulation. 
    The Clerk will call the names of those voting in the 
    affirmative.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For similar instances, in which the Chair makes evident its 
        authority to order a recapitulation before the announcement of 
        the vote, see Sec. 28.3, infra; and 81 Cong. Rec. 7772, 75th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1937. But see Sec. 28.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.2 In the course of exercising his discretionary authority, the 
    Chair once stated that it was not possible to request a 
    recapitulation where a roll call vote was still in progress.

    On Oct. 12, 1962,(4) the House agreed to a conference 
report on a bill (H.R. 12900) making certain public works 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. The Members 
then proceeded to consider the first amendment remaining in 
disagreement between the two bodies, and Mr. Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, moved that the House recede from its disagreement and concur 
in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 23432, 23433, 23434, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Speaker put the question on the motion, it was taken; and 
he announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. Cannon then 
objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present 
whereupon the Chair counted and subsequently directed the Clerk to call 
the roll. The roll having been called, the Speaker directed the Clerk 
to call the names of those Members who failed to answer the first call.
    In the course of this resumption of the call, the following 
proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa] (interrupting the rollcall): Mr. 
    Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, how many times must a Member check how 
    he has voted?
        The Speaker: That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma] (interrupting the 
    rollcall): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11608]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Edmondson: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to have a 
    recapitulation of the votes that have been cast in advance of the 
    announced vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that there has been no vote 
    announced as yet. Therefore, at this point it is not possible to 
    request a recapitulation.
        (The Clerk resumed calling the roll.)

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that any determination 
as to whether to conduct a recapitulation is within the discretionary 
power of the Chair. Thus, it is altogether possible to interpret the 
Speaker's language in this instance as meaning that such a request was 
not permissible because in the exercise of the Speaker's discretionary 
authority, he did not choose to entertain such a request before the 
announcement of the vote.
    Moreover, the majority of recapitulation instances indicate that 
the Chair has felt few constraints on the timing of his decision to 
order a recapitulation. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, for example, 
declined a Member's request for announcement of the vote prior to 
undertaking a recapitulation in 1941.(6) Speaker William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, responding to a Member's point of order in 1937, 
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 87 Cong. Rec. 6869, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 7, 1941.
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 7772, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In answer to the point of order the Chair refers to section 
    3123, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents. The syllabus recites that 
    ``under the more recent practice recapitulation of a vote may be 
    had either before or after the announcement of the result of the 
    vote.''

--Members' Responsibility

Sec. 28.3 When a recapitulation of a roll call vote on overriding a 
    Presidential veto is ordered by unanimous consent, Members who come 
    on the floor for the first time while the recapitulation is being 
    taken are not permitted to vote. Members leaving the Chamber after 
    voting on the original roll call who may have been incorrectly 
    recorded do so on their own responsibility, and any Member who 
    desires to change his vote before the vote is announced following 
    the recapitulation may do so.

    On Aug. 7, 1941,(8) the House proceeded by roll call 
vote to consider the question of overriding the President's veto on S. 
1580 (a road bill). When the roll call was completed the Speaker 
(9) announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 87 Cong. Rec. 6895-97, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks this vote is close enough so that, if there is 
    no objection, there will be a recapitulation. . . .

[[Page 11609]]

        Mr. [Joseph E.] Casey of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Casey of Massachusetts: May we hear the present vote?
        The Speaker: We are starting a recapitulation to determine 
    whether or not the vote is correct. The Clerk will call the names 
    of those recorded as voting ``yea.''
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Speaker, will Members who come on the floor 
    while this recapitulation is being taken be permitted to vote?
        The Speaker: Members cannot qualify unless they were here 
    before the roll call was completed.
        Mr. [Leo E.] Allen of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Allen of Illinois: How could you have a correct analysis of 
    the vote if a Member were out of the Chamber now who had voted 
    ``nay'' and he is recorded as voting ``yea'' and he is not here to 
    correct it?
        The Speaker: That is not the business of anybody in the House 
    except the particular Member involved. . . .
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: As I understand the rules, at the conclusion of 
    the calling of the roll, the rules require the Speaker to announce 
    the result.
        No business can intervene between the calling of the roll and 
    the announcing of the result of the roll call. After the result has 
    been announced and it is known whether or not the vote is close, 
    the Speaker may, of his own volition, order a recapitulation of the 
    roll call. . . . It has been held that a recapitulation will only 
    be ordered where the vote is close. Consequently, it seems 
    imperative that the House should be advised as to what the vote is 
    before a recapitulation is ordered. . . .
        It is fundamental that a Member cannot change his vote after 
    the result of the roll call has been announced. A recapitulation is 
    for the purpose of correcting any errors in the vote as recorded, 
    and not for the purpose of giving an additional opportunity to 
    members to change their votes. . . . A recapitulation is for the 
    purpose of correcting clerical errors.
        To hold otherwise would be to lend encouragement to effective 
    filibuster in order that one side in a closely contested vote might 
    bring influence to bear and cause Members to change their original 
    votes. To hold otherwise would do violence to the democratic 
    processes of the House. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair certainly is not in a filibuster. It has 
    been held time and time again that any Member may change his vote 
    before the vote is announced, and I read from page 419 of Cannon's 
    Procedure in the House of Representatives, and this is exactly what 
    the Speaker operated under:

            The motion that a vote be recapitulated is not privileged, 
        but either before or after the announcement of the vote, the 
        Speaker may, in his discretion, order recapitulation. (If

[[Page 11610]]

        more than four votes different, in the absence of other 
        considerations, recapitulation will not be ordered.)

        The Speaker did not order a recapitulation until he asked if 
    there was objection by any Member of the House.
        Mr. Michener: There was no announcement to see whether there 
    was a difference of but a few votes. The effect of this procedure 
    is to interrupt an incompleted roll call and proceed with a 
    recount. No votes should be changed in a recount and no new votes 
    should be added during a recount or a recapitulation.
        The Speaker: The Chair is following this book. The Chair is 
    going to hold that up until the time the result of this vote is 
    announced by the Chair any Member may change his vote, because that 
    is merely following the precedents of the House. Any Member who 
    desires to change his vote before the vote is announced, may do so.

    After the names of Members who had voted aye were called, and the 
last of those voting no, several Members then changed their votes 
before the result was announced.
    The vote was--yeas 251, nays 128, not voting 54. So the President's 
veto was not overridden.

Closeness of Vote as Determining Factor

Sec. 28.4 The Speaker has declined to order a recapitulation where the 
    difference in the vote was as great as 10.

    On June 21, 1962,(10) Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, 
offered a motion to recommit a bill (H.R. 11222) to the Committee on 
Agriculture pertaining to farm products, prices, income, and other 
agricultural matters. When the Speaker put the question, the yeas and 
nays were demanded and subsequently ordered. The question was taken; 
and there were--yeas 215, nays 205, not voting 17. The Chair then 
announced the result of the vote on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 11383, 11384, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange occurred:

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    for a recapitulation of the vote.
        The Speaker: (11) Does the gentleman insist on his 
    request for a recapitulation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cooley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I insist upon it.
        The Speaker: The Chair feels that the vote is not sufficiently 
    close to order a recapitulation.
        Mr. Cooley: All right, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the 
    request.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Chair has also declined to order a recapitulation after being 
        so urged in earlier Congress; see, for example, 101 Cong. Rec. 
        11930, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1955, where a seven-vote 
        difference was involved, and 83 Cong. Rec. 5124, 75th Cong. 3d 
        Sess., Apr. 8, 1938, where there was an eight-vote spread. See 
        also Sec. .28.5, infra.

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

[[Page 11611]]

Sec. 28.5 The Speaker has declined to order a recapitulation of a vote 
    where there was a four-vote difference.

    On Oct. 9, 1969,(13) Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of 
Massachusetts, offered a motion instructing House conferees to insist 
on a particular provision with respect to a bill (H.R. 11612) making 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 29314, 29315, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, a preferential motion was offered to lay the 
Conte motion on the table. On a vote by division, there were--ayes 64, 
noes 44. Mr. Conte objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was 
not present whereupon the Speaker, concurring, directed the Clerk to 
call the roll. The question was taken and there were--yeas 181, nays 
177. Accordingly, the preferential motion was agreed to.
    Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, was the vote 181 affirmative and 177 
    negative?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that is correct.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, on that I request a recapitulation.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair feels that if 
    there was a difference of one or two votes, the Chair would order a 
    recapitulation, but where there are four votes the Chair does not 
    feel a recapitulation should be ordered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Referring to the difference between the yea 
and nay columns in a similar situation, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
stated,(15) ``If the number were less than 4, the Chair 
would consider a recapitulation but not on a vote where there is this 
much [seven votes] difference.'' A number of years earlier, Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, noted,(16) ``The Chair has 
the discretion upon a very close vote to request a recapitulation; that 
is, where there is a difference of only one or two or three or possibly 
four votes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 101 Cong. Rec. 11930, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1955.
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 5124, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 8, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vote Changes; Effect of Announcement of Result

Sec. 28.6 Members desiring to change their votes on a re

[[Page 11612]]

    capitulation of a vote may do so after the recapitulation providing 
    the result has not been announced by the Chair.

    On July 28, 1954,(17) the House took a roll call vote on 
a resolution (H. Res. 626) providing that upon its adoption the 
Committee of the Whole would sit to consider a bill (H.R. 236) 
authorizing a flood control project in Colorado. Immediately after the 
vote and prior to making any announcement as to the result, the Chair 
asked for a recapitulation, and the following proceedings then 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 100 Cong. Rec. 12453, 12454, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold A.] Patten [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patten: What are we doing now?
        The Speaker: We are recapitulating the vote to find out if the 
    Members are correctly recorded.
        Mr. Patten: Is it true that a Member who voted ``yea'' can now 
    vote ``nay''?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Patten: Then you are not recapitulating, you are asking for 
    a new vote.
        The Speaker: The House is in the process of recapitulating the 
    vote.
        Mr. Patten: A person who voted ``yea'' before may now vote 
    ``nay.'' You cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. I raise a point of 
    parliamentary procedure. You cannot do that.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman take his seat, and we will do 
    it in due order?
        Mr. Patten: No; I shall not take my seat.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman cease for a moment?
        Mr. Patten: The Parliamentarian will tell you that is wrong.
        The Speaker: The Parliamentarian informs the Chair that Members 
    can change their votes at any time before the Chair announces the 
    result of the vote.
        Mr. Patten: Then I may change my vote at this point?
        The Speaker: Not until after the recapitulation.
        The Clerk will call the names of those voting ``yea.''
        The Clerk proceeded to call the names of those voting ``yea.''
        Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio] (interrupting the 
    recapitulation): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk passed my name. I voted in 
    the affirmative about four times as loud as I could yell.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may make that correction at the end 
    of the call of those who voted in the affirmative.

    Immediately after the recapitulation, but prior to the Chair's 
announcement of the result, the Record reveals that 10 Members changed 
their votes.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Members desiring to change incorrectly recorded votes may do so, of 
        course, at the proper time during the recapitulation; see 
        Sec. Sec. .28.7, 28.8, infra.

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

[[Page 11613]]

Sec. 28.7 The result of a roll call vote having been announced, a 
    Member may not change his vote on a subsequent recapitulation 
    although he is entitled to correct his vote if it was incorrectly 
    recorded.

    On Feb. 17, 1955,(20) the House had under consideration 
a resolution (H. Res. 142) which provided that upon its adoption the 
House would resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole in order to 
consider a bill (H.R. 1) to extend the authority of the President to 
enter into trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 
1930. The resolution additionally provided that no amendment other than 
those offered by the Committee on Ways and Means would be in order, and 
that such amendments would not be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 101 Cong. Rec. 1661, 1678, 1682, 1683, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the previous question on the resolution was voted down, Mr. 
Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, offered an amendment to provide for an open 
rule which would have allowed ``any amendment . . . germane to H.R. 1 
when . . . considered under the 5 minute rule.'' Following debate on 
the Brown amendment, the Speaker put the question, it was taken; and, 
the yeas and nays having been ordered, there were--yeas 191, nays 193, 
not voting 50. The Chair announced the result of the vote, and the 
following proceedings then occurred:

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, may I call for a 
    recapitulation.
        The Speaker: (1) The Chair thinks the vote is close 
    enough so that there should be a recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will call the names of those voting in the 
    affirmative.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: I would like to inquire of the Speaker if my 
    understanding is correct that on recapitulation no Member can 
    change his vote. The question is only how they are recorded.
        The Speaker: That is true because the vote has been announced.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Upon recapitulation, if a Member finds that 
    his vote has been recorded incorrectly, he certainly has a right to 
    correct it.
        The Speaker: That is the purpose of a 
    recapitulation.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also Sec. .28.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure

Sec. 28.8 When a recapitulation is ordered, the Clerk calls first

[[Page 11614]]

    those voting in the affirmative, second, those voting in the 
    negative, and, third, those answering ``present''; any necessary 
    corrections are made after all the names in each respective 
    category are called.

    On July 28, 1954,(3) the House took a roll call vote on 
a resolution (H. Res. 626) providing that upon its adoption the 
Committee of the Whole would sit to consider a bill (H.R. 236) 
authorizing a flood control project in Colorado. Immediately after the 
vote and prior to making any announcement as to the result, the Speaker 
asked for a recapitulation, and directed the Clerk to call the names of 
those voting in the affirmative. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 100 Cong. Rec. 12453, 12454, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (4) The Clerk will call the names of 
    those voting ``yea.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to call the names of those voting ``yea.''
        Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio] (interrupting the 
    recapitulation): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk passed my name. I voted in 
    the affirmative about four times as loud as I could yell.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may make that correction at the end 
    of the call of those who voted in the affirmative.
        Mr. Clevenger: I voted in the affirmative.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman be seated and wait until the 
    end of the call?
        The Clerk concluded the call of the names of those voting 
    ``yea.''
        The Speaker: Are there any corrections to be made where any 
    Member was listening and heard his name called as voting ``yea'' 
    who did not vote ``yea''? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.
        Did any Member vote ``yea'' whose name was not called?
        Mr. Clevenger: Mr. Speaker, I said I voted four times in the 
    affirmative.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will be recorded as voting ``yea.''
        The Clerk will call the names of those recorded as voting 
    ``nay.''
        The Clerk called the names of those voting ``nay.''
        The Speaker: Is there any Member voting ``nay'' who is 
    incorrectly recorded? (5) [After a pause.] The Chair 
    hears none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For comparable instances, see 105 Cong. Rec. 17752, 86th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Sept. 2, 1959; 101 Cong. Rec. 5807, 84th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 5, 1955; 97 Cong. Rec. 8876, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 25, 1951; and 87 Cong. Rec. 6897, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Aug. 7, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Different Result Obtained

Sec. 28.9 The Chair having directed a recapitulation on a close vote, a 
    different result than that previously announced was obtained.

[[Page 11615]]

    On Mar. 24, 1949,(6) Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, moved 
that the bill (H.R. 2681) to provide pensions for veterans of World 
Wars I and II based on nonservice-connected disability and attained 
age, be recommitted to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for further 
study. Shortly thereafter, the Speaker Pro Tempore put the question on 
Mr. Teague's motion, it was taken; and the Chair announced that the 
``ayes'' had it. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then demanded the 
yeas and nays which were ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 3114, 3115, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The roll was called, and prior to the announcement of the result, 
two Members changed their votes from ``no'' to ``aye.'' Thereafter, the 
following exchange took place:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) On this vote the ayes 
    are 208; the noes are 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the vote is so close that there should be a 
    recapitulation.
        Mr. Rankin: Oh, no; it is clear.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will take its own 
    initiative; either way the Chair would have taken the initiative on 
    this vote.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make such a 
    request.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a Member cannot change his vote 
    during the recapitulation; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        The Clerk will call the names of those voting in the 
    affirmative.

    At this point the recapitulation process took place after which the 
Chair stated:

        Upon the tallying of the vote on the recapitulation it appears 
    the vote is as follows: Those in favor of recommittal, 208; those 
    opposed, 207.

    Accordingly, the motion to recommit was agreed to--a different 
result having been obtained after recapitulation of the vote.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The cause of this different result lay in 
the change of votes by the aforementioned two Members from ``no'' to 
``aye.'' It seems the tally clerk properly added two more affirmative 
votes to the ``yea'' column but inadvertently neglected to subtract 
those votes from the ``nay'' column. Hence, the original error.

In the Senate

Sec. 28.10 The Chair has held that a Senator may vote after a yea and 
    nay vote has been recapitulated providing the result of the vote 
    has not been announced.

[[Page 11616]]

    On Feb. 28, 1947,(8) the Senate resumed consideration of 
a concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 7) establishing a ceiling for 
expenditures for the fiscal year 1948 and for appropriations for the 
fiscal year 1948 to be expended in that fiscal year. In the course of 
the resolution's consideration, the President Pro Tempore put the 
question on an amendment to an amendment. The yeas and nays having been 
ordered on this particular proposal, the vote was taken and a 
recapitulation was had.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 93 Cong. Rec. 1547, 1552, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        The President Pro Tempore: (9) On this vote the yeas 
    are 38, the nays----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Arthur H. Vandenberg (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Millard E.] Tydings [of Maryland]: Mr. President, I ask 
    for a recapitulation.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Clerk will recapitulate the 
    vote.
        The vote was again recapitulated.
        The President Pro Tempore: On this vote the yeas are 38----
        Mr. [Glen H.] Taylor [of Idaho]: Mr. President----

        Mr. [Robert A.] Taft [of Ohio]: It is too late, Mr. President.
        Mr. Tydings: Oh, no; it is not. The result has not been 
    announced.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Idaho is 
    recognized.
        Mr. Taylor: I vote ``yea.''

    Senator Taylor's vote having been permitted, the final tally was--
yeas 39, nays 38, not voting 18. Thus, the result of the vote was 
altered by the Chair's recognition of the Senator from Idaho prior to 
the announcement.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 29. Voting by the Speaker

    Rule I clause 6 provides:

        He [the Speaker] shall not be required to vote in ordinary 
    legislative proceedings, except where his vote would be decisive, 
    or where the House is engaged in voting by ballot; and in cases of 
    a tie vote the question shall be lost.

    The Speaker's name is not on the roll from which the yeas and nays 
are called (10) and is not called unless on his 
request.(11) It is then called at the end of the 
roll,(12) the Clerk calling him by name. On an electronic 
vote, the Chair directs the Clerk to record him and verifies that 
instruction by submitting a vote card.(13) The Chair may 
vote to make a tie and so decide a question in the negative, as he may 
vote to break a tie and so decide a question in the af

[[Page 11617]]

firmative.(14) The duty of giving a decisive vote may be 
exercised after the intervention of other business, or after the 
announcement of the result or on another day, if a correction of the 
roll shows a condition wherein his vote would be decisive; 
(15) and he also exercises the right to withdraw his vote in 
case a correction shows it to have been unnecessary.(16) The 
Speakers have the same right as other Members to vote (17) 
but rarely exercise it,(18) and the Chair may not vote 
twice.(19) The Chair may be counted on a vote by 
tellers.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5970.
11. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5965.
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5965; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3075.
13. See Sec. 29.2, infra.
14. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3100; see also Sec. 29.3, infra.
15. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5969, 6061-6063; 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 3075.
16. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5971.
17. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5966, 5967.
18. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5964 (footnote).
19. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5964.
20. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5996, 5997; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 3100, 
        3101.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Method of Taking Vote

Sec. 29.1 The Clerk does not call the Speaker's name when the roll is 
    called on a yea and nay vote; if the Speaker wishes to be recorded, 
    he asks the Clerk to call his name at the conclusion of the call.

    On Nov. 6, 1967,(1) the House having discussed a motion 
to suspend the rules and pass a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 33) to 
establish a National Commission on Product Safety, the Speaker 
(2) put the question; it was taken, and an objection was 
heard on the ground that a quorum was not present. The Chair sustaining 
that point of order, the Clerk was instructed to call the roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 31287, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the conclusion of the call, but prior to announcing the 
numerical totals, the Speaker stated, ``The Clerk will call my name.'' 
Immediately thereafter, the Record reveals, ``The Clerk called the name 
of Mr. McCormack and he answered `yea.' ''

Sec. 29.2 Before announcing the result of a vote by electronic device, 
    the Speaker may cast a decisive vote pursuant to clause 6, Rule I 
    by advising the Clerk directly of his vote to break a tie (and then 
    verifying that vote by handing the Clerk a ballot card).

    During the amendment process involving consideration of H.R. 5422, 
the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991, in the House on Oct. 17, 
1990,(3) Speaker Thomas

[[Page 11618]]

S. Foley, of Washington, announced that the vote on the so-called 
Solarz amendment was 206 to 206. The Speaker then cast his vote in the 
affirmative. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 136 Cong. Rec. 30229-31, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly, the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore 
    [Mr. Gephardt] having assumed the chair, Mr. Nelson of Florida, 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union, reported that the Committee having had under consideration 
    the bill (H.R. 5422) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
    1991 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
    U.S. Government, the intelligence community staff, and the Central 
    Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other 
    purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 487, he reported the bill 
    back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee 
    of the Whole.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the previous question 
    is ordered.
        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the so-called Solarz amendment, as amended. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment on 
    which a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Page 25, after line 18, add the following:

               title vi--incentives for peace in angola . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    207, nays 206, not voting 21, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: On this vote the yeas are 206, and the nays are 
    206.
        The Chair votes ``aye.''
        The yeas are 207.
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Speaker, as I understood it, the vote was by 
    electronic device. I did not see you vote by electronic device. You 
    had announced the vote, Mr. Speaker. You passed the vote.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will suspend while the Chair 
    explains the result of the vote.
        The Chair's vote is entered into the electronic system upon the 
    announcement of the Chair of his vote and prior to the announcement 
    of the final result.
        The Chair's vote is entered into the system at the time of the 
    Chair's announced vote, the Chair will advise the gentleman.

Speaker's Vote as Decisive

Sec. 29.3 The Speaker voted in the negative on a yea and

[[Page 11619]]

    nay vote--thereby creating a tie and causing the rejection of two 
    amendments considered en bloc.

    On May 3, 1946,(4) the House had under consideration a 
bill (H.R. 6056) making appropriations for the Departments of State, 
Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary, for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1947. In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Louis C. 
Rabaut, of Michigan, sought unanimous consent that two amendments 
pertaining to the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce be considered 
en bloc. There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 4433, 4434, 4435, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker (5) put the question on 
the en bloc amendments, and Mr. Rabaut demanded the yeas and nays. A 
sufficient number of Members having supported the demand, the yeas and 
nays were ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Members voted but before announcing the result, the Chair 
noted:

        On this roll call the yeas are 127, the nays 126, and 2 
    answered present. The Chair votes ``nay.''

    While a recapitulation followed, the vote totals remained the same. 
Accordingly, the amendments were rejected--the Speaker's vote having 
proven decisive.

Sec. 29.4 The Speaker voted in the affirmative at the conclusion of an 
    automatic roll call, thereby breaking a tie and effecting the 
    passage of a bill.

    On Aug. 14, 1957,(6) an automatic roll call was had on 
the passage of a bill (S. 1383) amending section 410 of the Interstate 
Commerce Act, to change the requirements for obtaining a freight 
forwarder permit. The question was taken; and the Members commenced to 
vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 14783, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Members cast their votes but before announcing the 
result, the Speaker made the following statement:

        The Speaker: (7) There is a tie vote. If any Member 
    asks for a recapitulation of the vote, the Chair will order a 
    recapitulation. If there is no request for a recapitulation, the 
    Clerk will call my name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the name of Mr. Rayburn and he answered 
    ``yea.''

    After the Speaker voted, the final tally on the passage of the bill 
was--yeas 177, nays 176. Accordingly, the bill was passed.
    Parliamentarian's Note: While the Clerk calls the Speaker by

[[Page 11620]]

name after he so requests, when the roll call vote is printed in the 
Congressional Record and in the Journal, the Chair is designated as 
``The Speaker.''

Speaker's Vote as Nondecisive

Sec. 29.5 The Speaker has voted on a yea and nay roll call where his 
    vote did not prove decisive.

    On June 30, 1939,(8) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 306) popularly known 
as the Neutrality Act of 1939. Following debate, the Committee rose and 
reported the resolution with sundry amendments back to the House. 
Shortly thereafter, the Speaker (9) put the question on the 
joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 84 Cong. Rec. 8502, 8511, 8512, 8513, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, a motion to recommit was offered. When the question 
was taken on the motion to recommit, a division was demanded and there 
were--ayes 179, noes 185. Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, then 
requested the yeas and nays which were subsequently ordered.
    The question was taken, and the Record reveals the following:

        The Speaker: The Clerk will call my name.
        The Clerk called the name of Mr. Bankhead, and he answered 
    ``nay.''

    When the tally had been completed, there were--yeas 194, nays 196, 
answered ``present'' 1, and not voting 40. Thus, the motion was 
rejected, and the Speaker's vote was not decisive.

Speaker's Vote in Establishing Quorum

Sec. 29.6 The Speaker has voted on an automatic roll call where his 
    vote was necessary to establish a quorum.

    On Nov. 24, 1942,(10) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
7096) to provide for the settlement of claims of the government of the 
United States on behalf of American nationals against the government of 
Mexico. After the Committee rose and reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment, a motion to recommit was offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 9104, 9116, 9117, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker (11) put the question on 
the motion to recommit. The question was taken; and, a division having 
been demanded, there were--ayes 15, noes 70. Mr. Robert F. Rich, of

[[Page 11621]]

Pennsylvania, then objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was 
not present. The Speaker concurring, an automatic roll call was 
commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two hundred fourteen Members voted on the call. The Record then 
reveals the following:

        The Speaker: The Clerk will call my name.
        The Clerk called the name of Mr. Rayburn and he answered 
    ``no.''
        So the motion to recommit was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Normally, of course, it takes 218 Members 
to comprise a quorum in the House. However, on this particular day 
[Nov. 14, 1942], there were six vacancies in the membership--thus, the 
quorum figure had been lowered to 215 Members.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 30. Recorded Votes; In General

    Until Jan. 22, 1971,(12) clause 5 of House Rule I stated 
the method by which the Speaker was to put questions before the House, 
specified the procedure by which a division vote was to be cast, and 
provided for the taking of teller votes if the Chair was in doubt or if 
a count was ``required by at least one fifth of a quorum. . . .'' 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1971).
13. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1969.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On that date, however, by virtue of the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970,(14) a provision was added to the clause which 
specified that before tellers were named, Members could request 
``tellers with clerks.'' And, if such requests were supported by at 
least one-fifth of a quorum, the names of those voting on each side of 
the question and the names of those not voting . . . [would] be 
recorded by clerks or by electronic device, and . . . [would] be 
entered in the Journal.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Stat. 1140.
15. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus the 92d Congress marked the first instance in which the House 
rules made provisions for the recording of votes in the Committee of 
the Whole.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See adoption of H. Res. 5, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 93d Congress, the House further altered this clause by 
eliminating the phrase, ``tellers with clerks,'' and substituting 
therefor the more simple language of ``a recorded vote.'' 
(17) In addi

[[Page 11622]]

tion, the two-step procedure previously necessary to obtain a recorded 
vote was abandoned in favor of a one-step method which did not oblige a 
Member to wait until tellers had been ordered before seeking a recorded 
teller vote. Instead, the Member merely requested a recorded vote 
which, if supported by the requisite number, would
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. When not taken by electronic device, recorded votes are taken by a 
        process similar to that previously utilized for tellers-with-
        clerks procedure. As Members pass through the appropriate 
        ``aye'' or ``no'' aisle, they simply cast their votes by 
        depositing a signed green (yea) or red (no) card in a ballot 
        box. See Sec. 30.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        be taken by electronic device, unless the Speaker in his 
    discretion . . . [ordered] clerks to tell the names of those voting 
    on each side of the question and such names . . . [would then] be 
    recorded by electronic device or by clerks, as the case may be, and 
    . . . entered in the Journal.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement of one-fifth of a quorum to second the demand for a 
recorded vote (19) continues to be applicable in the House; 
but in the Committee of the Whole the requisite number for a second was 
changed in the 96th Congress to the fixed number of twenty-
five.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. There is a semantic distinction between a ``recorded vote'' and the 
        frequently used phrase, ``record vote.'' The latter term is 
        usually employed in a broad, generic sense, i.e., any vote by 
        which a Member's position or absence is made evident 
        permanently for all to know. Thus, it would include roll calls 
        prompted by a demand for the yeas and nays, automatic roll 
        calls, tellers with clerks, and, of course, recorded votes. The 
        ``recorded vote,'' however, refers solely to those votes taken 
        under the provisions of the last two sentences of Rule I clause 
        5. As used herein, the reader should note that the term thus 
        encompasses all votes taken by ``tellers with clerks'' under 
        the now-abandoned two-step procedure employed during the 92d 
        Congress.
20. Rule XXIII clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 864 (1995), 
        adopted Jan. 15, 1979, H. Res. 5, 125 Cong. Rec. 16, 96th Cong. 
        1st Sess.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.1 In the 92d Congress, the Speaker described the method by 
    which nonelectronic votes would be taken when tellers with clerks 
    were ordered.

    On Feb. 25, 1971,(1) the Speaker (2) 
proceeded to explain how recorded teller votes would be taken under the 
then-prevailing rule (3) when the electronic voting system 
could not be used: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 3833, 3834, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 3. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 631 (1971).
 4. Although the teller vote with clerks has been supplanted by the 
        recorded vote, when the electronic system is not utilized, the 
        present procedure is identical to that described above, except 
        Members no longer act as tellers in the recording of teller 
        votes. See Sec. 33.1, infra.

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

[[Page 11623]]

        If tellers with clerks are ordered, the Chair will name four 
    Member tellers, two from each side of the question. The Chair will 
    designate the aisle adjacent to the center aisle and to the Chair's 
    left as the aisle for ``yea'' votes, and the corresponding aisle 
    adjacent to the center aisle to the Chair's right as the aisle for 
    the ``no'' votes.
        Two Member tellers, one from each side of the question, will 
    take their places in the ``aye'' aisle toward the rear of the 
    Chamber, and the other two Member tellers will take their places in 
    the ``no'' aisle toward the rear of the Chamber.

        Two ballot boxes will be used. One marked ``yea,'' with green 
    trimming. The other marked ``no,'' with red trimming. These boxes 
    will be placed on seats along the ``aye'' and ``no'' aisles, 
    respectively, immediately adjacent to the two Member tellers who 
    have positioned themselves along those aisles. One tally clerk will 
    stand behind each of the boxes.
        Green ``aye'' and red ``no'' cards will be available in the 
    cloakrooms and in the well of the House. These cards will have 
    spaces for the Members to fill in his name, State, and district.
        The Chair will state: ``Members will pass between the tellers, 
    be counted, and recorded.'' Members desiring to vote in the 
    affirmative will proceed from the well up the ``aye'' aisle and, as 
    counted by the Member tellers, will give their green ``aye'' card, 
    properly filled in, to the ``aye'' tally clerk, who will, after 
    examination, place it in the green ballot box.
        Members who wish to be counted against the proposition will at 
    the same time proceed from the well up the ``no'' aisle between the 
    Member tellers and, as they are counted, will hand the filled-in 
    red ``no'' card to the second tally clerk who will, after 
    examination, place it in the red ``no'' box. The Member tellers 
    will report to the Chair when all Members have been counted and 
    have handed in their ballots.
        To avoid confusion in the well, the Chair asks that Members 
    obtain and fill in the appropriate green or red card in advance of 
    the recorded teller vote, if possible.
        After the ``no'' vote is reported, Members who arrive within 
    the allotted time--which under the rule must be at least 12 [now 
    15] minutes from the naming of tellers with clerks--will be 
    permitted to fill in the card, be counted, and recorded. No Member 
    will be counted unless, at the time he passes between the Member 
    tellers, he hands a filled-in card to one of the two tally clerks.
        The Chair will then announce the vote, but not before the 
    expiration of at least 12 [now 15] minutes from the naming of 
    tellers with clerks, nor until the Chair ascertains that no further 
    Members are present who desire to be recorded.
        Immediately after the Chair has announced the vote and before 
    any further business is conducted, Members wishing to be recorded 
    as ``present'' will announce their presence to the Chair.

[[Page 11624]]

        The names of Members voting in the affirmative, in the 
    negative, those recorded as present, and those not voting will be 
    printed in the Journal and in the Congressional Record.
        One bell and light will signal that tellers have been ordered.
        Two bells and lights will indicate that a recorded teller vote 
    has been ordered and is in progress. This second signal should be 
    distinguishable from a two-bell and light rollcall vote because it 
    will come very shortly after the one bell and light teller vote 
    call.
        The first signal--for tellers--one bell and light--will be 
    repeated at the end of 5 minutes. And, after a brief pause, the 
    second signal--for recorded tellers--two bells and lights--will 
    also be repeated. At this point Members will be on notice that the 
    recorded teller vote could be closed in 7 [now 10] minutes.
        May the Chair add that we believe this is the most practicable 
    way in which to implement the rule. If time and experience prove 
    otherwise, we can of course change the procedure.

    These ground rules have been modified as the House has utilized the 
system. Current practices are discussed in other portions of this 
chapter.

In the Committee of the Whole

Sec. 30.2 Yea and nay votes on questions are not permitted in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On June 2, 1977,(5) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the Department of Energy Organization Act (H.R. 6804). 
Mr. John N. Erlenborn, of Illinois, offered an amendment which was 
rejected on a voice vote. Mr. Erlenborn then asked for a recorded vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  123 Cong. Rec. 17292, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count. Eighty-one Members are 
    present, not a quorum.
        The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, he 
    will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum of the 
    Committee appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: One hundred Members have appeared. A quorum of 
    the Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to clause 2, rule 
    XXIII, further proceedings under the call shall be considered as 
    vacated.
        The Committee will resume its business.
        At the time the point of order of no quorum was made, the 
    amendment in

[[Page 11625]]

    the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn) was before the Committee, a recorded vote had been 
    refused, and in the opinion of the Chair the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute had not carried.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) rise?
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, on the question of my amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, I demand a division.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Erlenborn) there were--ayes 29, 
    noes 51.
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, on that I ask 
    unanimous consent for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Idaho?
        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to ask for 
    the yeas and nays at this point?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the 
    gentleman's parliamentary inquiry that it is not in order to ask 
    for the yeas and nays in Committee of the Whole.
        Are there amendments to title I?

    A similar situation occurred in the 98th Congress (7) 
where a Member asked for the yeas and nays in Committee of the Whole 
following refusal of his request for a recorded vote on an amendment. 
Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 21259, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., July 26, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Williams of Montana) there were--ayes 19, noes 21.
        Mr. [Pat] Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will count; 44 Members are 
    present, not a quorum.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair 
    announces that he 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 pending question following the quorum call. Members 
    will record their presence by electronic device. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Three hundred ninety-six Members have 
    answered to their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee 
    will resume its business.
        The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from 
    Montana [Mr. Williams] for a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11626]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, may I request the yeas 
    and nays on that last vote?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: A recorded vote had been requested 
    and refused.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: May I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Not at this time.
        The Chair will tell the gentleman from Montana that that would 
    not be permitted in the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry; may I ask for a division?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: There has already been one.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: I understand that. My question is, May 
    I ask for another?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: No.
        Mr. Williams of Montana: I thank the Chairman.

Effect of Taking a Recorded Vote on Demand for Yeas and Nays on Same 
    Question

Sec. 30.3 In the 92d Congress, the Speaker stated that a vote taken by 
    tellers with clerks pursuant to the rules would not preclude the 
    constitutional right of a Member to demand the yeas and nays on 
    that question.

    On Aug. 17, 1972,(9) the Speaker having put the question 
on the passage of a bill (H.R. 13915) to further equal educational 
opportunities, Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of Illinois, demanded tellers on 
the question. The Chair then sought to determine the number of Members 
in favor of the Pucinski demand at which time Mr. Albert H. Quie, of 
Minnesota, demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. Pucinski then revised his 
request and demanded tellers with clerks.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 28915, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. See Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1995). See 
        also Sec. 30.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Illinois has 
    demanded a vote by tellers and a request has been made that the 
    Members rise. The Chair is counting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, if we have a vote by tellers 
    with clerks, is it possible to have a record vote subsequently? 
    (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. It should be noted that the use of the words, ``record vote,'' by 
        both the Speaker and Mr. Ford in this exchange is meant to 
        denote a vote taken by the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: A record vote is a constitutional prerogative of 
    the Members of the House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the 105th Congress, a change was

[[Page 11627]]

made to Rule I clause 5(a) (14) which renders this precedent 
obsolete. Clause 5(a) was amended to read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 24(a) of H. Res. 5, adopted Jan. 7, 1997, 143 Cong. Rec. 
        p. --------, 105th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In clause 5(a) of rule I, insert before the last sentence the 
    following: ``A recorded vote taken pursuant to this paragraph shall 
    be considered a vote by the yeas and nays.''.

    Following the adoption of this amendment, a recorded vote, whether 
taken electronically or by clerks, would preclude a demand for the yeas 
and nays.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 31. The Electronic Voting System

    The electronic voting system was first used in the House on Jan. 
23, 1973.(15) The pertinent rule [Rule XV clause 5(a)] was 
adopted in 1972.(16) Since its installation, it has been 
used almost exclusively for votes taken by the yeas and nays in the 
House and for recorded votes in the House and in Committee of the 
Whole. Back-up procedures have been used on rare occasions where the 
electronic system was inoperable.(17) The use of the 
electronic system, with the shortened voting times the system permits, 
coupled with the rules change in the 92d Congress which for the first 
time permitted recorded votes in Committee of the Whole,(18) 
has changed the culture of the House. In the 90th Congress when the 
Members responded verbally when their names were called by the reading 
clerk, there were 875 roll calls (397 quorum calls and 478 votes by the 
yeas and nays), while in the 103d, utilizing the electronic system, 
there were 1,122 (only 28 quorum calls, 468 yeas and nays, and 626 
recorded votes), and in the 104th, there were 1,340 (19 quorum calls, 
522 yeas and nays, and 799 recorded votes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 1793, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H. Res. 1123, 118 Cong. Rec. 36005-12, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 
        1972.
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 6699, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 7, 1973; 129 Cong. 
        Rec. 18858, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., July 13, 1983.
18. H. Res. 5, 117 Cong. Rec. 132-44, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 
        1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The procedures used in conducting electronic votes have been 
altered as the House lived with the system and learned its 
capabilities. Various changes in the pertinent rules and in the manner 
of using the system have been adopted by the House or announced by the 
Speaker. These

[[Page 11628]]

are noted in this section. Some are carried for their historical 
significance even though no longer current in the practice of the 
House.                          -------------------

Use of; Procedure

Sec. 31.1 In the 92d Congress, the House amended its rules to provide 
    procedures for the recording of votes in the House and in Committee 
    of the Whole by electronic device at the discretion of the Chair; 
    provision was also made for a ``back-up'' nonelectronic procedure 
    for recorded votes by which clerk tellers may be appointed under a 
    single-step demand for a ``recorded vote.''

    On Oct. 13, 1972,(19) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 
1123.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 36005, 36006, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H. Res. 1123 was intended to incorporate the electronic voting 
        system into prevailing House procedures with only slight rule 
        changes where necessary. The context of those changes, however, 
        is relevant to an understanding of the system's availability. 
        Accordingly, that language which would amend the then-
        prevailing rules is italicized. A concise yet comprehensive 
        explanation of these language changes is provided in the 
        excerpted remarks of Mr. H. Allen Smith (Calif.), infra. Rule I 
        clause 5 has been subsequently amended to remove the option for 
        teller votes. See H. Res. 5, 139 Cong. Rec. 49, 103d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
            A current edition of the House Rules and Manual should be 
        consulted for further modifications in Rules I, VIII, and XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows [emphasis supplied]:

                                  H. Res. 1123

            Resolved, That (a) clause 5 of Rule I of the Rules of the 
        House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
            ``5. He [the Speaker] shall rise to put a question, but may 
        state it sitting; and shall put questions in this form, to wit: 
        `As many as are in favor (as the question may be), say 
        ``Aye''.'; and after the affirmative voice is expressed, `As 
        many as are opposed, say ``No''.'; if he doubts or a division 
        is called for, the House shall divide; those in the affirmative 
        of the question shall first rise from their seats, and then 
        those in the negative; if he still doubts, or a count is 
        required by at least one-fifth of a quorum, he shall name one 
        or more from each side of the question to tell the Members in 
        the affirmative and negative; which being reported, he shall 
        rise and state the decision. However, if any Member requests a 
        recorded vote and that request is supported by at least one-
        fifth of a quorum, such vote shall be taken by electronic 
        device, unless the Speaker in his discretion orders clerks to 
        tell the names of those voting on each side of the question, 
        and such names shall be recorded by electronic device

[[Page 11629]]

        or by clerks, as the case may be, and shall be entered in the 
        Journal, together with the names of those not voting. Members 
        shall have not less than fifteen minutes to be counted from the 
        ordering of the recorded vote or the ordering of clerks to tell 
        the vote.''.
            (b) Clause 2 of Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended to read as follows:
            ``2. Pairs shall be announced by the Clerk immediately 
        before the announcement by the Chair of the result of the vote 
        from a written list furnished him, and signed by the Member 
        making the statement to the Clerk, which list shall be 
        published in the Record as a part of the proceedings, 
        immediately following the names of those not voting. However, 
        pairs shall be announced but once during the same legislative 
        day.''.
            (c) Rule XV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
        amended to read as follows:

                                   ``Rule XV.

                        ``on calls of the roll and house

            ``1. Subject to clause 5 of this Rule upon every roll call 
        the names of the Members shall be called alphabetically by 
        surname, except when two or more have the same surname, in 
        which case the name of the State shall be added; and if there 
        be two such Members from the same State, the whole name shall 
        be called, and after the roll has been once called, the Clerk 
        shall call in their alphabetical order the names of those not 
        voting. Members appearing after the second call, but before the 
        result is announced, may vote or announce a pair.

            ``2. (a) In the absence of a quorum, fifteen Members, 
        including the Speaker, if there is one, shall be authorized to 
        compel the attendance of absent Members; and those for whom no 
        sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those 
        present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, 
        by officers to be appointed by the Sergeant-at-Arms for that 
        purpose, and their attendance secured and retained; and the 
        House shall determine upon what condition they shall be 
        discharged. Members who voluntarily appear shall, unless the 
        House otherwise direct, be immediately admitted to the Hall of 
        the House, and they shall report their names to the Clerk to be 
        entered upon the Journal as present.
            ``(b) Subject to clause 5 of this Rule, when a call of the 
        House in the absence of a quorum is ordered, the Speaker shall 
        name one or more clerks to tell the Members who are present. 
        The names of those present shall be recorded by such clerks, 
        and shall be entered in the Journal and the absentees noted, 
        but the doors shall not be closed except when so ordered by the 
        Speaker. Members shall have not less than fifteen minutes from 
        the ordering of a call of the House to have their presence 
        recorded.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Another proposed change in H. Res. 1123 affecting Rule 15 clause 
        2(b) was the deletion of language granting the Chair 
        discretionary authority to require the use of tally sheets in 
        counting a quorum. See the remarks of Mr. H. Allen Smith 
        (Calif.), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            ``3. On the demand of any Member, or at the suggestion of 
        the Speaker, the names of Members sufficient to make a quorum 
        in the Hall of the House who do not vote shall be noted by the 
        Clerk and recorded in the Journal, and reported to the Speaker 
        with the names of the Members voting, and be counted and 
        announced in determining the presence of a quorum to do 
        business.
            ``4. Subject to clause 5 of this Rule, whenever a quorum 
        fails to vote on any question, and a quorum is not

[[Page 11630]]

        present and objection is made for that cause, unless the House 
        shall adjourn there shall be a call of the House, and the 
        Sergeant-at-Arms shall forthwith proceed to bring in absent 
        Members; and the yeas and nays on the pending question shall at 
        the same time be considered as ordered. The Clerk shall call 
        the roll, and each Member as he answers to his name may vote on 
        the pending question, and, after the roll call is completed, 
        each Member arrested shall be brought by the Sergeant-at-Arms 
        before the House, whereupon he shall be noted as present, 
        discharged from arrest, and given an opportunity to vote and 
        his vote shall be recorded. If those voting on the question and 
        those who are present and decline to vote shall together make a 
        majority of the House, the Speaker shall declare that a quorum 
        is constituted, and the pending question shall be decided as 
        the majority of those voting shall appear. And thereupon 
        further proceedings under the call shall be considered as 
        dispensed with. At any time after the roll call has been 
        completed, the Speaker may entertain a motion to adjourn, if 
        seconded by a majority of those present, to be ascertained by 
        actual count by the Speaker; and if the House adjourns, all 
        proceedings under this clause shall be vacated.
            ``5. Unless, in his discretion, the Speaker orders the 
        calling of the names of Members in the manner provided for 
        under the preceding provisions of this rule, upon any roll call 
        or quorum call the names of such Members voting or present 
        shall be recorded by electronic device. In any such case, the 
        Clerk shall enter in the Journal and publish in the 
        Congressional Record, in alphabetical order in each category, a 
        list of the names of those Members recorded as voting in the 
        affirmative, of those Members recorded as voting in the 
        negative, and of those Members answering present, as the case 
        may be, as if their names had been called in the manner 
        provided for under such preceding provisions. Members shall 
        have not less than fifteen minutes from the ordering of the 
        roll call or quorum call to have their vote or presence 
        recorded.''.
            (d) Clause 2 of Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended to read as follows:
            ``2. Whenever a Committee of the Whole finds itself without 
        a quorum which shall consist of one hundred Members, the 
        Chairman shall invoke the procedure for the call of the roll 
        under clause 5 of Rule XV, unless in his discretion, he orders 
        a call of the committee to be taken by the procedure set forth 
        in clause 2(b) of Rule XV; and thereupon the Committee shall 
        rise, and the Chairman shall report the names of the absentees 
        to the House, which shall be entered on the Journal; but if on 
        such call a quorum shall appear, the Committee shall thereupon 
        resume its sitting without further order of the House.''.

    Thereafter, Mr. Sisk yielded part of his time to Mr. Wayne L. Hays 
(Ohio) (Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, the 
committee responsible for installation of the electronic voting 
system), who proceeded to explain some of the aspects of the system. 
Mr. Hays pointed out the two consoles--one on each side of the House--
at which the Majority and Minority Leaders would be able to ``call up 
any group of names'' and determine how those Members voted. He further 
discussed several other components, as the following excerpt indicates:

        If the Members will notice the tallies on either side of the 
    Chamber, it can

[[Page 11631]]

    be noticed the time is ticking away. When the votes start, where it 
    says ``time,'' it will be 15 minutes, and it keeps ticking down to 
    zero. When it reaches zero, the Chair will announce that all the 
    voting is over, and unless there is a Member in the Chamber who has 
    not voted, then he will be permitted to vote, and the Chair will be 
    able to lock the vote in, and that will be it, and it will tell 
    instantaneously what the vote is, the ``yeas'' and ``nays.''
        In addition to that, there will be a printout available for the 
    members of the press out in the lobby almost immediately after the 
    vote is over, telling exactly how each and every Member voted.
        Mr. Speaker, the voting will be done by a little plastic card 
    which is punched on either end identically, so you can put it in 
    upside down or backwards. No matter how you put it in, it is 
    supposed to work, and it will key only your name.

        If the Members will note during this demonstration, under my 
    name we just have one card made up as a sample at the moment. Every 
    Member will get one. There is a red light at the left of my name. 
    That means I have inserted the card and voted ``no.'' If I decide 
    to change my vote, I will put the card back in one of the slots and 
    press the ``yea.''
        Mr. Speaker, I will now press the ``yea'' button, and hopefully 
    the red light will change to a green light. . . .

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hays offered to answer any of the Members' 
questions whereupon Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, prompted the 
following exchange:

        Mr. Boggs: . . . Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the 
    gentleman this question: On the time clock over here, does the 
    board automatically go off when the time limit has expired?
        Mr. Hays: No, it does not. It does not go off until it is 
    locked out up at the Speaker's desk.
        Mr. Boggs: So that means we now have 1 or, rather, 1\1/2\ 
    minutes to vote. May I ask, when it becomes zero, then how long is 
    it open there at the desk?
        Mr. Hays: When it comes to zero, the Speaker will bang down his 
    gavel and will say, ``All time has expired,'' or ``Are there any 
    Members in the Chamber who desire to vote?'' It is just like we do 
    it now on a teller vote. If there are any who desire to vote, he 
    will give them a minute or two more to do so, and then he will lock 
    the machine out, and that is the end of it.
        If a Member has misplaced a card, then he can go to the desk, 
    and there will be an arrangement where he can fill out a card, an 
    arrangement where he can sign a red or green or amber ballot, just 
    like we do now for a teller vote. Then the Clerk up there will put 
    a master card in and vote for the Member, and it will show up as on 
    the teller votes. . . .

    Mr. Hays proceeded to discuss the economics of the system after 
which Mr. Sisk sought to explain some of the procedural changes being 
proposed as well as the nature of the ``backup'' procedures:

        I would briefly like to comment in connection with the fallback 
    or fail-safe position with regard to the voting and other matters 
    contained in the resolution.

[[Page 11632]]

        In brief we propose that machinery be used in all appropriate 
    voting situations, that is, whenever names of Members are to be 
    recorded. We also propose to put in the rules substitution of 
    present procedures as a backup in case the machinery becomes 
    unavailable for whatever the reason may be. We also propose that we 
    use the backup procedures at the discretion of the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        We also are suggesting two additional changes in the backup 
    procedure. The first occurs in the procedure for tellers with 
    clerks or what is called the recorded teller vote.
        I want to emphasize that the amendments we offer do not in any 
    way alter the basic substance of that procedure. What we are trying 
    to do is to simplify the process.
        I might add what we propose is substantially the way the 
    Democratic caucus asked for during the past year. As the rules now 
    stand a Member must make two separate requests to get a recorded 
    teller vote, and we know the procedures.
        We further propose doing away with the time-consuming process 
    of making Members act as tellers in the recording of the teller 
    votes. There is no reason why Members must be found to stand at the 
    head of the aisle to record the vote. Clerks will simply be 
    required to do that in the future in the event that there are 
    teller votes.
        Mr. Speaker, we are also proposing a new method for recording 
    Members during quorum calls. At the present time, as you know, the 
    Clerk calls the roll twice and recognizes Members in the House in a 
    time-consuming process. Again we have a recommendation from the 
    caucus in connection with this matter. In effect this method would 
    have the clerks tell the Members just as they do in a recorded 
    teller vote, for instance, in recording the presence of the 
    Members.
        Instead of calling the roll, the clerks would merely record the 
    names of the Members as they came up the aisle in the Chamber, or 
    in any other fashion that the Speaker made known.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sisk: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
        Mr. Hays: You could use the electronic system for a quorum 
    call.
        Mr. Sisk: Certainly. In almost all cases I think the electronic 
    system will be used. What I am explaining is the so-called backup 
    procedure in the event that we did not desire to use the electronic 
    system.

    In the course of further discussion, Walter E. Fauntroy, the 
Delegate from the District of Columbia, posed the following question 
(2) to which Mr. Sisk offered a reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 36007, 36008, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fauntroy: Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, I cannot vote 
    in this Chamber, and I would like to, and I am very anxious to do 
    so some day. But I would ask, under this proposed system, what 
    would prevent someone who is as anxious as I am to vote, of someone 
    handing me their card, and punching the card for them?
        Mr. Sisk: Let me make a brief comment here. Actually, the 
    Members of

[[Page 11633]]

    the Congress work on their own honor, as we are today. As you will 
    recall, there was an incident in the last Congress in which 
    accusations were made. I do not think anything deliberate had been 
    done, but there were mistakes, apparently, by the clerks. But again 
    it gets down to a matter of the integrity of each Member.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Sisk yielded his remaining time to Mr. H. 
Allen Smith, of California, who concisely singled out those changes in 
the rules which would be brought about by passage of House Resolution 
1123:

        Mr. Speaker, the purpose of House Resolution 1123 is to make 
    the changes in the House rules which will be required in order to 
    use the electronic voting equipment installed in the House Chamber. 
    Changes are made at four different points in the rules.
        The first change [is] in rule I, clause 5, which deals with how 
    votes may be taken in the House. House Resolution 1123 adds 
    language, which provides that a recorded vote may be taken by 
    electronic device. The procedure would be as follows: A Member may 
    request a recorded vote at any time after the question has been put 
    by the Speaker. The intent is that a request for a recorded vote 
    shall be in order before or after a voice vote, a division vote or 
    a teller vote. If a Member requests a recorded vote and is 
    supported by one-fifth of a quorum, the vote will be taken by 
    electronic device. A Member may no longer demand a vote by tellers 
    with clerks. However, once a recorded vote is ordered, the Speaker 
    in his discretion may order a recorded vote with clerks. This would 
    be similar to the present vote by tellers with clerks, except that 
    the Speaker will appoint clerks to count, rather than Members. A 
    Member shall have not less than 15 minutes to be counted. The time 
    begins to run from the ordering of the recorded vote or the 
    ordering of clerks to tell the vote.
        The second change in the rules affects rule VIII, clause 2, 
    which deals with the announcing of pairs. The present rule provides 
    in relevant part, that--

            Pairs shall be announced by the Clerk, after the completion 
        of the second rollcall.

        The new language provides that--

            Pairs shall be announced by the Clerk immediately before 
        the announcement by the Chair of the result of the vote.

        This is a technical change to reflect the fact that there will 
    no longer necessarily be a rollcall preceding the announcement of 
    pairs, because of the use of the electronic device.
        The third change in the rules affects rule XV which deals with 
    calls of the roll and House. House Resolution 1123 adds language 
    which provides that any rollcall or quorum call may be taken by 
    electronic device. This new language is in clause 5 of rule XV. 
    However, the Speaker in his discretion, may order that the names be 
    called in the traditional manner. The first four clauses of rule 
    XV, which describe the traditional system for taking rollcalls and 
    quorum calls, are left intact for the most part, but are made 
    subject to clause 5, which provides for the use of the electronic 
    device.

[[Page 11634]]

        As in the case of a vote, Members have not less than 15 minutes 
    from the ordering of a call of the House to have their presence 
    recorded by the electronic device.
        In addition to changes in wording necessary to provide for 
    rollcalls or quorum calls by electronic device, there is one part 
    of the present rule XV which is dropped under this resolution. The 
    present clause 2(b) of rule XV allows the Speaker discretion to 
    order the use of tally sheets to record a quorum; once a quorum is 
    recorded, it is in order to dispense with the rest of the call, 
    allowing Members 30 minutes to record their presence on the tally 
    sheet. This procedure was put into the rules as an amendment to the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. However, the procedure has 
    never been used, and is removed from the rules by House Resolution 
    1123.
        The fourth change in the rules affects rule XXIII, clause 2, 
    which deals with the Committee of the Whole House. The language 
    changes permit the use of the electronic device to record the 
    presence of a quorum in the Committee of the Whole.
        In summary, the major effect of House Resolution 1123 will be 
    to provide for the use of the electronic device, while giving the 
    Speaker the discretion to return to the traditional system as a 
    backup. . . .

    Following additional discussion, Mr. Sisk offered an amendment 
(3) providing that the resolution would become effective 
immediately before noon on Jan. 3, 1973. The amendment was agreed to, 
and the resolution, as amended, was also agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 36012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.2 The Speaker inserted in the Record a detailed statement 
    describing procedures to be followed during votes and quorum calls 
    by electronic device and by the ``back-up'' procedures therefor.

    On Jan. 15, 1973,(4) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
announced to the Members that effective Jan. 23, 1973, the electronic 
voting system would become operative. The Chair urged the Members to 
obtain their electronic voting cards and reminded them that a detailed 
statement concerning the operation of the system had been mailed to 
their offices by the Clerk. The Speaker further pointed out that each 
Member had been given a committee (5) print entitled ``The 
Electronic Voting System for the U.S. House of Representatives''; and 
that he would insert both the statement and the print (6) in 
the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 1055, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Committee on House Administration.
 6. See 119 Cong. Rec. 1056, 1057, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 15, 1973, 
        for a copy of the print.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statement, in its entirety,(7) reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 1055, 1056.

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

[[Page 11635]]

                       Statement on Electronic Voting

        Members are familiar with the fact that an electronic voting 
    system was designed, developed, and installed during the 92d 
    Congress. The rules of the House, adopted on January 3, 1973, now 
    provide for the use of this new voting system. The Chair will 
    announce in a few days when this system will be utilized, but in 
    advance of its implementation, it seems advisable to pro-mulgate 
    the procedures regarding its use.
        The Chair has given careful consideration to the implementation 
    of this new voting mechanism. Discussions have been held with the 
    Committee on House Administration, which is responsible for the 
    technical development of the system, with the Committee on Rules, 
    and with the Leadership on both sides of the aisle to determine the 
    most efficient and practical means of utilizing the electronic 
    system.
        This new voting system has been designed primarily with the aim 
    of reducing the time required to conduct recorded votes and quorum 
    calls while at the same time assuring the accuracy of the vote or 
    call. Consequently, the Chair anticipates that the use of this new 
    procedure will not supplant votes by voice, division, or tellers as 
    provided in the Rules of the House.
        The use of this system by the Members can best be described in 
    terms of the essential physical components. A number of vote 
    stations are attached to selected chairs in the Chamber. Each 
    station is equipped with a vote card slot and four indicators, 
    marked ``yea,'' ``nay,'' ``present,'' and ``open.'' The first three 
    indicators are also push-buttons used to cast votes, while the 
    fourth is illuminated only when a vote period is in progress and 
    the station is in operational readiness to accept votes. Each 
    Member has been provided with a personalized Vote-ID Card. The vote 
    cards are encoded with a pattern of holes so as to be uniquely 
    identifiable by the system when inserted into any of the vote 
    stations. The main display, located over the press gallery, lists 
    the Members' names alphabetically and will indicate their vote 
    preferences by the illumination of colored lights adjacent to each 
    Member's name. The color code is: green for yea, red for nay, and 
    amber for present. The duplicate summary displays, located on the 
    east and west gallery ledges, will identify the issue under 
    consideration, provide running tallies of the yea, nay, and present 
    responses recorded by the system, and show the time remaining 
    during a vote period.
        As the Members are undoubtedly aware, a computer system 
    coordinates the interaction of these components and maintains a 
    permanent record of the Members' votes.
        Where a vote is to be taken, electronically, the Chair will 
    instruct Members to record their presence or votes by means of the 
    electronic device. This will initiate a fifteen minute voting 
    period during which a Member may cast his vote. The initiation of a 
    vote period will be accompanied by the illumination of the blue 
    ``open'' light at each of the vote stations and by activation of 
    the main and summary displays. The time indicated on the summary 
    displays will reduce from 15:00 minutes to 00:00 minutes during the 
    vote period.
        A Member casts his vote by inserting his Vote-ID card into any 
    one of the

[[Page 11636]]

    vote stations and depressing the appropriate push-button indicator. 
    The voting system indicates the recording of the Member's vote by 
    illuminating the selected push-button indicator at the vote station 
    and the vote preference light adjacent to the Member's name on the 
    main display panel. At the same time, the appropriate running tally 
    on the summary display will be incremented.
        If a Member mis-casts his vote or desires to change his vote 
    during the voting period, he may do so by simply repeating the 
    method used for casting his original vote. The system will 
    illuminate the push-button he last selected when he inserts his 
    Vote-ID card into the station. At this point, he may change his 
    vote by depressing another push-button. The running tallies on the 
    summary displays will reflect the changed vote, and the vote 
    preference light adjacent to the Member's name on the main display 
    will change accordingly.
        A Member may also verify his previously cast vote by simply 
    inserting his Vote-ID card into a vote station and observing which 
    push-button is illuminated.
        In the event that a Member is in the Chamber without his Vote-
    ID card, he may still cast his vote in the following manner. Green 
    ``yea'' ballot cards, red ``nay'' ballot cards, and amber 
    ``present'' ballot cards will be available in the cloakrooms and in 
    the Well. These cards have spaces for the Member to fill in his 
    name, State, and district. Upon properly filling out an appropriate 
    ballot card, the Member casts his vote by handing the ballot card 
    to the Tally Clerk in the Well. The Tally Clerk will then record 
    the vote electronically and the main and summary displays will 
    reflect the Member's vote preference. At the same time, the system 
    deactivates the use of the Member's Vote-ID card for the duration 
    of the vote then in progress. A Member without a Vote-ID card who 
    has been recorded in this fashion and who then wishes to change his 
    vote must seek recognition by the Chair and announce his change. 
    That Member does not submit a second ballot card.
        If a Member present in the Chamber at the time of a recorded 
    vote in the House desires to be paired with a Member not present he 
    should record himself as ``present'' in the manner prescribed above 
    and, at the conclusion of the voting period seek recognition by the 
    Speaker to announce his desire to create a pair with his absent 
    colleague. As has been the practice under the precedents ``pairs'' 
    will not be permitted in Committee of the Whole.
        At the conclusion of the 15 minutes voting period, the time 
    indicated on the summary displays will show ``0:00''; however, the 
    vote stations will remain open, indicated by the blue illumination 
    of the ``open'' indicator light, until the Chair declares the vote 
    to be closed and announces the final result. At this point, the 
    summary panel time display will indicate ``FINAL'' and the vote 
    stations will be closed to the acceptance of further votes.
        When the vote is finally declared, printed reports of the 
    results, alphabetically listing Members who responded ``aye,'' 
    ``nay'' or ``present'' or who did not respond at all will be 
    available to the Leadership.
        A similar method governs the use of the electronic vote system 
    for the re

[[Page 11637]]

    cording of quorum calls, both for the House and for the Committee 
    of the Whole. The Chair will instruct that a quorum call be taken 
    by electronic device. This will initiate a 15 minute period during 
    which the Member may indicate his presence by inserting his Vote-ID 
    card into a vote station and depressing the ``present'' push-
    button. The main and summary displays will reflect the Member's 
    responses as in the case described above for a recorded vote. The 
    vote stations, however, will not accept a vote other than 
    ``present'' during a quorum period. At the conclusion of the 15 
    minute period, the time indicated on the summary display will be 
    ``0:00''. The vote stations will remain open until the Chair 
    announces that the count is final, at which point the vote stations 
    will be closed and the time indicator will show ``FINAL''. A 
    printed report of those responding on the quorum call will then be 
    distributed as previously described.
        If a Member is in the Chamber without his Vote-ID card, he may 
    indicate his presence by using the amber ballot card, as previously 
    described.
        One further aspect of the electronic voting system deserves 
    mention at this time. Video consoles equipped with key boards are 
    located at both the majority and minority tables. These devices may 
    be used by the Leadership to review the progress of the vote. The 
    same information is available on both devices, though, of course, 
    they are operated independently of one another. The actual 
    operation and use of the devices is the responsibility of the 
    majority and minority leaders.
        Under the provisions of Rules XV and XXIII, the Chair may in 
    his discretion determine that recorded votes be taken by 
    alternative procedures in lieu of the electronic device. In the 
    House, the Constitutional yeas and nays or an ``automatic roll 
    call'' (where a quorum is not present and objection to a vote is 
    made for that reason) may be taken by a call of the roll under 
    Clause 1 of Rule XV. In such event, the names of Members shall be 
    called alphabetically and there shall be a second roll call of 
    those Members who failed to respond to the first roll call. Members 
    may respond ``aye'', ``no'', or ``present'' when their names are 
    called.

        In the House and in the Committee of the Whole a ``recorded 
    vote''--that is a vote demanded under the provisions of Clause 5, 
    Rule I by one-fifth of a quorum--may, at the Chairman's discretion, 
    be told by tellers in lieu of using the electronic system. In that 
    event, Members will fill in a green ``aye'' ballot card to be 
    deposited in the ``aye'' ballot box at the rear of the aisle to the 
    Chair's left or a red ``no'' ballot card to be deposited in the 
    ``no'' ballot box at the rear of the aisle to the Chair's right. 
    Members wishing to be recorded as ``present'' in such case will 
    announce this fact to the Chair prior to the announcement of the 
    result.
        Quorum calls in the House and in the Committee of the Whole 
    may, at the discretion of the Chair, be recorded by clerks in lieu 
    of electronic devices under clause 2(b) of Rule XV. In that event, 
    Members will find quorum call cards here at the Clerk's desk which 
    must be filled in by name, State and district. Tally clerks will be 
    stationed at a box to be located at the rear of the center aisle. 
    The Clerks will take the cards, deposit them in the box and count 
    the number of Members who respond to the call. When the Clerk de

[[Page 11638]]

    clares that procedures under this clause have been completed the 
    Tally Clerk will give the Chair a final count which the Chair will 
    announce to the House.

    The Speaker has placed in the Congressional Record a guide to the 
bell and light system, and has occasionally announced upgrades to 
reflect current usage. For instance, on Jan. 23, 1979, the Speaker 
announced the usage as follows:

                        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

        The Speaker: Several changes in the rules of the House with 
    respect to voting will necessitate a change in the legislative bell 
    and light system. The Clerk has sent to each Member a detailed 
    statement indicating changes in the bell system, and the Chair will 
    insert the statement in the Record at this point:

            One bell and light indicates a teller vote taken in 
        accordance with clause 5, Rule I (Members indicate their 
        preference by walking up the center aisle to be counted by 
        Members who are named as tellers by the Chair. This is not a 
        recorded vote).
            Two bells and lights indicate an electronically recorded 
        vote, either demanded under the Constitution by one-fifth of 
        those present (in the House), by one-fifth of a quorum under 
        cl. 5, Rule I (in the House), by 25 Members (in Committee of 
        the Whole) under cl. 2(b), Rule XXIII, or pursuant to an 
        ``automatic vote by yeas and nays'' where any Member in the 
        House objects to a vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
        present under cl. 4, Rule XV.
            Two bells may also indicate a recorded vote under clause 5, 
        Rule I under a back-up procedure whenever Members are to record 
        their votes by depositing ballot cards in the ``aye'' or ``no'' 
        boxes. The two bells will be repeated five minutes after the 
        first ring to give Members a second notice of the vote in 
        progress.
            Two bells, a brief pause, followed by two bells and lights 
        indicates a yea and nay or recorded vote taken under the 
        provisions of clause 1, Rule XV by a call of the roll. The 
        bells will be sounded again when the Clerk reaches the ``R's'' 
        in the first call of the roll.
            Two bells and lights, a brief pause, followed by five bells 
        and lights, indicate the beginning of the first (15 minute) 
        vote in a series of two or more votes where subsequent 
        electronic votes immediately thereafter may be reduced to five 
        minutes; under one of four different procedures as follows:
            1. At beginning of first electronically recorded vote 
        ordered on series of ``clustered'' votes on final passage or 
        adoption of bills, resolutions, or conference reports (cl. 
        5(b), Rule I);
            2. At beginning of electronically recorded vote ordered on 
        recommittal to be immediately followed by possible five-minute 
        record vote on final passage or adoption of bills, resolutions, 
        or conference reports (cl. 5, Rule XV);
            3. At beginning of first electronically recorded vote 
        ordered on series of ``clustered'' votes on resolutions from 
        Rules Committee (cl. 4(e), Rule XI); or
            4. At beginning of first electronically recorded vote 
        ordered on series of ``clustered'' votes on motions to suspend 
        the rules (cl. 3, Rule XXVII).
            After the first five minutes on the first electronically 
        recorded vote conducted under any of these procedures, two 
        bells and lights will be repeated to give Members a second 
        notice of the vote in progress. (As indicated below, five bells 
        will be rung

[[Page 11639]]

        on all subsequent five-minute votes in each series on which the 
        Speaker has reduced voting time.)
            Three bells and lights indicate a regular quorum call 
        either in the House or Committee of the Whole by electronic 
        system or by clerks (cl. 2, 5, Rule XV, cl. 2(a), Rule XXIII). 
        Three bells will be repeated five minutes after the first ring 
        to give Members a second notice of the quorum call in progress.
            Three bells and lights, a brief pause, followed by three 
        bells and lights indicate a quorum call in House or in 
        Committee of the Whole under cl. 1, Rule XV by a call of the 
        roll, repeated when the Clerk reached the ``R's'' in the first 
        call of the roll.
            One long bell, a brief pause, followed by three regular 
        bells, indicate that the Chair has exercised his discretion 
        under cl. 2, Rule XXIII and will vacate proceedings when quorum 
        of the Committee of the Whole appears (``Notice'' or ``short'' 
        quorum call). One bell followed by three bells and lights will 
        be repeated every five minutes unless (a) the call is vacated 
        by ringing of one long bell and extinguishing of three lights, 
        or (b) the Chair converts to a regular quorum call and three 
        regular bells are rung as explained above.
            Three bells, a brief pause, followed by five bells, 
        indicate beginning of a regular quorum call in Committee of the 
        Whole, which will possibly be immediately followed by five-
        minute recorded vote at discretion of Chair if recorded vote is 
        ordered on pending question (cl. 2, Rule XXIII). Three bells 
        will be repeated five minutes after the first ring to give 
        Members a second notice of the quorum call in progress.
            Four bells and lights indicate an adjournment of the House, 
        followed by extinguishing of amber light on right.
            Five bells and lights indicate the beginning of any five-
        minute electronically recorded vote. The bells are not rung 
        again during a five minute vote.
            Six bells and lights indicate a recess of the House.
            Twelve bells, sounded at two-second intervals, with six 
        lights illuminated, indicate Civil Defense Warning.

    At the beginning of each Congress, the Speaker usually enunciates 
guidelines for the use of the electronic voting system. While Rule XV 
establishes a minimum time of 15 minutes for responding on such a vote, 
in practice, the length of an electronic vote often stretched to 30 
minutes or more. In recent Congresses, Speakers have alerted Members 
that time limits set by the rule would be followed. An example of such 
a policy statement follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ________, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The Chair wishes to enunciate a 
    clear policy with respect to the conduct of electronic votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  Newt Gingrich (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As Members are aware, clause 5 of Rule XV provides that Members 
    shall have not less than 15 minutes in which to answer an ordinary 
    rollcall vote or quorum call. The rule obviously establishes 15 
    minutes as a minimum. Still, with the cooperation of the Members, a 
    vote can easily be completed in that time. The events of October 
    30, 1991, stand out as proof of this point. On that occasion, the 
    House was consid

[[Page 11640]]

    ering a bill in the Committee of the Whole under a special rule 
    that placed an overall time limit on the amendment process, 
    including the time consumed by rollcalls. The Chair announced, and 
    then strictly enforced, a policy of closing electronic votes as 
    soon as possible after the guaranteed period of 15 minutes. Members 
    appreciated and cooperated with the Chair's enforcement of the 
    policy on that occasion.
        The Chair desires that the example of October 30, 1991, be made 
    the regular practice of the House. To that end, the Chair enlists 
    the assistance of all Members in avoiding the unnecessary loss of 
    time in conducting the business of the House. The Chair encourages 
    all Members to depart for the Chamber promptly upon the appropriate 
    bell and light signal. As in recent Congresses, the cloakrooms 
    should not forward to the Chair requests to hold a vote by 
    electronic device, but should simply apprise inquiring Members of 
    the time remaining on the voting clock.
        Although no occupant of the chair would prevent a Member who is 
    in the well of the Chamber before the announcement of the result 
    from casting his or her vote, each occupant of the Chair will have 
    the full support of the Speaker in striving to close each 
    electronic vote at the earliest opportunity. Members should not 
    rely on signals relayed from outside the Chamber to assume that 
    votes will be held open until they arrive in the Chamber.

Verifying Votes Cast by Electronic Device

Sec. 31.3 The Speaker announced that Members should utilize the 
    safeguards of the electronic voting system to verify that their 
    votes are properly recorded.

    On Feb. 6, 1973,(10) shortly after the House convened, 
the Speaker (11) made a statement regarding the verification 
problems attendant upon electronic voting:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 3558, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to make a brief statement about the use of 
    the electronic voting system.
        Members now have been using this new voting system for several 
    days. A sufficient number of Members have spoken to the Chair about 
    its use to demonstrate that there is some general misunderstanding, 
    or lack of understanding, about the safeguards which have been 
    built into this system. The Chair would like to stress two points:
        First, when a Member inserts his card in a voting station, he 
    should carefully note whether the blue light--that is the light on 
    the far right of the voting station--goes off momentarily and then 
    illuminates. When this light comes on, and only then, is the 
    mechanism ready to receive the Member's vote. The Member then 
    depresses the appropriate button--yea, nay, or present--before 
    removing his card. When he depresses the button of his choice, that 
    button will also light. It may take a second or two for this voting 
    light to come on. The Member should continue to depress the button 
    until it does illuminate.

[[Page 11641]]

        Second, having voted in this fashion, a Member can very quickly 
    and simply verify whether or not he is correctly recorded, or is 
    recorded at all, on the rollcall or quorum call then in progress, 
    simply by reinserting his card in the same or any other voting 
    station and observing which button lights. If he has previously 
    voted in the affirmative, for example, the yea button will light to 
    indicate that the computer already has registered his vote.
        A Member also can verify his vote by watching the master panel 
    on the wall of the Chamber above the Press Gallery. However, a 
    Member can more accurately check his vote by the procedure just 
    explained.
        If a Member has any difficulty with the system, he should of 
    course check with the employees of the House who are positioned at 
    the majority and minority tables next to the monitoring screens.

Changing Electronic Votes

Sec. 31.4 At various times, the Speaker has announced changes in the 
    procedure for changing votes taken by the electronic system. In the 
    94th Congress, a policy was implemented which prohibited vote 
    changes from the voting stations and required Members to come to 
    the well, fill out a vote card, and announce his change. This 
    policy was reversed in the second session of the 94th Congress.

    On Sept. 17, 1975,(12) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 28903, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make an announcement.
        It has been suggested to the Chair by the leadership on both 
    sides of the aisle, by representatives of the Committee on House 
    Administration, and by other Members that certain procedures 
    associated with the use of the electronic voting system be 
    changed--specifically, those procedures required to change a vote 
    once it has been cast.
        Under the present procedure, a Member may change a vote simply 
    by repeating the method used for casting his original vote and may 
    do so any number of times during the progress of a vote.
        After due consideration of all the factors involved in 
    directing an adjustment in voting procedures, the Chair has come to 
    the conclusion that it would be better if the House were to return 
    to the system for changing votes which was in effect prior to the 
    advent of the electronic system; that is, that Members should come 
    to the well at the conclusion of the vote to announce and make 
    changes in their votes. Accordingly, the Chair has directed that 
    the voting computer be reprogramed, effective September 22, 1975, 
    so that once votes have been cast during a voting period they may 
    be changed only if Members come into the well at the conclusion of 
    the 15-minute minimum vot

[[Page 11642]]

    ing time, seek recognition and announce their vote changes after 
    their names are called by the reading clerk. When called by name, 
    Members should state ``off aye, on no'' or ``off no, on aye'' or 
    ``off aye, on present,'' and at the same time hand in a red, green 
    or amber tally card to indicate a final vote of ``no,'' ``aye,'' or 
    ``present.'' The computer will accept no vote changes from the 
    voting stations in the Chamber, other than from ``present'' to 
    ``aye'' or ``no.''
        The specific procedure is as follows: At the end of the 15 
    minute voting period permitted under clause 5, rule XV, the Chair 
    will follow his present practice of asking if there are additional 
    Members who wish to be recorded.
        When the Chair ascertains that there are no other Members 
    attempting to be initially recorded, the Chair will then inquire if 
    there are Members who wish to change their votes. As indicated, a 
    Member who wishes to change his vote must come to the well, and 
    when his name is called, announce his change and submit a red, 
    green or amber voting card to the tally clerk to indicate his 
    corrected vote. The tally clerk will then enter the corrected vote 
    into the computer and the changed vote will then be reflected on 
    the large voting panel over the Speaker's rostrum, on the south 
    wall of the Chamber.
        While this process is continuing, Members who have not 
    initially voted may, of course, still be recorded but they must do 
    so by submitting a card at the well, for the voting stations 
    throughout the Chamber will be turned off during these proceedings.
        As stated, these new procedures will be in effect on next 
    Monday. The Chair trusts that Members will view these changes as 
    the Chair intends them--as an attempt to further improve upon and 
    preserve the usefulness and integrity of the voting procedures of 
    this House.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, within the last few months the 
    gentleman from Maryland raised a request from the floor for a 
    recapitulation following a rather close electronic rollcall, and 
    was informed by the Chair that under the electronic system, 
    recapitulations were not permitted.
        It seems fairly obvious, at least to the gentleman from 
    Maryland, that under this new procedure a recapitulation would not 
    only be in order, but in many instances would probably be very 
    beneficial, especially if the result were very close.
        I put this question to the Chair: Under this changed electronic 
    procedure just announced, will recapitulations be granted when 
    requested by Members?
        The Speaker: As the gentleman has submitted his parliamentary 
    inquiry, there is no change in that ruling. That is not the reason 
    why the prior ruling was made. The names of the Members will still 
    appear on the panel and Members can verify their changed votes 
    without a recapitulation. That was the basis for the original 
    ruling, that all names, whether they are by Members inserting their 
    voting cards

[[Page 11643]]

    or voting from the well, will appear on the voting panel for 
    verification. The ruling will remain as it was when the gentleman 
    made his inquiry at an earlier date.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: What the gentleman from Maryland is not completely 
    sure about is by what complete authority changes of the rules of 
    this nature are made by the ruling of the Chair alone. If a Member 
    wished to seek to have the full House act on the announcement just 
    made by the Chair, would this be done only by resolution referred 
    to the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair.

    On Mar. 22, 1976,(13) Speaker Albert announced a further 
modification of the voting system to permit Members to change their 
votes electronically during the first 10 minutes of the 15-minute 
voting period but requiring changes made in the last five minutes to be 
announced from the well by submission of a voting card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 7394, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER--CHANGE IN ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM

        The Speaker: The Chair wishes to make an announcement 
    concerning the electronic voting system.
        After consultation with the leadership on both sides of the 
    aisle and with the chairman of the Committee on House 
    Administration, it has been decided that it would be a convenience 
    to Members to permit changes in votes cast with the electronic 
    system by reinserting a voting card during the first 10 minutes of 
    the voting period. After 10 minutes, if a Member wishes to change 
    his vote, he must follow the present procedure of doing so by 
    voting card, in the well, following the completion of the 15-minute 
    voting period. As with the present system, a Member wishing to 
    change a vote cast during a 5-minute vote, such as occur on 
    suspension days, must do so by filling out a card in the well and 
    announcing his change when recognized to do so.
        The necessary programing of the computer has been accomplished 
    to accommodate this change and so this new procedure is effective 
    today.

    In 1977,(14) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, clarified the policy to be followed for making changes 
during a vote which has been reduced to five minutes of duration. 
During such votes, changes can be made electronically and an 
announcement from the well is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 73, 74, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make an announcement 
    concerning the electronic voting system. . . .
        . . . [O]n 5-minute votes, the revised procedure will permit 
    Members to reinsert voting cards in any voting sta

[[Page 11644]]

    tion at any time until the Chair directs voting stations to be 
    closed by inquiring whether Members in the Chamber wish to change 
    their votes or be recorded. From that point until the Chair's 
    announcement of the result, Members must follow the present 
    procedure of submitting voting cards, in the well, at the 
    completion of the 5-minute voting period, and announcing his change 
    when recognized to do so.
        The necessary programing of the computer has been accomplished 
    to accommodate this change and so this new procedure on 5-minute 
    votes is effective today.

Sec. 31.5 Although Members have a minimum of 15 minutes in which to 
    record their votes on a vote taken by electronic device, the Chair 
    has exercised his discretion to close the vote and to announce the 
    result at any time after the 15 minutes have elapsed; and those 
    precedents guaranteeing Members in the Chamber the right to have 
    their votes recorded even if the Chair has announced the result, 
    which predate the use of an electronic voting system, do not 
    require the Chair to hold open indefinitely a vote taken by 
    electronic device.

    The Chair has on occasion been required to make ad hoc decisions 
concerning the use of the electronic system when circumstances in the 
Chamber required. On Mar. 14, 1978,(15) certain Members were 
expressing their dissatisfaction with a decision made by a standing 
committee by asking for numerous roll calls on procedural matters: a 
call of the House, a vote on a motion that the Journal be read, and 
another vote on the approval of the Journal were part of the tactics 
employed. Members were also delaying the termination of votes by 
changing their responses from yea to nay in the well at the conclusion 
of votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 6838-41, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following proceedings, during which the Speaker Pro Tempore 
entertained a parliamentary inquiry during the progress of the vote--a 
practice normally not followed but one within the Chair's discretion--
illustrate the authority of the Chair to meet parliamentary exigencies.

        [Following a quorum call, the Speaker pro tempore moved to the 
    next order of business.]
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair has examined 
    the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the 
    House his approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the Journal stands approved.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the approval of the Journal.

[[Page 11645]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Does the gentleman from Maryland offer a motion?
        Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Speaker.

                      preferential motion offered by 
                                 mr. bauman

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the preferential 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves that the Journal be read in full.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the preferential 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    99, nays 301, not voting 34, as follows: . . .
        Messrs. McClory, Schulze, Walker, Dickinson, Vander Jagt, 
    Stangeland, Steers, and Livingston changed their vote from ``nay'' 
    to ``yea.''
        Messrs. Moore, Edwards of Oklahoma, Stratton, Marlenee, Don H. 
    Clausen, and Burgener changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All time has expired.
        The Chair will take votes of those Members who have not had an 
    opportunity to vote, and those who have had such an opportunity can 
    clear the well. If there are people here who have not voted, the 
    Chair will take those votes. Otherwise, the vote is closed.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All time has expired.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, under Cannon's Precedents it says 
    clearly:

            The vote of a Member failing to be recorded, he may insist 
        that it be recorded even after the Chair has declared the 
        result and the Chair then makes a new declaration (V, 6064, 
        6065; VIII, 3143).

        Under the precedents, I would like to suggest that the Chair is 
    not making a proper ruling.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Those precedents apply only to 
    rollcalls preceding the installation of the electronic device and 
    are not a precedent for holding the vote by electronic device open 
    indefinitely.
        All time has expired.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Richard T.] Schulze [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Schulze: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to change my vote under 
    the electronic device process before the conclusion of the vote and 
    was unable to do so. So, if we are not going to be able to change 
    our vote by electronic device then we must be able to change

[[Page 11646]]

    our vote in the well or change the electronic device so that we can 
    watch our vote.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's objection will be 
    noted. The Chair will rule that a point of order will not lie when 
    the Chair exercises his discretion to close the voting.
        In the absence of an objection the Chair will approve the 
    Journal.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the Journal be approved.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman submit a 
    written motion.
        Mr. Foley: I have a written motion at the desk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Foley moves that the Journal be approved.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley).
        The question was taken and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    371, nays 29, not voting 34, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Are there Members in the Chamber who 
    have failed to cast their votes?
        The Chair will advise Members that the electronic voting 
    stations are still open, and they will remain open for 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: My card did not work, 
    Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If there are Members who do not have 
    cards, the Chair will certainly take the word of those Members and 
    they may vote in the well.
        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall 
    that the rules provide for qualification.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members who desire to vote may do so. 
    The voting stations will remain open for 5 minutes.

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will take the parliamentary 
    inquiry, although he is not required to do so during the vote.
        Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland thanks the Chair for 
    his indulgence.
        The gentleman from Maryland was aware that the Speaker of the 
    House of Representatives had previously announced rules governing 
    the operation of the electronic voting device. Is the Chair now 
    announcing that those rules have been permanently changed, and that 
    there will be no 5-minute closed period at the end of all 15-minute 
    rollcalls?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that he is not 
    making a change. He is just adapting the procedure to fit the 
    situation.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. [James G.] Martin [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11647]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker has announced that the 
    electronic recording devices are open. They are, but they have 
    neglected to throw the switch which will allow us to change our 
    vote, which is what I have been trying unsuccessfully to do.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that the voting stations remain open for those Members who have not 
    yet recorded their votes. Pursuant to the announcement of the 
    Speaker on March 22, 1976, changes in votes already recorded may 
    not be made from the voting stations during the last 5 minutes of a 
    vote taken by electronic device, but must be made by card from the 
    well.
        Mr. Martin: That is right, Mr. Speaker, because I have not been 
    able to change my vote.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Martin) bring his card to the well?
        The gentleman will not be able to change his vote at this time; 
    he will be able to vote for the first time. If the gentleman 
    desires to change his vote, he should come to the well when we take 
    changes at the end of the 5 minutes.
        Five minutes has expired. The Chair will accept changes for an 
    additional 5 minutes.
        Messrs. Johnson of Colorado, Schulze, Hagedorn, Ketchum, 
    Wampler, Coughlin, O'Brien, Walker, Collins of Texas, Crane, Del 
    Clawson and Treen changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
        Messrs. Kindness, Dickinson, Livingston, Martin, and Steers 
    changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma moves to reconsider the vote 
        whereby the Journal was approved.

        Mr. Foley: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider 
    on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to table 
    the motion to reconsider.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
    and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    308, nays 91, not voting 35, as follows:
        Mr. McEwen changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
        Mr. Beard of Tennessee changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
    ``nay.''
        So the motion to table was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

No Recapitulation on Electronic Vote

Sec. 31.6 A Member may not demand a recapitulation of a vote taken by 
    electronic device.

[[Page 11648]]

    Where the House was voting on the adoption of a special rule which 
provided that the House concur in Senate amendments to a House bill, 
the vote on adoption was very close--with the voting display showing a 
tie at 213 voting aye and 213 voting in the negative. A Member who had 
been recorded as ``present'' then changed his vote, filling out a card 
at the Clerk's table and voting in the affirmative. The resolution was 
thus agreed to by a one vote margin. Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, 
then asked for a ``recapitulation.'' Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
declined to recognize for that demand. Pertinent proceedings from July 
30, 1975,(17) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 25840, 25841, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question on the resolution.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Maryland object to 
    ordering the previous question?
        Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand a division.
        The question was taken; and there were--ayes 396, noes 20.
        So the previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    214, nays 213, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows: . 
    . .
        Mr. Bauman (prior to the announcement of the vote): Mr. 
    Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Burke) 
    was listed in the recorded vote on the board as having voted aye.
        Mr. [J. Herbert] Burke of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I changed my 
    vote from ``present'' to ``aye.''
        The Speaker: The vote is final.
        So the resolution was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                               point of order

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recapitulation, under the 
    rules.
        The Speaker: Under the rules, a recapitulation of an electronic 
    vote is not in order.

[[Page 11649]]

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate.

Sec. 31.7 The Speaker Pro Tempore indicated in response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry that a demand would not be in order for a 
    recapitulation of a vote taken by electronic device even where the 
    display panels were inoperative, since individual votes and vote 
    totals still could be verified through individual voting stations 
    and through the monitoring stations.

    On June 21, 1978,(18) the Chair, in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Pro Tempore James C. Wright, Jr., of 
Texas, declined to entertain a request for a recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 18260, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the display 
    board is not working today, will it be in order for Members to 
    demand a recapitulation of the vote in view of the fact that we 
    quite often have close votes on amendments or on other legislation 
    here?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that Members can 
    still verify by the machine. A Member can ascertain the manner in 
    which his vote has been recorded after having voted by inserting 
    his card into the same or a different receptacle or by going to a 
    monitor. There will be attendants at the monitors on both sides of 
    the Chamber.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Speaker.

Speaker's Discretion as to Use of Standby Procedures

Sec. 31.8 The Speaker announced that, pending preparation and testing 
    of Members' voter-identification cards to be used with the newly 
    installed electronic voting system, roll call votes would be 
    conducted under the standby provisions of the rules.

    On Jan. 3, 1973,(19) the Speaker (20) was 
obliged to delay the implementation of the electronic voting system. 
Accordingly, he ad-vised the Members as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 27, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to make a statement, and it is a statement 
    that is important to all of the Members of the House.
        The Rules of the House provide for the use of an electronic 
    voting system which has recently been installed in the House 
    Chamber. The chairman of the Committee on House Administration 
    addressed a letter to each Member advising the places, dates, and 
    times

[[Page 11650]]

    when staff personnel from the office of the Clerk and the Committee 
    on House Administration would be available for preparation of House 
    of Representatives voter identification cards. The Chair urges 
    Members to have the cards prepared and tested as soon as possible. 
    Of course, it will take a few days to complete this project. 
    Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in clause 5 of rule 
    XV,(1) the Chair directs that until further notice all 
    rollcall votes and quorum calls shall be taken by the Clerk calling 
    the roll in the same manner as was the practice in the last 
    Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 774b (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Members will be given sufficient notice as to when the 
    electronic voting system will be activated.

Sec. 31.9 The Speaker may direct the Clerk to call the roll 
    alphabetically where the electronic voting device is not in 
    operation.

    On May 16, 1973,(2) the Committee of the Whole having 
arisen after considering a bill (H.R. 5777) to protect hobbyists 
against the manufacture of certain imitation hobby items, among other 
things, the Speaker (3) put the question on the passage of 
the bill. The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 15860, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, Mr. John W. Wydler, of New York, objected to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum was not present and made the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. The Speaker sustained the point of 
order, but noted that ``The electronic voting device apparently is not 
operating properly.'' Accordingly, the Clerk was directed to call the 
roll.
    Where the electronic voting system is inoperative, one back-up 
procedure available in the House or in Committee of the Whole is the 
procedure in Rule XV, clause 2(b)-``tellers with clerks.'' This 
alternative voting procedure has been utilized to conduct a ``short 
quorum'' call in Committee of the Whole.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The use of tellers with clerks consumes less time than a roll call 
        by the Clerk, but is seldom used since the clerks are often not 
        prepared with cards and ballot boxes without advance notice. 
        See the proceedings of July 13, 1983, 129 Cong. Rec. 18858, 
        98th Cong. 1st Sess. for an instance where tellers with clerks 
        were used as a backup in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.10 The Speaker has announced that the electronic voting system 
    was temporarily inoperable and that until further notice roll call 
    votes would be conducted under the ``back-up'' provisions of the 
    rules.

[[Page 11651]]

    On Mar. 7, 1973,(5) the Speaker (6) made the 
following statement to the Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 6699, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to make an announcement.
        The Chair has been advised that the electronic voting system is 
    at the present time not operable.
        Until further notice, therefore, all votes and quorum calls 
    will be taken by the standby procedures which are provided in the 
    rules.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XV clause 1 authorizes the Chair to 
direct the alphabetical call of the roll on ``every roll call'' unless 
the Chair in his discretion, utilizes the electronic 
device.(7) Rule XV clause 5 refers to ``any roll call or 
quorum call;'' (8) and clause 2(b) permits ``calls of the 
House'' to be told by clerks where the electronic device is not 
utilized.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 765 (1995).
 8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 774(b) (1995).
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 771(b) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.11 The use of the electronic voting system, inoperative for 
    several days, resumes at the Chair's discretion.

    On July 19, 1973,(10) following messages from both the 
President and the Senate, the Speaker (11) made the 
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 24919, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to make a statement.
        The Chair has been advised that the electronic voting system, 
    which has not been functioning for the past 3 days, is now in 
    order.
        Technicians thoroughly tested the system this morning and have 
    assured the Chair that it is fully operable.
        The Chair will therefore direct that its use be resumed as of 
    today.

Electronic Voting System; Display Panels Inoperative

Sec. 31.12 The Speaker has directed the electronic voting system to be 
    utilized even where the display boards showing how Members are 
    recorded and the running totals on the pending vote are 
    inoperative, where he is assured that the votes can still be 
    correctly recorded by the insertion of the Members' voting cards 
    and that Members can verify their votes by reinserting their cards.

    On June 6, 1977,(12) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, of 
Massachusetts, made the following an

[[Page 11652]]

nouncement concerning the use of the electronic voting 
system:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 17484, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Similar announcements were made where the display panels were again 
        inoperative on June 21, 1978, 124 Cong. Rec. 18256, 95th Cong. 
        2d Sess.; July 18, 1979, 125 Cong. Rec. 19279, 96th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.; Sept. 18, 1985, 131 Cong. Rec. 24160, 99th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.; Dec. 4, 1985, 131 Cong. Rec. 34233, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. 
        On Sept. 19, 1985, the electronic system failed again, and the 
        Speaker ordered the vote taken by a roll call. 131 Cong. Rec. 
        24245, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair would like to make an announcement about 
    the electronic voting system. The Chair has been informed that the 
    board displaying each Member's name behind the Chair and the boards 
    displaying the bill number and vote totals to the left and right of 
    the Chair are not working today. However, all voting stations are 
    operating, and the Chair has directed all vote monitoring stations 
    to be staffed with personnel so any Member may go to any monitor 
    and verify his or her vote. Members may also verify their votes--as 
    they should on any vote, by reinserting their card at the same or 
    another voting station.
        The Chair therefore directs that the vote be taken by 
    electronic device. Members interested in the progress of the vote 
    may inquire at the vote monitoring stations.

Where Breakdown Occurs--De Novo Votes

Sec. 31.13 Where the electronic voting system became inoperative during 
    a recorded vote in Committee of the Whole, the Chair, pursuant to 
    his authority under the rules, directed that the vote be taken de 
    novo by clerks.

    On July 16, 1973,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering a bill (H.R. 8860) to amend and extend the Agricultural Act 
of 1970. The Chairman (15) put the question on an amendment 
offered by Mr. Bob Bergland, of Minnesota, to strike the cotton section 
of the bill. The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, 
the Committee divided, and there were--ayes 49, noes 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 23970, 23971, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point, Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, rose to demand a 
recorded vote. Mr. Teague's demand having been supported by the 
requisite number of Members, a recorded vote was ordered and commenced.

    The Chair then interrupted the vote-taking to make the following 
announcement:

        The Chair desires to announce to the Members that the 
    electronic device is not working. This vote will be repeated by a 
    recorded vote with clerks.

--Vacating Vote

Sec. 31.14 Where the electronic voting system has malfunc

[[Page 11653]]

    tioned, the Chair may abort and vacate one electronic vote and 
    initiate a second such vote on the same question pursuant to clause 
    5, Rule XV.

    On Oct. 4, 1989,(16) where a breakdown occurred while a 
vote by electronic device was in progress, the Speaker ordered the 
pending vote vacated and immediately ordered a new vote on the same 
question. The Speaker's announcement explained the situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 135 Cong. Rec. 23204, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) If the Members will 
    bear with the Chair, we have had some problems with the electronic 
    voting machine and the Chair is attempting to decide at this point 
    whether to vacate the previous vote and to begin again, so if the 
    Members will hold for just a moment, the Chair is trying to find 
    out if the machine has been restored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to advise the House that that machine was 
    not working properly. The Clerk is not certain that all the votes 
    were recorded.
        So it is the intent of the Chair to vacate the vote at this 
    point and to direct a new record vote by electronic device on the 
    previous question on the motion to instruct conferees.
        The voting machine is now working. So we will begin the voting 
    process again. The Chair is informed that some Members have left 
    the Chamber, so this will be a full 15 minute vote in all fairness 
    to give all Members an opportunity to vote.
        This vote is on ordering the previous question.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were yeas 
    198, nays 222, not voting 12, . . .
        So the previous question was not ordered.

--Votes Electronically Recorded Before Breakdown

Sec. 31.15 Where the electronic voting system became inoperative during 
    a yea and nay vote on a motion to suspend the rules, the Speaker 
    directed the Clerk to call the roll alphabetically pursuant to the 
    rules and then announced that Members who had been recorded prior 
    to the malfunction of the electronic voting device would be 
    included in the tally of those voting on the motion.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(18) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to a House 
resolution (H. Res. 761) to take from the Speaker's table a Senate bill 
(S. 921) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with a Senate 
amendment to the House

[[Page 11654]]

amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 43285, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following discussion of this proposal, the Speaker (19) 
put the question,(20) whereupon Mr. John D. Dingell, of 
Michigan, demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays having been 
ordered, the Members commenced to vote electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 43288, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the voting, however, the Speaker interrupted to 
make the following announcement:

        Will the Members of the House give the Chair their attention? 
    The electronic equipment is out of order. It is evident that it is 
    not going to be repaired in time to finish this bill tonight. The 
    Chair knows of no way in which to handle this matter except by a 
    rollcall vote,(1) and to combine with the rollcall vote 
    any Member whose name is recorded who has left.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Chair's authority was derived from the provisions of Rule XV. 
        See Rule XV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 774(b) 
        (1995); Rule XV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 765 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) that the House suspend the rules and 
    agree to the resolution, House Resolution 761.

    The question was taken; and (two-thirds not having voted in favor 
thereof) the motion was rejected. In an effort to clarify the method by 
which this vote would be indicated in the Record, the Speaker later 
made an additional statement: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 43292, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair wishes to announce that the names of all Members who 
    voted by means of electronic device will be included in the list of 
    those voting on this motion so that the Record will clearly reflect 
    the names of all Members who have voted on this 
    matter.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Accordingly, the text of the Record only shows the complete vote on 
        the motion, and does not distinguish between those Members who 
        voted electronically before the malfunction and those Members 
        who voted thereafter.
            A similar breakdown of the electronic system occurred in 
        1981 during the consideration of amendments to the Interior 
        Department appropriation bill (H.R. 4035) in the Committee of 
        the Whole. Chairman George E. Danielson, of California, handled 
        the situation in a similar fashion, directing a roll call vote 
        de novo but stating that Members who had responded 
        electronically would be ``captured'' in the final tally. 127 
        Cong. Rec. 16819-20, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1981. In 
        the 98th Congress, where a breakdown occurred in the middle of 
        an electronic vote on the approval of the Journal, the Chair 
        again used a roll call as the means of finalizing the result. 
        The final tally was delayed until the Clerk could retrieve the 
        names of Members who had voted electronically but failed to 
        answer the roll when their names were called. 129 Cong. Rec. 
        18844, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., July 13, 1983.

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

[[Page 11655]]

Correcting Electronic Vote

Sec. 31.16 While the Speaker will not entertain unanimous-consent 
    requests to correct the Record and Journal on a vote taken by 
    electronic device or where a vote was changed by submission of a 
    ballot card to the tally clerk, the incorrect transcription by the 
    Official Reporters of Debates of an announced vote change in the 
    well may be corrected in the Record by unanimous consent.

    On Sept. 24, 1975,(4) a Member incorrectly recorded by 
the Official Reporters of Debate as having changed his vote, received 
unanimous consent for the correction of the permanent Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 30059, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, in the 
    Record of yesterday, September 23, 1975, on page H8993, I am 
    correctly recorded as having voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 536, the 
    vote on the Collins of Texas antibusing amendment.
        However, on the same page, after the rollcall, the following 
    paragraph appears:

            Messrs. Dent and Ullman, Mrs. Boggs, Messrs. Addabbo, Smith 
        of Iowa, Carney, Hastings, Bauman, and Florio changed their 
        vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

        Mr. Speaker, this is incorrect. I did not change my vote at 
    all, having voted ``yea'' during the rollcall. I did, however, come 
    to the well and inquire of the Chair (Mr. Bolling) how I was 
    recorded. I did so out of an abundance of caution, in view of the 
    new procedure announced by the Speaker which now governs electronic 
    rollcalls.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record 
    be corrected to reflect the fact that I did not change my vote, and 
    I thank the Chair.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

                        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

        The Speaker: It has been called to the Chair's attention that 
    the Record of yesterday incorrectly indicates changes of votes made 
    by two Members, one of whom being the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman).
        The Chair will point out, however, that the errors in the 
    Record were errors in transcription of the notes taken by the 
    reporters, and that the proper votes by each Member were accurately 
    recorded in the electronic system and can be verified by the voting 
    cards themselves.
        The Chair has taken precautions to assure that in the future 
    any changes of votes recorded by the Official Re

[[Page 11656]]

    porters of Debates will be checked against the voting cards 
    submitted to the tally clerk before they are noted in the 
    Congressional Record.

Sec. 31.17 The Speaker entertained a unanimous-consent request to 
    permit a Member to correct the Record and Journal where he had 
    inadvertently not been recorded on a quorum call taken by a call of 
    the roll where the electronic voting system had been inoperative.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a unanimous-consent request to 
correct the permanent Record is procedurally permissible and no 
objection is heard, the actual honoring of the request obviates the 
need to include it, as originally stated, in the permanent edition of 
the Record. The reader of the permanent edition, of course, will be 
unaware that any mistake warranting such a correction was made. 
Accordingly, all correction requests of this category (i.e., those 
which require unanimous consent, which are procedurally permissible, 
and which are not objected to) may only be found in the temporary 
edition of the Congressional Record.
    On July 17, 1973,(6) Mr. Ronald A. Sarasin, of 
Connecticut, rose to address the Chair (7) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on yesterday, July 16, 1973, on rollcall No. 339, 
    a quorum call, I am recorded as absent. I was present and answered 
    to my name. I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record and 
    Journal be corrected accordingly.

    The Speaker then put the request to the House; (8) and, 
there being no objection, the Record was corrected.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. If the quorum call in question had been taken by electronic means, 
        Mr. Sarasin would have been precluded from obtaining such a 
        correction in light of the general proscription against 
        unanimous-consent requests where electronic voting is involved. 
        See Sec. 32.2, infra.
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 23986, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vacating Disputed Vote

Sec. 31.18 A disputed vote has on rare occasions been vacated and the 
    question put de novo to ameliorate a dispute regarding the conduct 
    of the vote.

    Illustrative are the proceedings of June 21 and 22, 1995, where a 
vote taken in Committee of the Whole was held open for longer than the 
17 minutes normally allowed to conclude a vote but was closed while 
several Members were in the well--or proceeding to the well--attempting 
to be recorded. The amendment was nar

[[Page 11657]]

rowly defeated, 213-214 and certain Members felt seriously aggrieved 
and were protesting the vote. A preferential motion that the Committee 
of the Whole rise was then offered by the manager of the bill and was 
adopted. Back in the House, a motion to adjourn was immediately offered 
and carried. On the following day, June 22, 1995, the Majority Leader 
asked, in the House, that when the Committee of the Whole resumed its 
sitting on the measure, the question be put de novo on the disputed 
amendment. After some discussion, this request was agreed to.
    When the Committee resumed its deliberations, the question on the 
amendment was again put and after limited debate, the amendment was 
agreed to by a vote of 220-204. Pertinent excerpts from the proceedings 
surrounding this dispute commencing on June 21, 1995,(10) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) It is now in order to consider 
    amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 104-146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Linder (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                amendment offered by mr. fazio of california

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio of California: 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. Fazio of California: Page 19, 
        after line 13, insert the following:

                        OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

                             Salaries and Expenses

            For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
        provisions of the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (Public Law 
        92-484) including official reception and representation 
        expenses, expenses incurred in administering an employee 
        incentive awards program, and rental of space in the District 
        of Columbia, $18,620,000.

        The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Fazio] and a Member opposed will each be recognized 
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Ron] Packard [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in this 
    instance in strong opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will 
    be recognized for 5 minutes. . . .

           amendment offered by mr. houghton as a substitute for the 
                  amendment offered by mr. fazio of california

        Mr. [Amo] Houghton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as 
    a substitute for the amendment.
        The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment is as follows:

[[Page 11658]]

            Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Houghton as a substitute for 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Fazio of California: Page 23, line 
        18, strike ``$60,083,000'' and insert ``$75,083,000''.
            Page 26, line 19, strike ``$211,664,000'' and insert 
        ``$195,076,000''.

        The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Houghton], and a Member in opposition, the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Packard], will be recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    213, noes 214, not voting 7, as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: For what reason does the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Packard] rise?
        Mr. Packard: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California moves that the 
    Committee do now rise. There is a motion on the floor. The 
    gentleman from California has been recognized. . . .
        Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Bonior: Mr. Chairman, we had 2 Members in the well with 
    their voting cards out, and the vote was 214 to 213, and the 
    gentleman in the Chair, respectfully I say to him, called the vote 
    while two of our Members were voting. That, Mr. Chairman, is not 
    fair. It is not right. This side of the aisle is not going to stand 
    for it.
        The Chairman: That is not correct.
        Mr. Bonior: I would further add, Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: That was not a parliamentary inquiry.
        The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has a privileged 
    motion before the Committee. The gentleman will state his motion.
        Mr. Packard: The motion is to rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion to rise offered by 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    233, noes 190, not voting 11, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to rise was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore 
    (Mr. LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the

[[Page 11659]]

    State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
    consideration the bill (H.R. 1854) making appropriations for the 
    legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
    and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

        Mr. [Richard K.] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Ray LaHood (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    224, noes 190, not voting 20, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to adjourn was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), the House 
    adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 22, 1995, at 10 a.m.

    The proceedings in the House and the Committee of the Whole on June 
22, 1995,(13) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 141 Cong. Rec. p. __, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    FAIRNESS IN HOUSE VOTING PROCEDURES

        (Mr. Armey asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute.)
        Mr. Armey: Mr. Speaker, prior to making a unanimous-consent 
    request, I have two comments to make about yesterday's vote on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] as 
    amended during consideration of the legislative branch 
    appropriations bill.
        First, after viewing and reviewing the videotape of yesterday's 
    proceedings, it is quite clear that the Chair, the gentleman from 
    Georgia [Mr. Linder], was on solid parliamentary ground when he 
    called the vote on the Fazio amendment. The Clerk informs us that 
    he called the vote after 17 minutes and 10 seconds. The videotape 
    shows Mr. Linder started to call the vote and refrained from 
    completing the call to allow a Member on the minority side of the 
    aisle to vote at the desk, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Ackerman]. The video then shows the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
    Linder] called the vote with the well of the House empty of 
    Members. The video then shows that after some time two Members from 
    the minority party appeared at the desk and attempted to vote. The 
    regular procedure of the House is that after the Chair has called 
    the vote, it is too late for Members to cast a vote. The fact that 
    Mr. Linder paused to allow the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Ackerman] to vote demonstrates that his intent was not to 
    arbitrarily shut off Members from their right to vote, nor did the 
    Chair cut off anyone in the well from their right to vote because 
    there were no Members in the well at the time he announced the 
    vote. . . .
        However, I know all too well that once the perception of 
    unfairness and arbitrariness has set in, it is difficult

[[Page 11660]]

    to undo regardless of the facts of the matter. It is important to 
    this Member that fairness govern this Chamber because this Member 
    spent over a decade attempting to do the people's business under 
    very unfair conditions. It is important to this Member that the 
    victories we win are honest and that the defeats we endure are 
    equally so.
        For that reason I am about to make a unanimous-consent request 
    to revisit the vote on the Fazio amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, and I am reserving the right to object, but I 
    will not object. I want to respond briefly to what the majority 
    leader said.
        Mr. Speaker, I think what the majority leader is attempting to 
    do is right. Our version of the facts is different than his, and I 
    would like to give that version just for the purpose of all of us 
    understanding what was involved here and so that we can try to not 
    have these kinds of things happen again.
        As all of my colleagues know, the Speaker made a ruling early 
    in the year that we would try to hold votes to 17 minutes. The 
    ruling stated unless someone was in the well. Our version of the 
    facts was that these two Members, who will speak for 5 minutes and 
    will give their version of it in a moment, were in the Chamber, 
    were trying very much to get into the well, but were not able to 
    physically get there, but were, clearly understood by everybody in 
    the Chamber, trying to vote, and in fact at some point, and there 
    is a dispute about when they handed the card in or even handing 
    cards in to vote, when the vote was called to an end, they were not 
    allowed to vote. There is added suspicion because the vote was 
    close and the majority was winning by one vote, and we had two 
    Members coming into the Chamber, so there is added suspicion from 
    that end of it.
        Mr. Speaker, there is very strong feeling on this side. I have 
    been here now 19 years, and I have not in my experience seen the 
    depth of feeling that occurred on this particular issue because, as 
    the gentleman said, the thing that we all hold most dear is our 
    ability to represent over 500,000 people in this Chamber on every 
    issue that is voted on. These Members were doing their best to be 
    here on time and to vote. I think there is added feeling on this 
    side because we seem to be into a differing standard from vote to 
    vote. As was said on the vote just before this vote, there was a 
    long time that the clock was held open. On the vote after, on the 
    motion to adjourn, it again was held open for a much longer time 
    than 17 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Therefore, proceedings on rollcall No. 405 will be 
    vacated, and, when the Committee of the Whole resumes consideration 
    of H.R. 1854 pursuant to House Resolution 169, the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole will be directed to put the question de novo 
    on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Fazio] as amended by the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Houghton]. . . .

[[Page 11661]]

                LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Pursuant to House 
    Resolution 169 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    further consideration of the bill, H.R. 1854. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Paul E. Gillmor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
    Wednesday, June 21, 1995, amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 
    104-146 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] had 
    been disposed of.

         de novo vote on amendment offered by mr. fazio of california, 
                                   as amended

        The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
    Chair will now put the question de novo.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
        Mr. Fazio of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] be allowed to speak 
    out of order for 2 minutes in order to underscore and explain the 
    amendment that is about to be voted on.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California? . . .
        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        The Chair will now put the question de novo.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that he was 
    in doubt.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. Fazio of California: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    220, noes 204, not voting 10. . . .



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 32. Requests To Alter Electronically Recorded Votes

    Since the inception of the electronic system, the Speaker has 
resisted attempts to permit corrections to the electronic tally after 
the announcement of a vote. This policy is based upon the presumptive 
reliability of the electronic device and upon the responsibility of 
each Member to correctly cast and verify his vote. The Speaker has 
continued to entertain Members' unanimous-consent requests to correct 
the Record the day after the announcement of the result where the 
electronic voting system has been inoperative and a backup procedure--
where the possibility of human error still exits--was utilized.

Votes or Presence Cannot Be Entered After Vote Has Been Closed and 
    Result Announced

Sec. 32.1 Following the announcement of the result of a call of

[[Page 11662]]

    the House conducted by electronic device pursuant to the rules, the 
    Speaker declined to entertain requests by Members to record their 
    presence.

    On Nov. 13, 1973,(15) Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, 
by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up a resolution (H. Res. 
695) which provided that upon its adoption, the House would resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider a bill (H.R. 11333) 
providing for certain increases in social security benefits among other 
things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 36862, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During debate on the resolution, Mr. Steven D. Symms, of Idaho, 
made the point of order that a quorum was not present. The Speaker 
(16) sustained the point of order and a call of the House 
was ordered and taken electronically.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
17. See Rule XV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 774(b) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When 373 Members responded to the call, the Speaker announced the 
presence of a quorum. Unanimous consent was then granted to dispense 
with further proceedings under the call. Prior to the further 
consideration of the matter at hand, however, a colloquy took place 
between the Speaker and a Member as to the failure of the latter to be 
recorded on the quorum call.
    This discussion, which appears in its entirety below, illustrates 
the Speaker's obligation to decline a Member's request to be recorded 
after the Chair has already announced the result of a quorum call 
conducted by electronic means. The exchange (18) took place 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 36862, 36863, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I had my hand up 
    and I was in the Chamber on this past rollcall, but I was not 
    recorded.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's statement will appear in the 
    Record.
        The Chair under the present practices of the House is without 
    authority to change the vote or announcement of a quorum after the 
    result is announced.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: I had my hand up, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair apologizes if he did not see the 
    gentleman, but the Members make their presence known by addressing 
    the Chair. This is the only manner in which the Chair has a right 
    to recognize a Member.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, that is the manner this 
    Member followed.
        The Speaker: Did the gentleman take the microphone and address 
    the Chair?
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: No. I did not take the microphone. I was 
    in the

[[Page 11663]]

    Chamber. I do not know of any rule that requires the Member to take 
    a microphone.
        The Speaker: The gentleman must address the Chair.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: I did.
        The Speaker: The Chair went 3 minutes beyond the 15-minute 
    minimum time. The Chair does not have the authority to recognize 
    the gentleman to make this request.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: There is no rule.
        The Speaker: The precedent has been established with respect to 
    numerous Members of the House under both the old rollcall system 
    and the new electronic system. The gentleman can state that he was 
    present and the House knows the gentleman was present and his 
    statement will appear immediately following the announcement of the 
    Members recorded as present.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, is there anything in the 
    rules about a microphone?
        The Speaker: It is only for the purposes of facilitating the 
    action of the House, that is all, so that the Chair will see 
    Members, but the Chair looked around the Chamber before announcing 
    the result.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: I will state this Member had his hand up.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's remarks will appear in the Record.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: That is not important, I was in the 
    Chamber. I tried to answer the roll.
        Mr. Speaker, I will not be intimidated by regular order 
    requests. I was in the Chamber.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's remarks that he was in the 
    Chamber, that he was holding up his hand in the Chamber, that he 
    was seeking recognition of the Chair, will appear in the Record; 
    but the gentleman cannot be recorded, nor can any other Member, 
    under the practices of this House, if he is not recorded before the 
    vote or rollcall is announced. The Chair has announced this policy 
    on numerous occasions--including April 18, May 10, and June 6 of 
    this year.
        The Chair is bound by those rulings and the Chair is going to 
    stand by this ruling, unless overruled by the House. The 
    gentleman's statement will appear in the Record.

Sec. 32.2 The Speaker has declined to entertain unanimous-consent 
    requests to correct the Record and the Journal on votes taken by 
    electronic device.

    On May 10, 1973,(19) following the Speaker's 
(20) appointment of five Members to confer with Senate 
conferees as to the Airport Development Acceleration Act of 1973 (S. 
38), Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, rose to make a personal 
announcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 15282, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Madden's announcement and the Speaker's reply indicate the 
Speaker's lack of discretion to correct what a Member deems to be an 
improperly recorded vote when the vote was tallied by elec

[[Page 11664]]

tronic means. The exchange was as follows:

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 132, yesterday, I was 
    present and voted ``no.'' I ask unanimous consent that the 
    permanent Record be corrected accordingly.
        The Speaker: The Chair is without authority in that regard. The 
    gentleman's statement will appear in the Record.

Absent Member Somehow Recorded; Record Corrected

Sec. 32.3 Instance where the permanent Record and Journal were 
    corrected to show that a Member recorded on a series of votes taken 
    by electronic device was in fact not present and not voting.

    In the 95th Congress, a Member who was in fact absent and not 
voting on the preceding day, but was somehow shown as voting, asked to 
have the permanent record corrected to show that he was in fact not 
present. His absence was conclusively shown by travel documents and 
other evidence placing him in his district. His voting card had been 
misplaced and somehow had been used in error. The Member was issued a 
new voting card and the old card voided so the system would not accept 
it if another use of the card was attempted.
    The permanent Record and Journal were corrected to indicate that 
the Member, Mr. James A. Burke, of Massachusetts, was indeed absent as 
indicated by an excerpt from the Sept. 19, 1978,(1) Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 30195, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               [Roll No. 796]

                                 YEAS--396

        Abdnor
        Addabbo
        Akaka . . .

                                  NAYS--3

        Collins, Tex.
        McDonald
        Symms

                               NOT VOTING--33

        Ammerman
        Armstrong
        Burke, Calif.
        Burke, Mass. . . .

Sec.  32.4 Based upon the presumed infallibility of the electronic 
    voting system, the Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent 
    request to correct a roll call vote by electronic device absent a 
    conclusive explanation of the voting discrepancy.

    On July 31, 1979,(2) a Member asked to proceed for one 
minute

[[Page 11665]]

and during that presentation asked ``unanimous consent that the 
permanent Record reflect the fact that'' he was absent on the preceding 
day and did not in fact vote as indicated in the Record. This request 
was interpreted by the Speaker, not as an attempt to change the vote, 
but as a request to put the current statement in the Record. The Member 
making the request, Mr. Morgan F. Murphy, of Illinois, who was a member 
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, asked that committee 
to investigate the occurrence and stated that during such an inquiry, 
he would recuse himself from committee activity while the matter was 
under investigation.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 21659, 21660, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. The Committee on House Administration also undertook an inquiry 
        into the voting errors here noted. 125 Cong. Rec. 21986, 21987, 
        96th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.5 On one occasion, the Speaker announced a change in the result 
    of an electronic roll call where the error was attributed to an 
    incorrect reading of a signature on a voting card submitted in the 
    well.

    At the conclusion of a roll call vote taken by electronic device, 
Members who do not have their voting card or who arrive in the Chamber 
after the electronic device has been closed, may use red or green or 
orange ``tally cards,'' which they procure and sign at the rostrum and 
submit to the tally clerk. Signatures on these cards are sometimes 
difficult to decipher.
    On June 9, 1981, a vote was taken on passage of H.R. 3462, making 
appropriations for the Department of Justice, fiscal year 1982.
    On June 11, 1981, Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
made the following statement which appeared in the daily edition of the 
Record:

        The Speaker: The Chair will announce that on rollcall No. 70 
    the following corrections will be made: The gentleman from Arkansas 
    (Mr. Alexander) to be recorded as not voting and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) to be recorded as voting ``nay.''

        This correction is required because of an error in correctly 
    identifying a signature on a voting card submitted in the well.

    The permanent Record was accordingly corrected.
    Unanimous consent was not required for this change, since the error 
was clerical and not attributable to the electronic system, which has 
continued to retain its reputation for infallibility. The

[[Page 11666]]

Journal and voting records were also corrected to conform to this 
announcement.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 33. Demand for Vote

    While the mechanics of taking a recorded vote by electronic device 
are the same as those required for taking a vote by the yeas and nays, 
the process for ordering the two votes is different. The demand for the 
yeas and nays is constitutional in origin (4) while the 
recorded vote is a creature of the House rules.(5) While the 
yeas and nays are in order only in the House, a recorded vote can be 
demanded both in the House and in the Committee of the 
Whole.(6) The yeas and nays are ordered by one-fifth of 
those present (so if only ten Members are in attendance, two can order 
the yeas and nays) whereas one-fifth of a quorum (44 in the House) is 
required to get a recorded vote. In Committee of the Whole, the number 
for a recorded vote is fixed by rule.(7) Originally set at 
one-fifth of a quorum (20 in Committee), the requirement for a second 
was changed in the 96th Congress to the fixed number of 
25.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. .5.
 5. Rule I clause 5(a); Rule XXIII clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 629 and 864 (1995).
 6. Id.
 7. Id.
 8. Rule XXIII clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 864 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the House, a demand for a recorded vote can be made following a 
demand for the yeas and nays which does not receive a sufficient 
second. But where a vote is taken in the House by one method and 
concluded, either positively or negatively, the other method can no 
longer be demanded.(9) Where, on the other hand, an 
amendment is adopted by a recorded vote in Committee of the Whole, and 
is reported back to the House where it is subject to a demand for a 
``separate vote,'' that separate vote can be concluded by either a 
recorded vote or the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule I clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 629 (1995), as 
        amended by H. Res. 5, 105th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 7, 1997. The 
        following sentence was added to Rule I clause 5(a): ``A 
        recorded vote taken pursuant to this paragraph shall be 
        considered a vote by the yeas and nays.'' This amendment was 
        inserted to prevent an issue decided by a recorded vote from 
        being revisited by a demand for the yeas and nays on the same 
        question.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single-Step Demands; Nonelectronic ``Backup'' Procedure

Sec. 33.1 In the 92d Congress, the rules were amended to pro

[[Page 11667]]

    vide for a ``back-up'' nonelectronic procedure for recorded votes 
    by which clerk tellers may be appointed under a single-step demand 
    for a ``recorded vote.''

    On Oct. 13, 1972,(10) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 1123 
and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution read, in 
part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 118 Cong. Rec. 36005, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That (a) clause 5 of Rule I of the Rules of the 
        House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:

        ``5. He shall rise to put a question, but may state it sitting; 
    and shall put questions in this form, to wit: `As many as are in 
    favor (as the question may be), say ``Aye''.'; and after the 
    affirmative voice is expressed, `As many as are opposed, say 
    ``No''.'; if he doubts or a division is called for, the House shall 
    divide; those in the affirmative of the question shall first rise 
    from their seats, and then those in the negative; if he still 
    doubts, or a count is required by at least one-fifth of a quorum, 
    he shall name one or more from each side of the question to tell 
    the Members in the affirmative and negative; which being reported, 
    he shall rise and state the decision. However, if any Member 
    requests a recorded vote and that request is supported by at least 
    one-fifth of a quorum, such vote shall be taken by electronic 
    device, unless the Speaker in his discretion orders clerks to tell 
    the names of those voting on each side of the question, and such 
    names shall be recorded by electronic device or by clerks, as the 
    case may be, and shall be entered in the Journal, together with the 
    names of those not voting. Members shall have not less than fifteen 
    minutes to be counted from the ordering of the recorded vote or the 
    ordering of clerks to tell the vote. . . .'' (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Other segments of the resolution pertaining to electronic voting 
        may be found in Sec. .31.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the ensuing discussion, Mr. Sisk explained some of 
the procedural changes being proposed as well as the nature of the 
``backup'' procedures, as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 36006, 36007, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I would briefly like to comment in connection with the fallback 
    or fail-safe position with regard to the voting and other matters 
    contained in the resolution.
        In brief we propose that machinery be used in all appropriate 
    voting situations, that is, whenever names of Members are to be 
    recorded. We also propose to put in the rules substitution of 
    present procedures as a backup in case the machinery becomes 
    unavailable for whatever the reason may be. We also propose that we 
    use the backup procedures at the discretion of the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        We also are suggesting two additional changes in the backup 
    proce

[[Page 11668]]

    dure. The first occurs in the procedure for tellers with clerks or 
    what is called the recorded teller vote.
        I want to emphasize that the amendments we offer do not in any 
    way alter the basic substance of that procedure. What we are trying 
    to do is to simplify the process.
        I might add what we propose is substantially the way the 
    Democratic caucus asked for during the past year. As the rules now 
    stand a Member must make two separate requests to get a recorded 
    teller vote, and we know the procedures.
        We propose that that two-step procedure be dropped and that a 
    single-step procedure be substituted therefor. A Member will simply 
    request a recorded teller vote, and that will take care of any 
    situation.
        We further propose doing away with the time-consuming process 
    of making Members act as tellers in the recording of the teller 
    votes. There is no reason why Members must be found to stand at the 
    head of the aisle to record the vote. Clerks will simply be 
    required to do that in the future in the event that there are 
    teller votes.
        Mr. Speaker, we are also proposing a new method for recording 
    Members during quorum calls. At the present time, as you know, the 
    Clerk calls the roll twice and recognizes Members in the House in a 
    time-consuming process. Again we have a recommendation from the 
    caucus in connection with this matter. In effect this method would 
    have the Clerks tell the Members just as they do in a recorded 
    teller vote, for instance, in recording the presence of the 
    Members.
        Instead of calling the roll, the Clerks would merely record the 
    names of the Members as they came up the aisle in the Chamber, or 
    in any other fashion that the Speaker made known.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Sisk: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
        Mr. Hays: You could use the electronic system for a quorum 
    call.
        Mr. Sisk: Certainly. In almost all cases I think the electronic 
    system will be used. What I am explaining is the so-called backup 
    procedure in the event that we did not desire to use the electronic 
    system.

    Discussion proceeded after which Mr. Sisk yielded his remaining 
time to Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, who summarized those changes 
in the rules which would be brought about by passage of House 
Resolution 1123. In the course of doing so, he stated, in part: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 36008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the purpose of House Resolution 1123 is to make 
    the changes in the House rules which will be required in order to 
    use the electronic voting equipment installed in the House Chamber. 
    Changes are made at four different points in the rules.
        The first change [is] in rule I, clause 5, which deals with how 
    votes may be taken in the House. House Resolution 1123 adds 
    language, which provides that a recorded vote may be taken by 
    electronic device. The procedure would be as follows: A Member may 
    request a recorded vote at any time after the

[[Page 11669]]

    question has been put by the Speaker. The intent is that a request 
    for a recorded vote shall be in order before or after a voice vote, 
    a division vote or a teller vote. If a Member requests a recorded 
    vote and is supported by one-fifth of a quorum, the vote will be 
    taken by electronic device. A Member may no longer demand a vote by 
    tellers with clerks. However, once a recorded vote is ordered, the 
    Speaker in his discretion may order a recorded vote with clerks. 
    This would be similar to the present vote by tellers with clerks, 
    except that the Speaker will appoint clerks to count, rather than 
    Members. A Member shall have not less than 15 minutes to be 
    counted. The time begins to run from the ordering of the recorded 
    vote or the ordering of clerks to tell the vote. . . .
        Mr. Sisk later offered an amendment (14) providing 
    that the resolution would become effective immediately before noon 
    on Jan. 3, 1973. The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution, 
    as amend-ed, was also agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 36012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Related to Demand for Yeas and Nays

Sec. 33.2 A demand for a recorded vote may be made following a demand 
    for the yeas and nays, providing the latter demand is first 
    withdrawn.

    On June 28, 1972,(15) following discussion of a motion 
to concur in a Senate amendment with a House amendment to a bill (H.R. 
13955) pertaining to legislative branch appropriations, the Speaker 
(16) put the question on the motion, it was taken; and the 
Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 118 Cong. Rec. 22981, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Immediately thereafter, the following discussion ensued:

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to ask that we have tellers 
    with clerks to record this vote? (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Tellers with clerks--the original formulation for what has become 
        ``the recorded vote''--were first adopted in the 92d Congress. 
        (See H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: It is in order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I ask that we have the vote by tellers 
    with clerks.
        The Speaker: It would be necessary first to withdraw the demand 
    for yeas and nays.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand that the vote be 
    taken by the call of the yeas and nays, and demand that this vote 
    be taken by tellers.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. If Mr. Yates' initial demand for the yeas and nays had been 
        seconded by one-fifth of those present, it would have been 
        procedurally impermissible for him to withdraw the demand in 
        the absence of unanimous consent. See Sec. 24.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Tellers were ordered.

[[Page 11670]]

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I demand tellers with clerks.
        Tellers with clerks were ordered; and the Speaker appointed as 
    tellers Messrs. Casey of Texas, Stratton, Cederberg, and Yates.

Where Yeas and Nays Refused

Sec. 33.3 Where one-fifth of the Members present have refused to order 
    the yeas and nays on a motion, a recorded vote remains a viable 
    option.

    Where the question is put on a motion, and the yeas and nays are 
refused, one-fifth of those present not supporting the demand, a 
request that the vote be taken by a record vote may still be made and 
such a vote can be ordered if seconded by one-fifth of a quorum of the 
House, or 44 Members. This situation frequently arises when the yeas 
and nays are refused, the vote is then objected to under Rule XV clause 
4, on the ground that a quorum is not present and the vote is then 
postponed by the Chair. When the bill is thereafter taken up at the 
appointed time, a recorded vote is often the best option for getting 
Members on record. The proceedings of Sept. 21, 1976,(19) 
are illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 31640, 31641, 31668, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: (1) The unfinished business 
    is the question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 
    12048, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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.

[[Page 11671]]

        The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

                               point of order

        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. 33.4 After withdrawing a demand for the yeas and nays on an 
    amendment in the House, a Member may request that the vote be taken 
    by a recorded vote.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(2) Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, 
demanded a separate vote on an amendment to a committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute to a bill (H.R. 7248) to amend and extend 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts relating to higher 
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 39352, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As soon as the Speaker (3) put the question on the 
amendment, Mrs. Green demanded the yeas and nays, and the following 
exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, when we are in the House, is 
    it possible to ask for tellers with clerks?
        The Speaker: It is.
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Then, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the other 
    request.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. As one-fifth of those present had not yet seconded Mrs. Green's 
        demand for the yeas and nays when she withdrew it, she was not 
        obliged to seek unanimous consent in order to do so. See 
        Sec. 24.8, supra, for an instance in which a Member was not 
        permitted to withdraw his demand for the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I demand tellers.

    Tellers having been ordered, Mrs. Green then demanded tellers with 
clerks (5) which were also ordered; and the Speaker 
appointed Mrs. Green and three other Members to serve as tellers for 
the recorded vote.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 39353, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. See Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1995); see 
        also Sec. 30.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counting Those Standing To Demand Recorded Vote

Sec. 33.5 The Chair's count of Members standing to support

[[Page 11672]]

    the demand for a recorded vote is not subject to appeal.

    During consideration of an appropriation bill in Committee of the 
Whole on June 24, 1976,(7) a vote was taken on an amendment. 
The Chair announced that on a voice vote, the amendment was rejected. A 
Member then demanded a record vote and pending that, made a point of 
order that a quorum was not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 20390, 20391, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A quorum not being present, a call of the Committee was taken by 
electronic device; and pursuant to the rule, the Chair announced that 
he would vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum appeared. When 
100 Members had responded, the Chair terminated the call and asked 
those desiring a recorded vote to stand.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Scheuer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Clement J. Zablocki (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [James H.] Scheuer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. Thirty-four 
    Members are present, not a quorum.
        The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, he 
    will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum of the 
    Committee appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: One hundred Members have appeared. A 
    quorum of the Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to rule 
    XXIII, clause 2, further proceedings under the call shall be 
    considered as vacated.
        The Committee will resume its business.
        The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Scheuer) for a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        So the amendment was rejected.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            national institute of child health and human development

            To carry out, except as otherwise provided, titles IV and X 
        of the Public Health Service Act with respect to child health 
        and human development, $140,343,000.

        Mr. Scheuer: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Scheuer: Mr. Chairman, under the set of facts which took 
    place a few minutes ago, would it be possible to appeal the ruling 
    of the Chair on the count of the Members standing? It was the 
    impression of many Members on this side that we had substantially 
    more Members than 19 standing.

[[Page 11673]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: An appeal from the Chair's count is 
    not in order.

Repeated Requests for Recorded Vote

Sec. 33.6 A request for a recorded vote, having been made and refused, 
    may not be made again on the same question.

    In Nov. 18, 1975,(9) during consideration of H.R. 30 (to 
establish the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 37061, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the amendments 
    offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Duncan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Morgan F. Murphy (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count. One hundred and five 
    Members are present, a quorum.
        Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Symms) there were--ayes 27, noes 43.
        So the amendments were rejected.
        Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, can I still get a recorded 
    vote on that?
        The Chairman: A recorded vote has been refused.

Sec. 33.7 A request for a recorded vote on a pending question having 
    been refused, a second request is not in order following a division 
    vote on that question.

    On Jan. 21, 1976,(11) the Chair had put the question on 
an amendment under consideration in Committee of the Whole and had 
announced that on a voice vote the ``ayes had it'' and that the 
amendment was agreed to. A recorded vote was then ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 508, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patsy T.] Mink [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mrs. Mink: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a division.
        Mr. [Philip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ruppe: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this, did 
    not the Chairman announce that he thought there was an insufficient 
    number of Members who had risen for a recorded vote, and that, 
    therefore, the amendment had been agreed to?

[[Page 11674]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that in the meantime, before 
    the Chair had announced the vote, a division was demanded and the 
    Chair has instructed those Members in favor of the amendment to 
    stand and remain standing until counted.
        Those Members against the amendment will stand and remain 
    standing until counted.
        On this vote by division the ayes are 14 and the noes are 17.
        Mr. [Joe] Skubitz [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: A recorded vote has been refused.
        Mr. Ruppe: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ruppe: Is it not possible to call for a recorded vote 
    inasmuch as we did call for one previous to that and an 
    insufficient number of Members stood? In his decision, the Chair 
    stated it was agreed to, and then changed it. Would we not have a 
    change as well as far as having the opportunity to have a recorded 
    vote?
        The Chairman: A recorded vote had already been refused, and it 
    is not possible on the same amendment to have a second request for 
    a recorded vote.
        The amendment is, therefore, rejected.

Sec. 33.8 A request for a recorded vote, if not supported by 25 Members 
    in Committee of the Whole, cannot be repeated following a quorum 
    call; but a division and/or teller vote may be demanded if the 
    Chair has not finally announced the result of the voice vote on the 
    question.

    On July 22, 1980,(13) the State, Justice, Commerce, and 
Judiciary appropriation bill was under consideration in Committee of 
the Whole. The following sequence of votes and quorum calls illustrate 
the options available where a demand for a recorded vote fails to 
achieve a sufficient second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 19067, 19068, 19070, 19071, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conable: Page 38, line 22, strike 
        out ``$321,300,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$312,700,000.''. . .

        Amendment offered by Mr. Huckaby as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Conable: On page 38, line 22, strike out 
    ``$321,300,000.'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$300,000,000:''. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Conable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Huckaby) there were--yes 24, noes 10.

[[Page 11675]]

        So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable), as amended.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair has already announced that an 
    insufficient number of Members arose to order a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) still insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I still insist on my 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman insists on his point of order.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division, too, and 
    pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: A quorum call is ordered.
        Mr. Huckaby: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

        The Chairman: The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, 
    rule XXIII, he will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum 
    of the Committee appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: A quorum of the Committee of the Whole has not 
    appeared.
        The Chair announces that a regular quorum call will now 
    commence. Members who have not already responded under the noticed 
    quorum call will have a minimum of 15 minutes to record their 
    presence. The call will be taken by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device, and the following 
    Members responded to their names: . . .
        The Chairman: Three hundred and fifty-six Members have answered 
    to their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume 
    its business.
        When the point of no quorum was made the Chair had announced 
    the result of the voice vote on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable), as amended by the substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby), and had 
    stated that the ayes prevailed.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a division.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, pending the outcome of the division, 
    will it be possible at that time to request a recorded vote?
        The Chairman: The request for a recorded vote has already been 
    made and rejected for lack of a sufficient number standing. It 
    cannot be repeated.

[[Page 11676]]

        Mr. Huckaby: Does not the request for a recorded vote in the 
    hierarchy precede a division and, hence, the Chairman is reverting 
    back to a division, since the Chairman has already denied a request 
    for a recorded vote and the Chair has ruled upon that?
        The Chairman: Regardless of the type of vote requested, a 
    request for a recorded vote cannot be repeated. It has already been 
    rejected. However, a division may now be requested.
        Mr. Huckaby: Would a request for a teller vote be in order?
        The Chairman: A request for a teller vote would be in order.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Smith of Iowa) there were--ayes 
    107, noes 110.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair please repeat the 
    numbers?
        The Chairman: The ayes were 107 and the noes were 110.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, 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 Chairman: The gentleman makes a point that a quorum is not 
    present and objects to the vote. That is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Smith of Iowa and Mr. Conable.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 134, noes 116.
        So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Renewed Requests for Recorded Vote

Sec. 33.9 Where the Committee of the Whole has refused a request for a 
    recorded vote on an issue, the request cannot be renewed, even 
    following a quorum call and a vote by division on the issue, except 
    by unanimous consent.

    The proceedings of June 2, 1977,(15) when the House had 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole the Department of Energy 
Reorganization Act, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 17292, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The question is on the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count. Eighty-one Members are 
    present, not a quorum.
        The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, he 
    will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum of the 
    Committee appears.

[[Page 11677]]

        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: One hundred Members have appeared. A quorum of 
    the Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to clause 2, rule 
    XXIII, further proceedings under the call shall be considered as 
    vacated.
        The Committee will resume its business.
        At the time the point of order of no quorum was made, the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) was before the Committee, a recorded 
    vote had been refused, and in the opinion of the Chair the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute had not carried.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) rise?
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, on the question of my amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, I demand a division.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Erlenborn) there were--ayes 29, 
    noes 51.
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, on that I ask 
    unanimous consent for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Idaho?
        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate to ask for 
    the yeas and nays at this point?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the 
    gentleman's parliamentary inquiry that it is not in order to ask 
    for the yeas and nays in Committee of the Whole.
        Are there amendments to title I?

Sec. 33.10 A recorded vote having been refused in Committee of the 
    Whole, a point of no quorum may lie under Rule XXIII clause 2 if 
    the pending question has not been disposed of by a division (or 
    teller) vote, but a demand for a recorded vote cannot be renewed.

        On May 27, 1982,(17) during consideration of the 
    First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal 1983, a 
    closely contested amendment was pending in the Committee of the 
    Whole. After the Chair announced that the amendment was agreed to 
    on a voice vote, a recorded vote was demanded and refused for lack 
    of a sufficient second. When a Member then made a point of no 
    quorum, and pending that, again asked for a recorded vote, the 
    Chair explained the parliamentary situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 12470, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) The question is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mis

[[Page 11678]]

    sissippi (Mr. Whitten) to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Leo C. Zeferetti (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore:  A recorded vote is demanded.
        All those in favor of taking this vote by a recorded vote will 
    rise and be counted.
        Twenty-four Members, an insufficient number.
        So a recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Regula: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present, and pending that, I demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore:  The Chair has already announced an 
    insufficient number.
        The gentleman can make a point of order but he cannot ask for a 
    recorded vote.

        Mr. Regula: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Regula) there were--ayes 42, 
    noes 43.
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered and the Chairman pro tempore appointed as 
    tellers Mr. Whitten and Mr. Jones of Oklahoma.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 72, noes 72.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair votes ``aye.''

Sec. 33.11 A request for a recorded vote on an amendment once denied 
    may not be renewed in Committee of the Whole, even where the 
    absence of a quorum is disclosed immediately following the refusal 
    to order the recorded vote.

    On June 6, 1979,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Housing and Community Development Act of 1979, 
and Chairman George E. Brown, Jr., of California, had put the question 
on a pending amendment. On a voice vote, the Chair announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it. A recorded vote was then requested, and when 
an insufficient number stood to second the demand, a recorded vote was 
refused. A point of order was then made that a quorum was not present, 
and on a count the Chair found only 77 Members in attendance, not a 
quorum. When Mr. J. William Stanton, of Ohio, understood that he could 
not renew his request for a recorded vote, even if a call of the 
Committee produced a quorum, he moved that the Committee rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 13648, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    South Carolina (Mr. Campbell).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 11679]]

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        The Chair has already ruled that an insufficient number stood 
    for a recorded vote. A separate point of order has been made that 
    no quorum is present, and the Chair is counting; 77 Members are 
    present, not a quorum.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stanton: Under the rules of the House, is it applicable to 
    make this point of order after the vote has been over with?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman it is 
    always in order to make a point of order of no quorum. The Chair 
    has already ruled, however, that there was an insufficient number 
    standing to order a recorded vote. If the chairman of the committee 
    desires to call for a separate vote in the House after the bill is 
    disposed of, he may do so.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, then no vote can be taken at this 
    particular time?
        The Chairman: A recorded vote on the amendment is not in order.
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair has already announced that a quorum is 
    not present.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, could I move that the Committee do 
    now rise?
        The Chairman: It would be in order to do so.
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The motion was agreed to.

    When the Committee resumed its consideration on the following 
day,(20) the Chair stated the pending business, and the 
Committee then took first a division vote on the amendment, then a 
teller vote.(1) The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 13925, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 7, 1979.
 1. Teller votes were eliminated from the menu of choices for voting in 
        the 103d Congress, with the adoption of H. Res. 5 on Jan. 5, 
        1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill, H.R. 3875, with Mr. Brown of California 
    in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
    Wednesday, June 6, 1979, title IV had been considered as having 
    been read and open to amendment at any point. Pending was an 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
    Campbell). The Chair had announced that on a voice vote the ayes

[[Page 11680]]

    appeared to have it and a recorded vote had been refused.
        The Chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley).
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if before we take this vote 
    we could have complete order in the House, because some will want 
    to stand for an aye vote and some will want to sit, so if we could 
    start off with the House in order, I would appreciate it.
        The Chairman: The Chair will call attention to the fact that on 
    this very important vote which occurred last evening, there was 
    considerable debate as to which side actually prevailed. It is very 
    important that all Members understand the situation and be prepared 
    to vote in accordance with their own wishes. The Committee will be 
    in order. The gentleman from Ohio has demanded a division.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stanton: Is it the understanding of the Chair that we are 
    taking a vote on the Campbell amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Stanton: Those in favor, then, of the procedural vote, who 
    are in favor of the Campbell amendment, will then rise first as 
    those who are in favor of it?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    South Carolina (Mr. Campbell).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashley), there were--ayes 106, noes 61.
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Ashley and Mr. Campbell.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 129, noes 73.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 33.12 A request for a recorded vote, if not supported by the 
    required second, cannot be repeated following a quorum call on the 
    pending question, but a division vote may yet be had if the Chair 
    has not finally announced the voice vote on the question.

    In one instance in the 96th Congress, when teller votes were still 
permitted under Rule I, both a division and a teller vote were taken 
following the initial refusal to order a recorded vote. The proceedings 
of July 22, 1980,(2) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 19067, 19068, 19070, 19071, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conable: Page 38, line 22, strike 
        out ``$321,300,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$312,700,000.'' . . .

[[Page 11681]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Huckaby as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Conable: On page 38, line 22, strike 
        out ``$321,300,000.'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$300,000,000:''. . . .

        The Chairman: (3) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Conable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. George J. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Huckaby) there were--ayes 24, noes 10.
        So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable), as amended.
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair has already announced that an 
    insufficient number of Members arose to order a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) still insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I still insist on my 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman insists on his point of order.
        Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division, too, and 
    pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: A quorum call is ordered.
        Mr. Huckaby: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair announces that pursuant to clause 2, 
    rule XXIII, he will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum 
    of the Committee appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: A quorum of the Committee of the Whole has not 
    appeared.
        The Chair announces that a regular quorum call will now 
    commence. Members who have not already responded under the noticed 
    quorum call will have a minimum of 15 minutes to record their 
    presence. The call will be taken by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device, and the following 
    Members responded to their names: . . .
        The Chairman: Three hundred and fifty-six Members have answered 
    to their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume 
    its business.
        When the point of no quorum was made the Chair had announced 
    the result of the voice vote on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable), as amended by the substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby), and had 
    stated that the ayes prevailed.

[[Page 11682]]

        For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a division.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, pending the outcome of the division, 
    will it be possible at that time to request a recorded vote?
        The Chairman: The request for a recorded vote has already been 
    made and rejected for lack of a sufficient number standing. It 
    cannot be repeated.
        Mr. Huckaby: Does not the request for a recorded vote in the 
    hierarchy precede a division and, hence, the Chairman is reverting 
    back to a division, since the Chairman has already denied a request 
    for a recorded vote and the Chair has ruled upon that?
        The Chairman: Regardless of the type of vote requested, a 
    request for a recorded vote cannot be repeated. It has already been 
    rejected. However, a division may now be requested.
        Mr. Huckaby: Would a request for a teller vote be in order?
        The Chairman: A request for a teller vote would be in order.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Smith of Iowa) there were--ayes 
    107, noes 110.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair please repeat the 
    numbers?
        The Chairman: The ayes were 107 and the noes were 110.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, 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 Chairman: The gentleman makes a point that a quorum is not 
    present and objects to the vote. That is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Smith of Iowa and Mr. Conable.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 134, noes 116.
        So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Point of No Quorum Takes Precedence of Demand for Recorded Vote

Sec. 33.13 In Committee of the Whole, where there is a demand for a 
    recorded vote and a point of order that there is no quorum present, 
    the point of order must be disposed of first.

    During consideration in Committee of the Whole of H.R. 25, the 
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, 1975, a Member desired to have a 
record vote on a pending amendment. The proceedings on Mar. 14, 
1975,(4) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 6707, 6708, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Neal Smith (Ia.).

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

[[Page 11683]]

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a 
    recorded vote and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: I am told Mr. Chairman, that you are 
    not honoring my point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair has counted 21 Members to this point.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: The Members will be seated. The Chair is counting 
    for a quorum.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, another point of order. I 
    do not want to confuse anyone here. I would ask the Chair this: Is 
    it true that if 21 Members are standing, that is a sufficient 
    number on which to base a rollcall vote and we would then avoid the 
    necessity of demanding a quorum? It obviously is not here anyway.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Arizona withdrawing his 
    point of no quorum?
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: No. I am just asking if there are 21 
    Members who responded to my demand for a rollcall, which I coupled 
    very cleverly with a point of order that a quorum was not present, 
    that is sufficient if 20 were standing, but the Chair announced 
    that 21 were standing.
        The Chairman: The point of no quorum must be disposed of first.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Even though the demand preceded the 
    point of order?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: This is very interesting. I want all 
    the Members to remember that.
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    gentleman will yield, I ask him to withdraw it and I will support 
    his request for a vote and we will thereby save time.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: All right. I think it is going to work 
    out.
        The Chairman: Sixty-eight Members are present, evidently not a 
    quorum.
        The Chair announces that he will vacate proceedings under the 
    call when a quorum of the committee appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: One hundred and two Members have appeared. A 
    quorum of the Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to rule 
    XXIII, clause 2, further proceedings under the call shall be 
    considered as vacated.
        The Committee will resume its business.
        The pending business is a demand for a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

Motion To Rise Preferential

Sec. 33.14 In Committee of the Whole, a motion that the Committee rise 
    takes preference over a demand for a recorded vote on a pending 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 5, 1980,(6) during consideration in Committee of 
the

[[Page 11684]]

Whole of H.R. 3829, a bill dealing with International Financial 
Institutions, an amendment to a pending amendment was agreed to by a 
voice vote. An opponent of the amendment then asked for a recorded 
vote, and pending that, made a point of order that a quorum was not 
present. The manager of the bill, Mr. Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas, then 
moved that the Committee rise. A demand for a recorded vote and a point 
of no quorum were made after the Chair announced that the affirmative 
position prevailed on the motion to rise. The Chair declined to 
entertain the point of no quorum, since the motion that the Committee 
rise does not require a quorum for adoption. The proceedings were as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 126 Cong. Rec. 4801, 4802, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Cavanaugh) to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Robert Duncan (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
    pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio demand a recorded 
    vote and make the point of order that a quorum is not present under 
    the motion for the Committee to rise?
        Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a quorum 
    is not required on a preferential motion that the Committee rise.
        Does any Member join in the demand for a recorded vote? The 
    Chair will count. Twelve Members have arisen, an insufficient 
    number.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    a division.
        The Chairman: On the motion that the Committee do now rise?
        Mr. Rousselot: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, may I ask of the distinguished 
    Chairman what the motion is?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    motion is a preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Gonzalez) that the Committee do now rise. A division has been 
    demanded.
        The Chair will now count for a division.

[[Page 11685]]

        On a division (demanded by Mr. Ashbrook) there were--ayes 15, 
    noes 14.
        So the motion was agreed to.

Sec. 33.15 Where the preferential motion to rise takes precedence over 
    a pending request for a recorded vote, and the Committee rises, the 
    request for a recorded vote remains pending business when the 
    Committee of the Whole resumes consideration of the bill.

    On July 15, 1981,(8) before putting the question on a 
preferential motion that the Committee rise, Chairman Paul Simon, of 
Illinois, stated the parliamentary situation as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 27 Cong. Rec. 15921, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hillis).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    a recorded vote.
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, is the vote on the motion to rise 
    or is it a vote on the Hillis amendment?
        The Chairman: This is the vote on the motion to rise.
        The request of the gentleman from New York to have a recorded 
    vote will be pending when we go into the Committee of the Whole 
    tomorrow.
        Mr. Stratton: The request for a recorded vote on the Hillis 
    amendment will be the first order of business tomorrow?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Price) that the Committee do now rise.
        The motion was agreed to.

When Timely

Sec. 33.16 Generally, a demand for a recorded vote is timely if made 
    before other business intervenes.

    On Oct. 5, 1994,(9) the House was considering the 
American Heritage Areas Partnership Program Act in Committee of the 
Whole. Pending was an amendment offered by Mr. W. J. Tauzin, of 
Louisiana, and a perfecting amendment thereto offered by Mr. Nick J. 
Rahall, of West Virginia. When the question was put on the perfecting 
amendment, Chairman Robert Menendez, of New Jersey, announced that the 
ayes had it on a voice vote. Mr. Tauzin, momentarily distracted in a 
conversation with a colleague, failed to stand

[[Page 11686]]

immediately to ask for a recorded vote but when he insisted, the Chair 
permitted his demand to be entertained since there had been no 
intervening business. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Tauzin: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        Mr. Rahall: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Rahall: Mr. Chairman, how long a time does one have after a 
    vote has been declared one way or another?
        The Chairman: There had been no intervening business when the 
    gentleman from Louisiana, who was standing, asked for a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

When Untimely

Sec. 33.17 It is too late to demand a recorded vote on an amendment 
    agreed to by the House by voice vote after the Speaker has put the 
    question on engrossment and third reading of the bill.

    On July 19, 1973,(10) certain Members having requested 
separate votes on three amendments proposed by the Committee of the 
Whole to a bill (H.R. 8860) to amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 
1970, the House rejected the first, while agreeing to the second and 
third. The other of the Committee's recommended amendments having been 
agreed to en gross, the Speaker (11) put the question on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 24965, 24966, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
12. When the House votes affirmatively on the ``engrossment and third 
        reading of the bill,'' it is voting on the final language of 
        the bill. An ``engrossed bill,'' itself, is the final copy of 
        the measure as passed by the House; it includes all amendments 
        which emanated from the floor, and is certified to by the Clerk 
        of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the taking of the question and the Chair's announcement that 
the ayes appeared to have it, Mr. Wilmer Mizell, of North Carolina, 
made the following parliamentary inquiries:

        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is would the 
    Chair restate the vote on the previous Bergland amendment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair announced that 
    the ayes had it.

[[Page 11687]]

        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mizell: This means that the Bergland amendment carried; is 
    that correct?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Mizell: On that, Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
        The Speaker: The gentleman waited much too long.
        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet. Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a recorded vote. I was on my feet.
        The Speaker: The Chair has put the question on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

Sec. 33.18 The demand for a recorded vote on the passage of a bill is 
    not timely if the Member making the demand is not on his feet 
    seeking recognition for that purpose when the Chair announces the 
    result of a voice vote on passage and states that the bill is 
    passed, and a motion to reconsider has been laid on the table. 
    However, it is certainly within the province of the Chair to 
    recognize for a unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings 
    on passage and thereby set the stage for putting the question on 
    passage a second time so a recorded vote can be demanded.

    Where a controversial measure had been passed by unanimous consent, 
no Member having sought a roll call vote in a timely manner, the bill 
manager withdrew his objection to a unanimous-consent request to vacate 
the proceedings on passage so that a Member's right to demand a vote 
could be protected. The proceedings on Oct. 19, 1977,(13) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 34223, 34224, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Udall, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 1037) to require that a 
    percentage of U.S. oil imports be carried on U.S.-flag vessels, 
    pursuant to House Resolution 774, he reported the bill back to the 
    House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

        The Speaker: (14) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the 
    question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 11688]]

        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it. The bill was passed.
        The Speaker: A motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
        Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask for a recorded vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair waited and the gentleman did not ask at 
    the proper time. The Chair waited and no Member rose within the 
    proper time.
        Mr. McCloskey: I merely thought the Chair was speaking about 
    the third reading of the bill.
        The Speaker: We went through the third reading of the bill. The 
    only way the gentleman can get a vote is by a unanimous-consent 
    request.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have a 
    recorded vote.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to vacate 
    the proceedings whereby the bill was passed and the motion to 
    reconsider laid on the table? Does the gentleman make that request?
        Mr. McCloskey: I do, Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to 
    vacate the action of the House, set aside the proceedings and have 
    a record vote.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by 
    which the House apparently passed the bill.
        The Speaker: A motion to reconsider was laid on the table, 
    without objection.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet, seeking 
    recognition.
        The Speaker: The gentleman was not seeking recognition when the 
    question was put on final passage. The Chair looked in that 
    direction, expecting that someone would rise, and no Member rose. 
    The Chair has been expeditiously fair on this matter, anticipating 
    that somebody would rise, and nobody rose.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Maryland?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the Chair in the 
    Chair's statement. The gentleman from Maryland was watching the 
    proceedings, and at no time did any Member rise to request a vote. 
    The Chair waited for a period of time, and no request was made.
        But I would also make this observation: In view of the 
    controversy and the charges that have surrounded this legislation, 
    it seems to me that the gen

[[Page 11689]]

    tleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) might want to reconsider his 
    objection to the request to rescind the proceedings and to allow a 
    vote. I think the subsequent public criticism that the House will 
    receive should we pass this controversial bill without a rollcall 
    vote will be far greater than any benefit that might be derived. 
    The honor of the House as an institution is at stake here. That is 
    only one Member's viewpoint, but the Chair was certainly within his 
    rights in his ruling but we should have a vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair respects the statement of the gentleman 
    from Maryland.
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. McCloskey).
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    165, nays 257, not voting 12, as follows: . . .

As Related to Vote by Division

Sec. 33.19 Where the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is counting 
    those standing on a vote by division, he will not entertain a 
    request for a recorded vote.

    Where Members in favor of a pending amendment have been asked to 
stand and remain standing while the Chair counts on a division vote, 
the vote cannot be interrupted by a demand for a recorded vote as the 
two issues may become confused. A ruling by Chairman William H. 
Natcher, of Kentucky, on June 10, 1975,(15) illustrates this 
point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 18048, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons).
        The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided.
        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a 
    recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair is counting, and a division vote in 
    progress cannot be interrupted by a demand for a recorded vote.
        The Chairman having announced that he was in doubt, and the 
    Committee having divided, there were--ayes 77, noes 66.
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

Withdrawal of Demand

Sec. 33.20 A demand for a recorded vote may be withdrawn before the 
    Chair begins to count Members supporting the demand, and unanimous 
    consent is not required.

    On Aug. 1, 1975, a bill entitled the Energy Conservation and Oil

[[Page 11690]]

Policy Act of 1975 was under consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole. After all debate had been limited and had expired on an 
amendment, the Chair put the question and when a recorded vote was 
demanded thereon, the Committee rose. When the Committee resumed 
consideration of the measure on Sept. 17, 1975,(16) a 
request was made that an additional four minutes of debate be permitted 
on the amendment, equally divided between the two parties. The Chair 
reminded Members that a recorded vote had been demanded but that if the 
demand were withdrawn, he would then entertain a request for additional 
debate time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 28904, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) When the Committee rose on 
    Friday, August 1, 1975, all time for debate on title III of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and all 
    amendments thereto had expired and there was pending the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to title III on 
    which a recorded vote had been requested by the gentleman from 
    Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the Clerk will again read the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections 
        301, 302, 303.
            Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, it is my recollection that at the 
    time the Committee rose, as the Chair has just indicated to us, we 
    had under consideration, as the Chair has pointed out, the Brown 
    amendment which provided for the striking, as I recall it, of three 
    sections: Section 301, section 302, and section 303, as amended. Am 
    I correct on that, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: The gentleman goes well beyond the parliamentary 
    inquiry. The Chair can state that that is correct.
        Mr. [Clarence] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman is, 
    Would it be in order at this point while the vote is pending to ask 
    unanimous consent of the House that 2 minutes may be granted on 
    either side of the aisle for a discussion at this point of the 
    pending vote?
        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order only if the 
    gentleman first withdrew his request for a recorded vote.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 11691]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Would that request for a recorded vote then 
    be in order following the discussion of the pending vote?
        The Chairman: The gentleman could again request a recorded 
    vote.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, then I ask unanimous consent 
    to withdraw my request for a recorded vote at this point.
        The Chairman: That does not require unanimous consent. The 
    gentleman withdraws his request for a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman now ask unanimous consent for debate time?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I do, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent 
    that 2 minutes be granted on either side of the aisle, 2 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 2 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) to discuss the pending vote.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
    think we can do this in 1 minute, if the gentleman would ask 
    unanimous consent for 1 minute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 1 
    minute be granted to the Democratic side in the hands of the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 1 minute to the 
    Republican side to be in the hands of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Brown).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 33.21 Withdrawal of a demand for a recorded vote has also been 
    permitted where the Chair had counted for a second but had not 
    announced the numbers supporting the demand.

    On Sept. 27, 1978,(18) Chairman Barbara Jordan, of 
Texas, permitted a ``by right'' withdrawal of a demand for a recorded 
vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 32053, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . Pending before the House is an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) to an amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel), and the 
    pending business is the demand of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Harsha) for a recorded vote.
        All those Members in favor of taking the vote on this amendment 
    by a recorded vote will please rise and remain standing until they 
    are counted.
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote.
        Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: Madam Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that since she has not 
    announced the count of those requesting a recorded vote, the Member 
    requesting the recorded vote may withdraw the request without 
    unanimous consent. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) 
    withdraw his request?
        Mr. Harsha: Madam Chairman, I withdraw my request for a 
    recorded vote.

[[Page 11692]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) withdraws 
    his request for a recorded vote.
        Mr. Harsha: Madam Chairman, I just want to make certain I am 
    not withdrawing my amendment. I am withdrawing my request for a 
    recorded vote.
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Madam Chairman, on that 
    I demand a division.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Howard) there were--ayes 60, 
    noes 2.
        So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel), as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Sec. 33.22 A recorded vote which was underway when the electronic 
    system failed was discontinued when the Member who had made the 
    request for a recorded vote asked unanimous consent to withdraw his 
    demand so the House would not have to undertake a more protracted 
    vote on the issue by roll call.

    On May 31, 1984,(19) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole, having directed the Clerk to call the roll for a recorded 
vote where the electronic voting system had failed during the vote, 
entertained a unanimous-consent request, by the Member who had 
requested the recorded vote in the first instance, to vacate the 
proceedings whereby the requisite number of Members had seconded the 
demand for the vote and to withdraw the demand. The Chair's prior 
statement that the amendment had been agreed to on a division vote was 
then controlling. The proceedings described were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 130 Cong. Rec. 14616, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Frenzel) there were--ayes 18, noes 24.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device.

                        announcement by the chairman

        The Chairman: The Chair desires to make an announcement. 
    Because of a technical malfunction, obvious to all of us, it will 
    be necessary to repeat this vote by a rollcall of the Members. The 
    Chair therefore requests all Members to take their seats, and the 
    Clerk will call the roll.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) seek recognition?
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, in view of all that has happened here, 
    I ask

[[Page 11693]]

    unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings and to withdraw my 
    request for a rollcall vote.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair will announce that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) was 
    rejected on a division vote.

Conditional Withdrawal of Demand

Sec. 33.23 Where a demand for a recorded vote is pending, it may be 
    withdrawn by the maker, but it is not in order to condition its 
    withdrawal on a modification in the motion on which the vote is 
    being taken.

    Where there was pending a motion to close debate on a pending 
amendment and all amendments thereto, a Member demanded a recorded vote 
on that motion. The Member making the demand then suggested that he 
would withdraw it if the original motion to limit debate were modified. 
Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, then stated that the demand for the 
recorded vote must be disposed of by a vote or by its withdrawal, but 
that it had to be disposed of before there could be a modification to 
the underlying motion to limit debate. Following a quorum call, the 
proceedings of July 8, 1975,(1) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 21627, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . At the time the quorum call was requested, 
    there was pending a motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
    (Mr. Steiger) to limit all debate on the Hebert amendment and all 
    amendments thereto to 10 minutes to 5. The request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan was also pending for a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman still insist upon his request?

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for me to 
    withdraw my demand if a unanimous-consent request were made by the 
    chairman of the subcommittee handling the legislation to limit time 
    solely on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton)?
        The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman that first we 
    must dispose of the motion.
        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hebert: May I inquire as to what the gentleman's motion 
    was?
        The Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Arizona was to 
    limit debate on the amendment of the gen

[[Page 11694]]

    tleman from Louisiana and all amendments thereto to 10 minutes to 
    5.
        Does the gentleman insist on his demand for a recorded vote at 
    this point?
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have no choice but to insist on it 
    unless someone will make another request.
        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent to withdraw my motion.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the pending amendment cease within 5 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Montana to limit debate on the Stratton amendment?
        There was no objection.

Yeas and Nays

Sec. 33.24 While a demand for the yeas and nays, once seconded by one-
    fifth of those present, cannot be withdrawn, the House may, by 
    unanimous consent, vacate the proceedings and take the vote de 
    novo.

    On Mar. 6, 1978,(2) during the consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 578, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 5715, 5716, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lehman) that the 
    House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
    578).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: 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 
    3, rule XXVII, and the Chair's prior announcement, further 
    proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
        Debate has been concluded on all motions to suspend the rules.
        Pursuant to clause 3, rule XXVII, the Chair will now put the 
    question on each motion, on which further proceedings were 
    postponed, in the order in which that motion was entertained.
        Votes will be taken in the following order:
        House Joint Resolution 715, by the yeas and nays; and House 
    Joint Resolution 578, by the yeas and nays.
        The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic 
    votes after the first such vote in this series.
        The unfinished business is the question of suspending the rules 
    and passing the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 715).
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lehman) that the House suspend 
    the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 715), on which 
    the yeas and nays are ordered.
        The Chair observes that the electronic voting system is 
    temporarily inoperative.

[[Page 11695]]

        In view of that fact, the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 349, nays 7, not 
    voting 78. . . .
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the House vacate the proceedings whereby the 
    yeas and nays were ordered on House Joint Resolution 578, 
    authorizing the President to proclaim the third week of May of 1978 
    and 1979 as National Architectural Barrier Awareness Week.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lehman) that the House suspend 
    the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 578).
        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the rules were suspended and the joint resolution was 
    passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 34. Taking the Vote

Ordering a Recorded Vote--The Old ``Two-step'' Rule

Sec. 34.1 One-fifth of a quorum in the House orders that a vote be 
    taken by recorded vote.

    On Nov. 4, 1971,(4) a separate vote having been demanded 
in the House on an amendment to a bill (H.R. 7248) to amend and extend 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts dealing with higher 
education, the Speaker (5) put the question on the amendment 
and a demand for the yeas and nays was heard. Mrs. Edith S. Green, of 
Oregon, who had made the demand then inquired of the Chair as to 
whether it was possible to ask for tellers with clerks. When the Chair 
replied in the affirmative Mrs. Green withdrew her other request 
(6) and demanded tellers; they were ordered and the 
following proceedings then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 39352, 39353, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 6. Unanimous consent is not required in the House to withdraw a demand 
        for the yeas and nays before the demand has been supported by 
        one-fifth of those present. The situation is different, 
        however, where the demand has been supported; see Sec. 24.8, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I demand tellers with clerks 
    [more than one-fifth of a quorum then seconded Mrs. Green's 
    demand.]
        Tellers with clerks were ordered; and the Speaker appointed as 
    tellers Mr. Erlenborn, Mrs. Green of Oregon, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. 
    Quie.
        The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 186, noes 181, not voting 64. . . .

[[Page 11696]]

    The Members' names having been recorded in accordance with their 
positions on the issue, this marked the first instance of a recorded 
teller vote.

New Single-step Rule

Sec. 34.2 Pursuant to the rules adopted in the 93d Congress, one-fifth 
    of a quorum in the House may support a single demand for a 
    ``recorded vote'' (in lieu of the two-step demand for tellers and 
    then for tellers with clerks), and the Chair may, in his 
    discretion, direct that the vote be taken by electronic device.

    On Feb. 7, 1973,(7) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 2107) to require the Secretary 
of Agriculture to carry out the rural environmental assistance program, 
the Chairman (8) put the question on an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended. The question was taken; and the 
Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 3707, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter the following exchange and request took place:

        Mr. [Wilmer] Mizell [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman demand a recorded vote?
        Mr. Mizell: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: As the Chair understands, the new procedure in 
    the House is that the demand is for a recorded vote.

    One-fifth of a quorum having supported the demand, the recorded 
vote was ordered.

        The Chairman: . . . The vote will be taken by electronic 
    device.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 34.3 Pursuant to the rules, recorded votes may be conducted by 
    clerks in the discretion of the Chair (when the electronic voting 
    system is inoperative).

    On July 11, 1973,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration an amendment to a bill (H.R. 8860) to amend and 
extend the Agricultural Act of 1970. The question on the amendment was 
taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 23156, 23157, 23161, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, the proponent of 
the amendment, demanded a recorded vote, and the following exchange 
took place:

        The Chairman: (11) A recorded vote has been 
    demanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

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

[[Page 11697]]

        The Chair would like first to advise the Members that the 
    electronic device is not working at this time. A recorded vote will 
    require tellers on either side of the aisle, as the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) knows.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Iowa insist upon his request?
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

    Tellers were refused (less than 20 Members rising to second the 
request) so the amendment was rejected.
    Later during consideration of the same measure, Mr. Silvio O. 
Conte, of Massachusetts, offered an amendment on which he subsequently 
demanded a recorded vote. A sufficient number of Members supporting 
this demand, the vote was taken by clerks pursuant to the Chairman's 
discretionary authority in light of the inoperative state of the 
electronic voting system.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 35. Time To Respond on a Vote

    When the electronic device is utilized to record a vote, Members 
are allowed a minimum of 15 minutes to respond; unless the Chair has 
utilized his authority to cluster and reduce votes to five minutes 
under clause 5(b) of Rule I. It is within the discretion of the Chair, 
following the expiration of the minimum time, how much longer to leave 
the voting stations open.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Voting times have been extended by the Chair for a variety of 
        reasons, for instance, where Members are at a meeting at the 
        White House or engaged in some ceremony that has delayed their 
        attendance. In one instance, a recorded vote was left open for 
        over an hour while the leadership on both sides of the aisle 
        were determining the next item to be on the legislative agenda. 
        See Roll Call Number 412, 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 19, 1994, which remained pending for a total of 73 
        minutes.
            In the 104th Congress, the ``cus-tomary time'' for 
        permitting Members to respond was announced to be ``as soon as 
        possible'' after the 15 minutes permitted by the rule. 
        Seventeen became accepted as an appropriate maximum time and 
        has since been generally accepted as the norm. The Chair often 
        announces that ``this will be a 17-minute vote'' when the bells 
        are rung. See 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Feb. 10, 1995.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifteen-minute Minimum

Sec. 35.1 The Chair indicated that under the then-existing rules, 
    Members were entitled to a minimum of 12 [now 15]

[[Page 11698]]

    minutes to vote on a recorded vote; at the conclusion of that time 
    the Chair ascertains whether Members are in the Chamber who desire 
    to vote before announcing the result.

    On Sept. 16, 1971,(14) a recorded teller vote having 
been ordered on an amendment to a bill (H.R. 1746) concerning equal 
employment opportunity, clerks took their positions and Members 
deposited tally cards in the appropriate boxes; and, at the conclusion 
of the vote, the Chairman (15) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 32111, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Brock Adams (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Twelve minutes (16) have expired. Are there any 
    Members in the Chamber who have not voted and wish to vote?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Effective Jan. 3, 1973, the minimum time limit became 15 minutes; 
        see Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, 
engaged in a brief discussion with the Chair as to the fundamental 
nature of the time limit, as follows:

        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, does not the rule 
    explicitly state that the 12 [now 15] minutes is the minimum? So, 
    there is no 12-minute expiration. Any Member may vote so long as he 
    is in the Chamber before the final report is made; is that not 
    correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair has so ruled.
        Is there any Member in the Chamber who has not voted but who 
    wishes to vote?
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: It is definite, then, that there is 
    no maximum time limitation on a record teller vote?
        The Chairman: Not until the vote is so announced.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A recorded teller vote by nonelectronic 
means having been ordered, the proper procedure for recording or 
changing votes after the completion of the count, is as follows:
    (1) LMembers who voted may change their votes by depositing 
corrected tally cards prior to the Chair's announcement of the result 
without unanimous consent.
    (2) LMembers indicating a desire to vote who are in the Chamber and 
have not been recorded may vote prior to the Chair's announcement of 
the result, and unanimous consent is not required.

[[Page 11699]]

    (3) LMembers who voted but were incorrectly recorded may change 
their votes after the Chair's announcement of the result by unanimous 
consent (and only by unanimous consent) providing no further business 
has intervened. (The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent 
request to change a vote taken by electronic device.
    (4) LMembers who have not voted prior to the Chair's announcement 
of the result may only be recorded as ``present'' thereafter (before 
further business intervenes), and may not vote ``aye'' or ``no'' even 
by unanimous consent.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For more detail, see Sec. 40, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Announcement of the Result

Sec. 35.2 Pursuant to the rules, Members have a minimum of 15 minutes 
    from the time of the ordering of a recorded vote to be in the 
    Chamber, and Members who are in the Chamber at the expiration of 
    that time will be permitted to vote prior to the announcement of 
    the result by the Chair.

    On Oct. 13, 1972,(18) the House adopted a resolution (H. 
Res. 1123) (19) as amended, which mandated certain 
prospective changes in House rules for the purpose of introducing an 
electronic voting system. Among those provisions affected were Rules I, 
VIII, XV, and XXIII. Pursuant to the resolution's final form upon 
adoption, the changes were to take effect ``immediately before noon on 
Jan. 3, 1973.'' (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 36012, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Significant excerpts from H. Res. 1123 may be found at Sec. 31.1, 
        supra.
20. Thus such changes technically became part of the rules of the 92d 
        Congress, without actually being operable during that Congress, 
        and could be incorporated by reference as rules of the 93d 
        Congress merely by adopting 92d Congress rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whereas Rule I clause 5 previously limited Members to 12 minutes 
(1) within which to be counted after the naming of tellers 
with clerks,(2) House Resolu

[[Page 11700]]

tion 1123 extended this period to ``not less than fifteen minutes to be 
counted from the ordering of the recorded vote or the ordering of 
clerks to tell the vote.'' Moreover, in accordance with the traditional 
interpretation of the words, ``to be counted,'' Members in the Chamber 
upon the expiration of the minimum time limit are permitted to vote 
prior to the Chair's announcement of the result--as the following 
exchange (3) indicates:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule I clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 630 (1971).
 2. The phrase, ``tellers with clerks,'' as a parliamentary term of art 
        has been supplanted by the use of the words, ``recorded vote.'' 
        While a recorded vote may certainly be taken, if necessary, by 
        nonelectronic means, the change in the wording tends to 
        underscore the newly streamlined one-step procedure of Rule I 
        clause 5, as amended by H. Res. 1123. For additional details as 
        to this change, see Sec. 31.1 and Sec. 17, supra.
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 36006, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        MR. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: . . . I would just like to ask 
    the gentleman [Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio] this question: On the 
    time clock over here, does the board automatically go off when the 
    time limit has expired?

        Mr. Hays: No, it does not. It does not go off until it is 
    locked out up at the Speaker's desk.
        Mr. Boggs: So that means we now have 1 or, rather, 1\1/2\ 
    minutes to vote. May I ask, when it becomes zero, then how long is 
    it open there at the desk?
        Mr. Hays: When it comes to zero, the Speaker will bang down his 
    gavel and will say, ``All time has expired,'' or ``Are there any 
    Members in the Chamber who desire to vote?'' It is just like we do 
    it now on a teller vote. If there are any who desire to vote, he 
    will give them a minute or two more to do so, and then he will lock 
    the machine out, and that is the end of it.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. It should be noted that the ``locking out'' of the system--the 
        termination of the electronic vote--does not actually preclude 
        a Member from casting or changing a vote prior to the Chair's 
        announcement of the result. While the electronic system itself 
        will no longer record a vote after the system is closed down, 
        Members may still change or cast their votes by entering the 
        well and depositing with the Clerk a card intended for such 
        use. Thus, the critical cutoff point remains the Chair's 
        announcement of the result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.3 It is the responsibility of the Chair at the expiration of 12 
    [now 15] minutes to ascertain whether Members are in the Chamber 
    who desire to vote on a recorded vote before announcing the result; 
    but Members may not be recorded thereafter even by unanimous 
    consent.

    On Sept. 30, 1971,(5) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
10351) to provide for the continuation of programs authorized under the 
Economic Opportunities Act of 1964, and for other purposes. In the 
course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, 
offered an amendment to an amendment previously offered by Mr. John 
Brademas, of Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 34270, 34284, 34290, 34291, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate, the Chair (6) put the question, and, 
tellers with

[[Page 11701]]

clerks having been ordered, there were--ayes 226, noes 158, not voting 
48. The Chairman then announced that the amendment to the amendment was 
agreed to. Immediately thereafter, the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I was in the 
    Chamber before the Chair announced the vote. Is it too late to cast 
    my vote?
        The Chairman: It is now too late since the vote has been 
    announced.
        Mr. Latta: Well, Mr. Chairman, had I been here I would have 
    voted ``no.''
        Mrs. [Margaret M.] Heckler of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I 
    wish to state that had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

    Mr. Latta and Mrs. Heckler were officially recorded as ``not 
voting.''

Sec. 35.4 It is too late for a Member to cast a recorded vote after the 
    Chair has announced the result of the vote.

    On May 12, 1971,(7) a recorded teller vote (with Member 
tellers) having been taken on an amendment to a bill (H.R. 8190) 
providing for supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1971, the Chairman (8) himself having voted by 
sending a signed tally card to the appropriate tellers, then announced 
that the amendment was agreed to by a vote of 201-195. Immediately 
thereafter, the following exchange transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 14584, 14585, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William J.] Green of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I vote 
    ``no.''
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that his vote comes too late. The Chair has announced 
    the vote by tellers with clerks.
        Mr. Green of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I was here before, and 
    I had my hand up before the Chair announced the vote. I was trying 
    to be recognized.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that the gentleman cannot be recorded as voting 
    ``no.''

Sec. 35.5 It is too late for a Member to vote on a recorded vote after 
    the Chair has announced the result, although that Member states 
    that he was in the Chamber prior to the announcement.

    On Sept. 30, 1971,(9) during consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 10351) to provide for a continuation of programs authorized under 
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 in the Committee of the Whole, a 
recorded teller vote was ordered on an amendment, the vote was

[[Page 11702]]

taken and the Chair announced the result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 34291, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange transpired:

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I was in the 
    Chamber before the Chair announced the vote. Is it too late to cast 
    my vote?
        The Chairman: (10) It is now too late since the vote 
    has been announced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 36. Casting Votes After the Roll Call; Effect of Announcement of 
    Result

In General

Sec. 36.1 A Member may not be recorded on a yea and nay vote after the 
    result of the vote has been announced.

    On Mar. 29, 1962,(11) after a roll call vote on a bill 
(H.R. 10650) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Mr. Carroll D. 
Kearns, of Pennsylvania, rose to address the Chair with the following 
statement:

        Mr. Kearns: Mr. Speaker, I was standing behind the rail 
    eulogizing our great Speaker after Drew Pearson's article about 
    him. I was here and qualify and vote ``no'' on the last vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 5432, 5438, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) The Chair regrets that the 
    gentleman cannot be recorded after the vote has been announced. The 
    gentleman can state for the Record that he would have voted ``no.'' 
    (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
13. See also 87 Cong. Rec. 7075, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 12, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Presence in Chamber

Sec. 36.2 A Member who is present in the Chamber but fails to cast his 
    vote cannot be recorded after the announcement of the result.

    On July 18, 1967,(14) after a roll call vote on a bill 
(H.R. 11456) making appropriations for the Department of 
Transportation, Mr. William L. Scott, of Virginia, rose and addressed 
the Chair as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 19274, 19300, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman will 
    state it.
        Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I was here when the vote was taken on 
    the final passage of the bill appropriating funds for the 
    Department of Transportation, and I intended to vote ``yea'' on 
    that bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I voted. My vote is not 
    recorded.
        Can I at this time, having been present on the floor, cast my 
    vote in the affirmative?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman he 
    cannot do that, since the result on the vote has already been 
    announced.

[[Page 11703]]

Sec. 36.3 A Member who was in the Chamber but who did not respond 
    during a roll call vote may not be recorded after the Chair has 
    announced the result.

    On June 1, 1972,(16) after a roll call (17) 
vote on a bill (H.R. 13918) to provide improved financing for the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Mr. Walter Flowers, of Alabama, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 19485, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. The vote was conducted pursuant to Rule XV. See Rule XV, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 765-774(b) (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Speaker, on the last vote I was in the 
    Chamber, and desire to be recorded.
        The Speaker: Did the gentleman answer when his name was called?
        Mr. Flowers: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not. I did not realize the 
    rollcall had been completed.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot qualify after the result of 
    the vote has been announced unless he can state he answered.
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Speaker, had I qualified I would have voted 
    ``yea.''

Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 36.4 After the announcement of the result of a vote, a Member may 
    not be recorded, even by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 12, 1959,(18) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (S. 50) to 
provide for the admission of the state of Hawaii into the Union. 
Following debate thereon, the Speaker put the question on its passage, 
the question was taken; and (the yeas and nays having been ordered), 
there were--yeas 323, nays 89, not voting 22. The result of the vote 
was announced, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 4006, 4038, 4039, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, initiated 
the following proceedings:

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I was in the well and I ask that my 
    name be recorded as voting in the affirmative.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman cannot be recorded 
    after the announcement of the vote unless he voted during the 
    rollcall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    Record be revised. I was standing here in the well.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot be recorded by unanimous 
    consent, if he did not vote. If the gentleman voted and wants to 
    correct the Record and say that he is not recorded, he may do that 
    but he cannot be recorded as voting if he did not 
    vote.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. A similar request was also denied where a Member had remained in 
        his seat during the roll call, but was conferring with another 
        Member and neglected to vote. See 106 Cong. Rec. 10206, 86th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., May 12, 1960.

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

[[Page 11704]]

Sec. 36.5 The Speaker has refused to recognize a Member for the purpose 
    of offering a unanimous-consent request that certain other Members 
    who were absent for a record vote on the preceding day be permitted 
    to have their votes recorded, belatedly.

    On Mar. 16, 1971,(1) the House voted to agree to the 
conference report on a bill (H.R. 4690) raising the public debt limit. 
A joint res-olution (H.J. Res. 465) making a supplemental appropriation 
for the Department of Labor was also passed on the same day. A number 
of Members, desirous of voting on both measures, were absent because 
they were under the impression that neither question would be put that 
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 6742, 6746, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, on Mar. 17, 1971,(2) Mr. Leslie C. Arends, 
of Illinois, addressed the Speaker with the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 6809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Arends: At this particular time I have no intention of 
    pointing my finger at any one or of being personally critical. 
    However, let me state that last Thursday I was privileged to ask 
    the majority leader what the legislative program would be for this 
    week. He carefully informed me, after which I sent such notice to 
    the Members on our side of the aisle, just as they did on the 
    majority side.
        Particularly noticeable was this statement:
        ``Tuesday: Private Calendar. No bills.''
        At the bottom of the list there was no such statement that 
    conference reports could be called up at any time. All Members 
    relied on such information and accordingly 70 Members were not in 
    attendance for one reason or another when two rollcalls were taken. 
    Many of our Members have now called me, rather critical of the fact 
    that we had sent this information to them and they were not here.
        Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I want to at this time do something 
    unprecedented, very much unprecedented. I am now going to ask 
    unanimous consent of the House of Representatives to permit any 
    absentee yesterday, in view of the fact that they were misinformed, 
    to cast their vote on the two bills that passed this House 
    yesterday.
        The Speaker: (3) The Chair will not recognize the 
    gentleman for that purpose.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 4. For a comparable instance, see 94 Cong. Rec. 1008, 80th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 3, 1948, where a Member similarly sought unanimous 
        consent to be recorded after announcement of the vote but 
        encountered objection thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Signal Bells Failed To Ring

Sec. 36.6 The Speaker has declined to recognize a Member

[[Page 11705]]

    seeking unanimous consent to be recorded after the result of a roll 
    call vote was announced--despite such Member's assertion that the 
    signal bells failed to ring in his office.

    On June 9, 1938,(5) the House entertained consideration 
of a resolution (H. Res. 482) pertaining to a contested New Hampshire 
election in the 75th Congress. The resolution having been divided into 
its substantive clauses, the House agreed to the first resolve which 
denied the seat to one of the contestants and proceeded to vote on the 
second resolve which granted the seat to the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 8660-62, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the first resolve, the yeas and nays were demanded on the 
second portion of the resolution, and the demand was supported by a 
sufficient number of Members. This resolve was also agreed to, and the 
result of the vote was announced.
    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, addressed 
the Speaker with the following statement:

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, the bells did not ring on the first roll 
    call.(6) In view of that fact, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Knutson, and I may be 
    permitted to vote ``nay'' on the first roll call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Mr. Fish was referring, here, to the roll call vote on the first 
        resolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) The Chair cannot entertain a 
    unanimous-consent request for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: I want the Record to show we would have voted 
    ``nay.''
        The Speaker: The Chair will, of course, recognize the gentleman 
    to state how he would have voted had he been present.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also Sec. 41, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Electronic bell system error has never 
historically been held to constitute a permissible reason for failure 
to cast a particular vote in time. Prior to its amendment in 1969, Rule 
XV, as enforced, required that ``. . . a Member who had failed to 
respond on either the first or second call of the roll could not be 
recorded before the announcement of the result [citations omitted] 
unless he `qualified' by declaring that he had been within the Hall, 
listening, when his name should have been called and failed to hear it 
[citations omitted], and then only on the theory that his name may have 
been inadvertently omitted by the Clerk [citation omitted].'' 
(9) As a result, there were several instances of Members 
seeking to

[[Page 11706]]

qualify after missing the call of their names on the ground that the 
signal bells in their offices failed to ring. The requests were denied, 
however, unless the circumstances fell within the confines of the 
narrowly-prescribed exception.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 765 (1995).
10. See, for example, 103 Cong. Rec. 13365, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
        1, 1957; and 94 Cong. Rec. 7161, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 
        1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 37. Changing Incorrectly Recorded Votes Prior to Announcement of 
    Result

Deleting Vote Attributed to Absent Colleague; Use of Unanimous Consent

Sec. 37.1 A Member, ascertaining that an absent colleague had been 
    inadvertently recorded on a roll call vote, had the vote deleted by 
    unanimous consent.

    On June 13, 1963,(11) the House voted on a bill (H.R. 
6755) to provide a one-year extension of certain corporate tax rates 
and excise tax rates. Immediately thereafter and before the result of 
the vote was announced, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, initiated the 
following exchange with the Speaker: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 10870, 10871, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, how is the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Ryan] recorded?
        The Tally Clerk: He voted ``aye.''
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Ryan] is unavoidably detained elsewhere on official business. I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Record be corrected accordingly.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.

    No objection being voiced, the Record was corrected accordingly.

Sec. 37.2 The Minority Leader, by unanimous consent, corrected a roll 
    call vote to delete an erroneously recorded absent colleague's 
    vote.

    On Aug. 12, 1963,(13) the House voted on a motion to 
recommit a bill (H.R. 7525) relating to crime and criminal procedure in 
the District of Columbia. Shortly thereafter, but prior to the Chair's 
announcement of the result, Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, the 
Minority Leader, initiated the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 14758, 14759, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the 
    gentleman from North Dakota is recorded as having voted.

[[Page 11707]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman is 
    recorded as having voted ``yea.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I have checked with his office. We 
    looked to see whether the gentleman from North Dakota was here. I 
    am told by his office, he is not present. So I think the Record 
    should be corrected. If subsequently, it is determined that the 
    gentleman was here, the Record can be corrected by him. But, I 
    think in view of the present situation, it would be better that the 
    gentleman not be recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the rollcall will 
    be corrected accordingly.

    There being no objection, the correction was made.

Sec.  37.3 Where a colleague stated that a Member recorded as voting 
    ``nay'' was neither present nor in the city, the Speaker obtained 
    unanimous consent to correct the roll call prior to announcing the 
    result of the vote.

    On Mar. 22, 1944,(15) the House voted by the yeas and 
nays on an amendment to a bill (H.R. 3961) authorizing the 
construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on 
rivers and harbors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 90 Cong. Rec. 2927, 2928, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly after the vote and prior to the Chair's announcement of the 
result, the following exchange occurred:

        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: Mr. Speaker, how is the 
    gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. McLean] recorded?
        The Speaker: (16) He is recorded as voting ``nay.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I am certain there is an error, 
    inasmuch as Mr. McLean, as I understand, is not present and is not 
    in the city.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the roll call will be corrected 
    accordingly.

    There being no objection, the Record was so 
corrected.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For comparable instances, see Sec. 37.4, infra, where the Chair 
        corrected the vote without obtaining unanimous consent, and 96 
        Cong. Rec. 9002, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1950, where the 
        Member pointing out a similar error simultaneously sought 
        unanimous consent (which was granted) for the appropriate 
        correction. Such corrections are only permitted on roll call 
        votes based upon presumed clerical errors; and are not 
        permitted on votes by electronic device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleting Vote Attributed to Absent Colleague Without Unanimous Consent

Sec.  37.4 Where a Member informed the Chair that a colleague recorded 
    as voting ``yea'' was not then in the city and had left 
    instructions

[[Page 11708]]

    to be paired, the Speaker ordered the correction of the roll call 
    prior to announcing the result of the vote.

    On Oct. 18, 1945,(18) the House voted by the yeas and 
nays on an amendment to a bill (H.R. 3615) providing federal aid for 
the development of public airports and amending existing law relating 
to air-navigation facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 91 Cong. Rec. 9806, 9807, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly after the vote and prior to announcing the result, the 
Chair recognized Mr. Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, who 
initiated the following exchange:

        A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bulwinkle: Is the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Halleck, 
    recorded?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Halleck, is 
    recorded as voting ``aye.''
        Mr. Bulwinkle: I thought there was a mistake at the time. 
    Someone inadvertently answered to his name.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I 
    may say that the gentleman from Indiana is out of town and has a 
    pair ``aye.''
        The Speaker: The name of the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
    Halleck, will be taken off the roll call.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For comparable instances, see Sec. 37.3, supra, where the Chair 
        first sought unanimous consent prior to ordering a correction 
        in the vote, and 96 Cong. Rec. 9002, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        21, 1950, where the Member pointing out a similar error 
        simultaneously sought unanimous consent (which was granted) for 
        the appropriate correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notation of Change in Record

Sec.  37.5 Where a Member is incorrectly recorded on a roll call and 
    corrects his vote before the announcement of the result, the change 
    is noted in the Record and unanimous consent is not required.

    On Sept. 6, 1961,(1) the question was put on a motion to 
suspend the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 9000) to extend for two 
additional years the expired provisions of Public Laws 815 
(2) and 874, 81st Congress,(3) and the National 
Defense Education Act of 1958. Immediately after the vote, and before 
the announcement of the result, Mr. Peter F. Mack, Jr., of Il

[[Page 11709]]

linois, addressed the Chair and stated that he was incorrectly recorded 
and ``would like to be recorded as having voted `aye.' '' The result of 
the vote was announced a few moments later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 18256, 18257, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. A law providing for the construction of minimum school facilities 
        in impacted areas which was enacted in September 1950.
 3. A law authorizing cost of maintenance and operation, including 
        teachers' salaries, of minimum school facilities in impacted 
        areas; also enacted in September 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, I was incorrectly recorded on the last 
    rollcall. I am wondering if the Record will show that I was 
    incorrectly recorded or whether it will show that I changed my 
    vote.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All the Chair can state is that the 
    Record will show what actually transpired.
        Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
    recorded as having voted ``aye'' on the last rollcall.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that according to 
    the information given the Chair the gentleman is recorded as voting 
    ``aye.''

    The Chair's information was correct, and Mr. Mack's change of vote 
was noted and corrected in the permanent Record.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 38. Correction of Incorrectly Recorded Votes After Announcement of 
    Result

Permissibility

Sec. 38.1 The Chair does not pass upon the explanation a Member sets 
    forth as to how he was improperly recorded or how, though present 
    and having voted, he was not recorded. The Chair impugns the motive 
    of no Member. The Chair observed that while it is not permissible 
    to change a vote [after the announcement of the result] it is 
    permissible for a Member to correct the Record.

    On May 28, 1959,(5) the House granted a unanimous-
consent request that the permanent edition of the Record be corrected 
to show that Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, was present on a 
roll call vote taken the previous day and had voted ``aye.'' 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. See 105 Cong. Rec. 9184, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 27, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, rose to address the Chair as 
follows:

        Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 59 I am recorded as not voting. I 
    was present

[[Page 11710]]

    and voted ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that the Record and 
    Journal be corrected accordingly.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Mr. Fulton's statement will not be found in the permanent edition 
        since his unanimous-consent request was granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Roll Call No. 59 was a yea and nay vote on the passage of a bill 
(H.R. 7086) to extend the Renegotiation Act of 1951.(8) 
Following Mr. Fulton's request, the Speaker Pro Tempore (9) 
asked if there was any objection, and none being heard, the request was 
granted.(10) Accordingly, the permanent Record was so 
corrected.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 105 Cong. Rec. 9184, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 27, 1959.
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
10. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 9184, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 27, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the following exchange took place between Mr. 
Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, and the Speaker Pro Tempore: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 9335, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 28, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: I did not hear how the gentleman 
    stated he had voted. It is permissible to change a vote, on a 
    rollcall, a yea-and-nay vote? May a Member change from one to the 
    other the next day?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Of course it is not permissible to 
    change a vote, but it is permissible for a Member to correct the 
    Record.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: On the theory that the Clerk has 
    recorded it unaccurately?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not pass upon what 
    theory the gentleman says he was not recorded when he was present 
    and voted. The Chair impugns the motive of no Member.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On electronically recorded votes, the Chair 
will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to have the permanent 
Record corrected. See Sec. 32.2, supra.

Responsibility of Member To Be Present

Sec. 38.2 Where a Member who has been incorrectly recorded nevertheless 
    leaves the Chamber after voting, and is not present to correct his 
    vote at the time of a recapitulation, he undertakes sole 
    responsibility for such action.

    On Aug. 7, 1941,(14) the Clerk was directed to read a 
message from the President in which he explained his veto of a bill (S. 
1580) to supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, approved July 11,

[[Page 11711]]

1916, as amended and supplemented, to authorize appropriations during 
the national emergency declared by the President on May 27, 1941, for 
the immediate construction of roads urgently needed for the national 
defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 6886, 6895, 6896, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate on whether or not to override the President's 
veto, the Speaker (15) put the question; and, pursuant to 
constitutional mandate,(16) it was taken by the yeas and 
nays. The vote being close in the Chair's estimation, a recapitulation 
was undertaken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
16. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo E.] Allen of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Allen of Illinois: How could you have a correct analysis of 
    the vote if a Member were out of the Chamber now who had voted 
    ``nay'' and he is recorded as voting ``yea'' and he is not here to 
    correct it?
        The Speaker: That is not the business of anybody in the House 
    except the particular Member involved.

Sec. 38.3 A Member, temporarily unable to use his voice because of an 
    operation on his throat, submitted a roll call correction in 
    writing, without making the request in the well, pursuant to 
    arrangements with the Speaker; the Record carried the correction as 
    a unanimous-consent request.

    On May 21, 1968,(17) Mr. Glenn Cunningham, of Nebraska, 
sought a correction in the permanent Record of a roll call vote as to 
which he was improperly recorded as absent. Mr. Cunningham, however, 
was temporarily unable to use his voice because of an operation on his 
throat. By prior arrangement with the Speaker and because of the 
unusual circumstances, Mr. Cunningham was permitted to submit the 
desired correction in writing in lieu of making a unanimous-consent 
request from the well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Record (18) carried the correction as a unanimous-
consent request as the following excerpt indicates:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 140, on May 15, a 
    quorum call, I am recorded as absent. I was present and answered to 
    my name.
        I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record and Journal 
    be corrected accordingly.
        The Speaker: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Nebraska?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

[[Page 11712]]

    The permanent Record (20) was then revised accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 114 Cong. Rec. 13454, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 15, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.4 The Government Printing Office having erroneously printed on 
    a roll call the name of a deceased Member of the House, the 
    permanent Record was corrected, by unanimous consent, to delete the 
    name.

    On June 26, 1969,(1) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, initiated 
the following exchange with the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 91 there is a printing 
    error. The Government Printing Office has unfortunately listed the 
    name of our late colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
    Bates, among those Members responding on the rollcall.
        I therefore ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record be 
    corrected to delete his name.
        Agreement to this request would in no way change the result of 
    the vote as announced.
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    The roll call vote to which Mr. Gross referred (roll call No. 91), 
was on the passage of a resolution (H. Res. 357) to increase the number 
of clerks and the clerk-hire allowance for each Member. The vote had 
been taken the day before [June 25, 1969] (3) and the error 
was eventually traced to the Government Printing Office.(4) 
The permanent Record was corrected accordingly.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Cong. Rec. 17290, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. See 115 Cong. Rec. 17643, 17644, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 27, 
        1969, for an explanation as to how the error originated.
 5. See 115 Cong. Rec. 17290, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 25, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correcting Administrative Errors

Sec. 38.5 Where tally clerks have found an error in a previously 
    announced roll call count on the passage of a bill, the Speaker has 
    announced the corrected yea and nay vote later in the day.

    On Oct. 22, 1941,(6) the House voted on the passage of a 
bill (H.R. 146) to provide for trials of and judgments upon the issue 
of good behavior in the case of certain federal judges. A division 
having been demanded on the question, there were--ayes 62, noes 40. Mr. 
Clarence E. Hancock,

[[Page 11713]]

of New York, then objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was 
not present. The Speaker (7) sustained the point of order 
and directed the Clerk to call the roll. Following the roll call, the 
Chair announced that there were-yeas 124, nays 123; (8) so 
the bill was passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 87 Cong. Rec. 8168, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 8. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker made the following statement: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 87 Cong. Rec. 8169, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair announces the corrected vote on the bill (H.R. 146) 
    to provide for trials of and judgments upon the issue of good 
    behavior in the case of certain Federal judges. After the tally 
    clerks have rechecked the responses, the vote stands: Yeas, 124; 
    nays, 121.
        The bill is passed.

Sec. 38.6 The Speaker has requested and received unanimous consent to 
    correct the Journal and the Record where a copy of a roll call vote 
    sent to the Printing Office was found to be incorrect.

    On Feb. 12, 1942,(10) the Speaker (11) made 
the following statement in reference to a roll call vote on a bill 
(H.R. 6483) authorizing a $50 million appropriation to relieve an acute 
shortage of housing, public works, and equipment therefor in the 
District of Columbia area:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It seems that in connection with roll call 22 yesterday, the 
    copy of the roll call that went to the Printing Office did not 
    contain the names of Mr. Allen of Illinois, Mr. Allen of Louisiana, 
    Mr. H. Carl Andersen, Mr. Anderson of California, Mr. Anderson of 
    New Mexico, Mr. Cooley, or Mr. Collins.
        Without objection, the Journal and permanent Record will be 
    corrected to record these gentlemen as having been present and 
    voting ``yea.''
        There was no objection.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 39. Changing Correctly Recorded Votes; Inquiries

    The precedents carried in this section all predate the use of the 
electronic voting system. In the modern House, Members have no need to 
ask ``how they are recorded'' since their votes are on the electronic 
displays and in the visible computer monitors on the floor. The current 
procedure for changing votes is discussed in Sec. Sec. 32, supra and 
40, infra.

[[Page 11714]]

                          -------------------Inquiry as to How Member 
    Recorded

Sec. 39.1 Members may inquire how they are recorded before the 
    announcement of a yea and nay vote.

    On Apr. 8, 1938,(12) the House entertained a motion to 
recommit a bill (S. 3331) to provide for reorganizing agencies of the 
government, extending the classified civil service, establishing a 
General Auditing Office and a Department of Welfare. The yeas and nays 
having been ordered, the Speaker (13) put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 83 Cong. Rec. 5123, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the end of the roll call but prior to announcement of the 
result, the following exchange took place: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 83 Cong. Rec. 5124, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how 
    I am recorded?
        The Speaker: The gentleman voted ``nay.''

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    announcement of the result.
        The Speaker: The Chair will announce the result as soon as it 
    is handed to the Chair by the Clerk.
        Mr. [James M.] Mead [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, how was my vote 
    recorded?
        Mr. O'Connor: That is just an attempt to delay the decision, 
    Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the announcement of the vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not desire one side or the other to 
    have any advantage. We are merely following the usual routine.
        Mr. Mead: Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?
        The Speaker: The gentleman voted ``nay''.
        Mr. Mead: That is correct.

    Thereafter, a brief discussion about the possibility of a 
recapitulation occurred, after which the result of the vote was 
announced.

Effect of Announcement of the Result

Sec. 39.2 A Member may change his vote on a roll call at any time 
    before the result of the roll call vote is announced.

    On July 28, 1937,(15) following a roll call vote on a 
bill (S. 2416) relating to the citizenship of certain classes of 
persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama, the Speaker 
(16) decided to order a recapitulation. The result of the 
initial vote not having been announced, Mr. Andrew Edmiston, of West 
Virginia,

[[Page 11715]]

changed his vote in the course of the recapitulation from ``no'' to 
``aye.'' This prompted a point of order raised by Mr. Cassius C. 
Dowell, of Iowa, who contended that such a change was not permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 7772, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair ruled on the point of order, as follows:

        There has been no announcement on the part of the Chair of the 
    result of the vote.
        A Member may change his vote at any time before it is 
    announced.
        That was held by Mr. Speaker Gillette. The Chair, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order. The vote of the gentleman from West 
    Virginia will be changed from ``no'' to ``aye.''

Sec. 39.3 Prior to announcing the result of a yea and nay vote, the 
    Speaker clarified a statement he had made in reply to a 
    parliamentary inquiry preceding such vote, so that Members would 
    understand the exact parliamentary situation and change their votes 
    if so desired, before his announcement of the result.

    On Mar. 4, 1952,(17) the Chairman (18) of the 
Committee of the Whole reported back to the House a bill (H.R. 5904) 
providing for the administration and discipline of the National 
Security Training Corps with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.(19) As the rule 
dictated that the previous question be ordered, the Speaker 
(20) put the question on the amendment, and it was rejected. 
Accordingly, the original bill remained before the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 1863, 1864, 1865, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
19. It should be noted that when the Committee of the Whole perfects a 
        bill by amendment and then adopts an amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute for the entire bill, only the substitute is 
        reported to the House. Moreover, should the House reject the 
        substitute, the original bill without amendment is then before 
        the House.
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, offered a motion 
to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed Services. The question 
was put, and the yeas and nays were ordered.
    Before the vote was taken, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: If this motion to recommit is voted down 
    will the bill then be sent back to the Committee of the Whole for 
    further consideration?
        The Speaker: No; the question then will be on the passage of 
    the bill.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11716]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Abernethy: Do I understand that this vote occurs on the 
    bill as it was introduced without committee amendments?
        The Speaker: Not as introduced, but as reported to the House 
    from the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Abernethy: Do I understand, then, that the vote to follow 
    will occur on the bill as reported to the House, including the 
    committee amendment?
        The Speaker: It does not have any committee amendments.
        The question is on the motion to recommit.

    The question was then taken; and the votes were tallied. Prior to 
announcing the result, however, the Speaker made the following 
statement:

        The Chair desires to make a statement.
        In answering a parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy], the Chair was mistaken as to the 
    import of the inquiry. The Chair thought the gentleman was asking 
    whether, if the motion to recommit was voted down, we would then 
    vote on the bill as amended by the Committee of the Whole. Of 
    course, the Chair's answer was correct on that understanding, 
    because the Burleson amendment took out all the amendments that 
    were adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        However, the Chair should have gone one step further, if he had 
    understood the gentleman entirely, and said that the bill that 
    would be voted on at that time was the bill as originally 
    introduced and referred to the Commit- tee on Armed Services 
    without the amendments adopted by the Committee on Armed Services 
    or the Committee of the Whole, because those amendments of the 
    committee to the bill as originally introduced were not reported to 
    the House.
        The Chair wanted to make that statement before the final vote 
    was announced so that all Members could understand the exact 
    situation and be allowed to change their votes if they so desired. 
    The bill is now before the House as originally introduced.

    The Record indicates that two Members changed their votes 
thereafter.

Sec. 39.4 Members desiring to change their votes from ``yea'' or 
    ``nay'' in order to answer ``present'' because of a pair must do so 
    before the announcement of the result.

    On May 27, 1947,(1) the House voted on a resolution (H. 
Res. 218) waiving points of order against a bill (H.R. 3601) making 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 
1948. The Speaker (2) announced the result of the vote, and 
a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The resolution having 
been agreed to, a motion was then offered to resolve into the Committee 
of the

[[Page 11717]]

Whole for the consideration of the bill, itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 5878, 5879, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange took place:

        Mr. [William S.] Hill [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hill: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how I was recorded? I had 
    a pair with the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Jonkman. I voted 
    ``no.'' I wish to withdraw my vote and vote ``present.''
        The Speaker: The vote has been announced and the time when the 
    gentleman could have announced how he would have voted has passed. 
    . . .

        . . . He should have addressed the Chair and requested that he 
    be recorded as ``present.'' (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For a comparable instance, see 118 Cong. Rec. 34166, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 5, 1972, where Mr. Philip M. Crane (Ill.), who had 
        formed a live pair with Mr. Roman C. Pucinski (Ill.), appeared 
        to be cognizant of the fact that he had waited too long to 
        withdraw his ``nay'' vote and chose not to ask the Chair for 
        permission to do so. Instead, he merely stated that he was 
        ``unable to exercise'' the live pair and announced how Mr. 
        Pucinski would have voted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 39.5 While a Member may announce that his recorded vote was cast 
    under misapprehension and misinformation, he may not change his 
    vote following the announcement of the result.

    On Apr. 26, 1949,(4) the House voted on a resolution (H. 
Res. 191) which provided, in part, that upon its adoption, the 
Committee of the Whole would consider a bill (H.R. 2032)--against which 
all points of order were to be waived--to provide for the repeal of the 
Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, and the reenactment of the 
National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The yeas and nays having been 
ordered, there were--yeas 369, nays 6, not voting 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 95 Cong. Rec. 5062, 5063, 5086, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following debate on the bill and the rising of the Committee, the 
Speaker (5) recognized Mr. Roy W. Wier, of Minnesota, and 
the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wier: Mr. Speaker, on the rollcall vote today on the rule, 
    under misapprehension and misinformation, I voted ``nay.'' I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Record show I intended to vote ``aye.''
        The Speaker: The gentleman's statement will stand. The vote 
    itself cannot be changed at this time.

Effect of Timely Change

Sec. 39.6 Where a Member changes his vote following a roll call, before 
    its announcement by the Chair, the change appears in the Record.

[[Page 11718]]

    On Dec. 20, 1969,(6) the House, by roll call vote, 
agreed to the conference report on a bill (H.R. 15149) making 
appropriations for foreign assistance and related programs for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970. Immediately following that vote and 
before the announcement of the result, Mr. James H. Scheuer, of New 
York, changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Moments later--and 
still within the interim between the actual vote-casting and the 
Speaker's (7) announcement of the result--the Congressman 
changed his vote again, from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' As the permanent 
Record indicates, he was so recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 40456, 40457, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confusion as to Question Under Consideration as Basis for Vote Change

Sec. 39.7 Confusion existing as to the precise question under 
    consideration, 40 Members changed their roll call votes from 
    ``yea'' to ``nay,'' and 93 Members changed their votes from ``nay'' 
    to ``yea.''

    On Aug. 21, 1957,(8) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
called up the conference report on the supplemental appropriation bill 
of 1958 (H.R. 9131). The report having been agreed to, discussion 
followed with respect to the amendments remaining in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 103 Cong. Rec. 15508, 15510, 15518, 15519, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, Mr. Cannon moved that the House recede and concur in a 
Senate amendment numbered 54 with an amendment. Mr. Karl M. LeCompte, 
of Iowa, offered a preferential motion that the House recede and concur 
with Senate amendment No. 54, and Mr. John Taber, of New York, then 
requested a division of that question.
    The vote was taken on the question, as divided (i.e., on the motion 
to recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment), and a division 
having been demanded by Mr. Cannon, there were--ayes 76, noes 22. Mr. 
Taber then objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not 
present whereupon the Speaker (9) directed the Clerk to call 
the roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the result of the vote was announced, the Record reveals 
that 40 Members changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay,'' and 93 
Members changed their votes from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' This unusual 
occurrence was explained in a statement by Mr. Cannon, as follows:

        Mr. Speaker, may I say that this misapprehension was due to the 
    fail

[[Page 11719]]

    ure here at the desk to understand that the question had been 
    divided. We took for granted we were voting on receding and 
    concurring when, as a matter of fact, the vote was on the question 
    to recede.
        May I add, Mr. Speaker, that we expect to go back to conference 
    tomorrow and will have an opportunity to again take up the matter 
    in conference.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 40. Instances Where Vote Changes and Corrections Have Been Made

Incorrectly Cast Votes

Sec. 40.1 A Member may change his vote on a recorded teller vote by 
    stating his correction prior to the announcement of the result by 
    the Chair, and unanimous consent is not required.

    On July 27, 1971,(10) a recorded teller vote having been 
taken on an amendment to a bill (H.R. 10061) making appropriations for 
the Department of Labor and the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare, Mr. Phillip M. Landrum, of Georgia, rose to ask the Chair 
(11) the following question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 27373, 27374, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I voted the green card in error thinking I was 
    voting in the negative. I intended to vote in the negative. Is it 
    permissible for me to change my vote?

    The Chair responded that the gentleman would be allowed to correct 
his vote, and following a parliamentary inquiry thereafter, the 
Chairman announced that the amendment had been rejected.

Sec. 40.2 Unable to effect a correction because of untimeliness, a 
    Member announced that he had miscast his vote on a recorded teller 
    vote taken the preceding day.

    On June 18, 1971,(12) after a roll call vote on a 
resolution (H. Res. 434) authorizing investigative authority to the 
Committee on Education and Labor, Mr. James W. Symington, of Missouri, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 20723, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I wish to state for the Record that on recorded 
    teller vote 143 yesterday I voted ``aye'' but had intended to vote 
    ``no.''

Sec. 40.3 On a recorded vote, not conducted electronically, vote 
    corrections are sometimes permitted after the Chair has announced 
    the result.

    While a Member may, by unanimous consent, correct his vote on

[[Page 11720]]

a recorded teller vote immediately after the Chair has announced the 
result, the Chair will not entertain such requests after further 
business has been transacted--unless the correction requested pertains 
to an error which could not have been made by the Member. Unanimous 
consent has been granted, for example, to correct the permanent Record 
to reflect a Member's vote which the temporary edition had recorded as 
not being cast.(13) Such requests would not be allowed, 
however, with regard to votes cast by electronic device in light of the 
assumption that the mechanism does not err and based upon the Member's 
ability and responsibility to verify his vote when cast.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 40.4, infra.
14. See Sec. 32.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 18, 1971,(15) tellers with clerks having been 
ordered on an amendment to a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 468) making 
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1971, the vote 
was taken; and the Chair announced that the amendment was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 7023, 7024, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following requests were made:

        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I voted 
    ``aye'' by mistake in all the confusion. I want to be recorded as 
    voting ``no'' and ask unanimous consent that my vote be corrected 
    accordingly.
        The Chairman: (16) Without objection, the correction 
    will be made. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent to be recorded as voting for the amendment instead of 
    against it. I voted against it, and I ask unanimous consent to 
    correct my vote.
        The Chairman: Without objection, the correction will be made. . 
    . .

    No objections having been voiced to either of the Members' 
requests, the corrections were made.

Incorrectly Recorded Votes

Sec. 40.4 Four days after a Member was erroneously recorded as not 
    voting on a nonelectronic recorded vote, unanimous consent was 
    granted to permit the permanent Record and Journal to be corrected 
    accordingly.

    On June 28, 1971,(17) Mrs. Charlotte T. Reid, of 
Illinois, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Reid of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, on page H5871 of the 
    Congressional Record of June 24, 1971, I am listed as not voting on 
    recorded teller vote No. 163 when, in fact, I was present and

[[Page 11721]]

    voted ``no.'' I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record and 
    Journal be corrected accordingly.
        The Speaker: (18) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentlewoman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    The final tally of recorded teller vote No. 163 was subsequently 
corrected in the permanent edition of the Record (19) and 
the Journal (20) to reflect the requested change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 21891, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1971.
20. H. Jour. 783 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 40.5 Where the possibility of confusion existed in the reporting 
    by tellers of the result of a recorded teller vote, the Chair 
    indicated: (1) that the Chair could only announce the vote as 
    reported to him by the clerks and that discrepancies between that 
    announcement and the official tally would appear in the Record; and 
    (2) there is no available procedure for a recapitulation of a vote 
    taken by clerks.

    On Mar. 29, 1971,(1) a recorded teller vote having been 
ordered on an amendment to a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 55) to provide 
a temporary extension of a law relating to interest rates and cost-of-
living stabilization, the Committee of the Whole divided; and the 
tellers reported that there were--ayes 143, noes 183, not voting 106. 
Accordingly, the Chairman (2) announced that the amendment 
has been rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 8265, 8266, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. George W. Andrews (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the voting procedure, the Member-tellers were 
apparently changed, and, there being some concern as to possible 
confusion which may have resulted, the following discussion ensued:

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to direct a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, in the procedure that we just 
    followed there is a possibility that a number of Members voting in 
    the negative were not in effect counted since the tellers were 
    switched at the onset of the vote. My question is not directed at 
    this vote, but against any future complications of that type.
        What is the official vote? Is it the vote announced by the 
    tellers, or will it be the vote from the box and when the ballots 
    are, in fact, counted, and the record of the voting is indicated?
        The Chairman: The Chair can only report the vote as reported by 
    the tellers.
        Mr. Derwinski: If the Record the following day would indicate a 
    contrary

[[Page 11722]]

    vote, what recourse, if any, would we have?
        The Chairman: The recorded teller vote will appear in the 
    Record. However, the Chair can only announce the vote as reported 
    by the tellers.
        Mr. Derwinski: Another parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, to protect both parties at any 
    time or any majority or minority Member at any time, it is obvious 
    that there must be enough precautions taken to avoid what just 
    occurred where tellers were, in fact, switched, and the vote was 
    not properly presented to the tellers.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say that the tellers took their 
    places at the proper boxes as designated by the Chair. The Chairman 
    would caution all Members to be very careful about how they proceed 
    through the lines. Do not be too hasty, and certainly be on time.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, we have a procedure for a 
    recapitulation in a rollcall vote in the House of Representatives. 
    Is there any comparable parliamentary procedure in this new device 
    we are using for teller votes with clerks?
        The Chairman: Not for a recapitulation of a recorded teller 
    vote. According to the vote announced by the Chair, as reported by 
    the tellers, the yeas were 143, and the noes were 183, and the 
    amendment was not agreed to.

Properly Cast, Recorded Votes

Sec. 40.6 Members who wish to change their votes on a recorded vote 
    conducted by clerks may announce their vote change in the well 
    prior to the announcement of the result.

    On July 11, 1973,(3) a recorded vote having been ordered 
on an amendment to a bill (H.R. 8860) to amend and extend the 
Agricultural Act of 1970, the vote was taken by clerks as the 
electronic system was temporarily inoperative. Following the clerk's 
tally, Mr. Carlos J. Moorhead, of California, and Mr. C. W. Young, of 
Florida, stood in the well and announced that they desired to change 
their votes from ``no'' to ``aye'' and filled out new ballot cards. The 
result of the vote not yet having been announced by the 
Chair,(4) the gentlemen's requests were honored, and their 
votes duly recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 23161, 23162, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 40.7 Following the announcement of the result of a recorded vote 
    taken by tellers, a Member may change his vote only by unanimous 
    consent and only if no further business has been transacted.

    On Nov. 9, 1971,(5) a recorded teller vote having been 
ordered on

[[Page 11723]]

an amendment to a substitute amendment to a bill (H.R. 10729) to amend 
the Federal Insecti- cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the 
Committee divided; the tellers tallied the vote, and the Chairman 
(6) announced that the amendment to the substitute amendment 
was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 40062, 40063, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Robert N. C. Nix, of Pennsylvania, 
requested that he be permitted to change his vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.'' The Chairman stated that it would be ordered if there were no 
objections. There being no objection, Mr. Nix' vote was recorded as 
requested.
    A similar result was obtained on the very next recorded teller vote 
when Mr. John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, sought unanimous consent 
to change his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay,'' following the Chair's 
announcement that the particular amendment had been rejected. Again, 
the Chair inquired as to whether any Member objected, and none being 
heard, the change was recorded.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 41. Announcement of Member Pertaining to His Own Vote; Announcing 
    How Absent Colleague Would Have Voted

    The practice in the House regarding a Member's announcement of how 
he would have voted had he been present on a record vote, where he was 
in fact absent, has changed during the last half-century. Such 
announcements are now routinely accepted by unanimous consent. 
Announcements on behalf of absent colleagues, on the other hand, are 
not entertained under current procedures used in the House. The 
precedents in this section illustrate this 
evolution.                          -------------------

Sec. 41.1 Under current practice, a Member may announce how he would 
    have voted when the roll was called had he been present to vote.

    On May 20, 1959,(7) having missed a roll call vote on a 
motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 7007) making 
appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
Mr.

[[Page 11724]]

Robert R. Barry, of New York, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 8634, 8690, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Barry: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 46 I was unavoidably 
    detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Record so indicate.
        The Speaker: (8) Without objection, it is so 
    ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 41.2 A Member may announce how he would have voted on a roll call 
    had he been present, but may not do so before the announcement of 
    the vote.

    On May 11, 1964,(9) the House agreed to a resolution (H. 
Res. 650) which provided that upon its adoption, the House would 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
a bill (H.R. 8986) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain 
officers and employees in the federal government, and for other 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 4905, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the Speaker's announcement of the result, Mr. William M. 
Colmer, of Mississippi, made the following statement:

        Mr. Speaker, I was temporarily absent from the Chamber. I did 
    not hear the second bell ring, and I did not hear my name called. I 
    am very anxious to vote. Do I qualify?
        The Speaker: (10) Having in mind the statement just 
    made by the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, the Chair is 
    reluctantly constrained to rule that he cannot vote; he does not 
    qualify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, under the rules am I permitted to 
    state how I would have voted had I qualified?
        The Speaker: Not at this particular time.

    After the Chair announced the result of the vote, Mr. Colmer then 
made a request as follows:

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
    House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Mississippi?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, had I been able to qualify on the vote 
    just taken, I would have voted ``no'' on the resolution.

Sec. 41.3 The rules do not preclude a Member from announcing, after a 
    record vote on which he failed to answer, how he would have voted 
    if present.

    On June 27, 1957,(11) after a roll call vote on a motion 
to recommit

[[Page 11725]]

a bill (S. 1429) authorizing structural and other improvements on the 
Senate Office Building, Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, was recognized 
by the Speaker (12) and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 10521, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I was not in the Chamber when my name was reached 
    on the rollcall which has just been completed, although I was here 
    during a part of the debate and also before the rollcall was 
    completed. However, I cannot qualify to be recorded. If I had the 
    opportunity to vote I would have voted ``no.'' . . . The only 
    reason I make this explanation is to indicate that I was not absent 
    and have been engaged in official work in the interest of my 
    constituents during the entire day.

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, then rose and initiated the 
following proceedings:

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker will permit a 
    parliamentary inquiry, there have been an increasing number of 
    announcements in the last few weeks by Members on how they would 
    have voted if present when the roll was called. May I ask the 
    Speaker as to the practice?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri raised that question 
    with the Chair the other day and stated that it was unparliamentary 
    for a Member who could not qualify to announce later on that had he 
    been here he would have voted yea or nay. Now, the Chair does not 
    know of any way that we could keep a Member from asking unanimous 
    consent to proceed for a minute or an hour and announce before a 
    bill was brought up how he was going to vote if he was present or 
    how he would have voted when the matter came up. So the Chair 
    cannot see any reason for not allowing Members to express 
    themselves how they would have voted or how they are going to vote. 
    If there is any rule of the House that that violates, the Chair 
    does not know anything about it.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair's ruling remains viable as the 
current practice,(13) although Mr. Cannon, in his extensions 
of remarks, noted that such announcements were not permitted under the 
earlier practice:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 41.1, 41.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: In response to the Speaker's inquiry, may I quote 
    from section 3151 of the Precedents of the House.

            3151. It is not in order after a record vote on which he 
        failed to vote for a Member to announce how he would have voted 
        if present.

        On February 6, 1915, Mr. John E. Raker, of California, rising 
    in his place, said:

            Mr. Speaker, I want to ask unanimous consent to make a 
        statement for a minute. I was here yesterday afternoon, but on 
        account of sickness in my family I was called out and could not 
        get back in time to vote on the motion to recommit the naval 
        appropriation bill. I returned, but too late to have my vote 
        recorded. If I had been here, I would have voted against the 
        motion to recommit.

        Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that 
    the statement was wholly improper.

[[Page 11726]]

        The Speaker sustained the point of order and said:

            The statement is out of order.

    Mr. Cannon continued his statement, pointing out an earlier ruling 
by Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, in the 73d Congress, where the 
Chair quoted from Rule XV: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Mr. Cannon incorrectly attributed the ruling to Speaker Rayburn. 
        See 77 Cong. Rec. 2587, 2588, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 28, 
        1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        After the roll has been once called, the Clerk shall call in 
    their alphabetical order the names of those not voting; and 
    thereafter the Speaker shall not entertain a request to record a 
    vote.

    Mr. Cannon continued:

        The rule is founded on sound policy. Such announcements may be 
    cited in contrast with others who failed to vote, as an inference 
    of less interest in the proceedings and less attention to the 
    question at issue.
        If one Member makes the announcement, critics may make it the 
    occasion of inquiry as to why other absent Members did not announce 
    a position on the vote.
        The pair clerks pair all Members who do not vote. Subsequent 
    announcement of how a Member would have voted if present 
    automatically places the Member, with whom he is paired, on the 
    other side of the question.
        Such practice renders Members less responsive to inconvenient 
    rollcalls, when their position can later be announced at a more 
    convenient time.
        No Speaker has ever held such announcements in order.

Sec. 41.4 Where a Member entered the Chamber too late to be recorded on 
    the question of overriding a veto, he stated the reasons for his 
    absence, entered his name on the pair list, and indicated how he 
    would have voted if he had been able to do so.

    On Feb. 24, 1944,(15) the House voted to override the 
President's veto of a tax revenue bill (H.R. 3687). Shortly thereafter, 
several Members received unanimous consent to address the House on the 
issue for a brief period of time. Among them was Mr. Chet Holifield, of 
California, who made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 90 Cong. Rec. 2013, 2016, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Holifield: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend 
    my own remarks at this point in the Record.
        The Speaker: (16) Without objection, it is so 
    ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Holifield: Mr. Speaker, I arrived on the floor after my 
    name had been called for a vote to sustain or reject the 
    President's veto on the tax bill. Due to an unavoidable appearance 
    before the State Department on an immigration matter for a 
    constituent, I arrived some 3 minutes late. In such a case the 
    rules of the House prohibit

[[Page 11727]]

    the Member qualifying for the roll-call vote. I immediately entered 
    my name on the pair list in favor of sustaining the President's 
    veto. If I had been present in time for qualification, I would have 
    cast my vote in favor of sustaining the President's veto.
        Parliamentarian's Note: Although the result of the vote had not 
    been announced when Mr. Holifield entered the Chamber, under the 
    prevailing rules of the day his failure to answer to his name when 
    it was called, precluded him from casting a vote. In order to do 
    so, he would have had to ``qualify'' by stating that he had been in 
    the Chamber, listening, when his name had been called and had 
    failed to hear it. These criteria were eliminated in 1969.

Announcements Pertaining to Absent Members

Sec. 41.5 The Chair stated that the practice of announcing how an 
    absent Member would have voted after a roll call vote is not a 
    proper practice under the established precedents.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(17) the House having just passed a 
bill (H.R. 1668) by roll call vote, to amend the Interstate Commerce 
Act, the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 3489, 3490, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I was 
    unavoidably detained and was not in the Chamber at the time my name 
    was called. I desire to submit a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Would I be entitled to recognition by 
    the Chair for the purpose of announcing how I would have voted had 
    I been present?
        The Speaker: Under a strict construction of the precedents the 
    Chair does not think the gentleman would be permitted to do so.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Under the same circumstance, Mr. 
    Speaker, would I be entitled to recognition by the Chair to 
    announce how a colleague would have voted had he been present?
        The Speaker: The Chair would make the same ruling in that 
    respect.
        In view of the fact the question has been raised by the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Missouri, the Chair 
    will state that a practice has grown up in the House, because no 
    objection has been raised by any Member, whereby when certain 
    Members fail to be present and answer to their names, some of their 
    colleagues undertake to explain how they would have voted if 
    present. This question has been raised several times in the past, 
    and it has been held uniformly that it is an improper practice. The 
    Chair, therefore, is inclined to adhere to the decisions heretofore 
    established.

Sec. 41.6 In response to a Member's inquiry, the Chair stated that it 
    possessed no authority other than that impliedly granted by 
    unanimous consent to recognize a

[[Page 11728]]

    Member for the purpose of stating how an absent colleague would 
    have voted.

    On Mar. 21, 1938,(19) Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of 
Virginia, addressed the Chair with the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 3768, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, a practice seems to have grown up of 
    late in the House of Members announcing how their colleagues would 
    have voted had they been present. Entirely without regard to these 
    particular cases, as to which I, of course, have no objection, this 
    was actually carried to the point a few days ago of permitting a 
    Member to have the Record corrected to show that had he been 
    present he would have voted in a certain way, and this particular 
    Member, although absent at the time under some sort of 
    misapprehension, actually voted on the matter.
        I wish to inquire, Mr. Speaker, whether under the rules of the 
    House there is any parliamentary authority for such announcements 
    being made in the House?
        The Speaker: (20) In reply to the parliamentary 
    inquiry of the gentleman from Virginia the Chair will state that 
    when a record vote is taken in the House only the names of those 
    who are present and voting or paired are shown in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There has grown up a practice of Members arising in their 
    places after votes are taken and asking unanimous consent to make a 
    statement with reference to how some absent colleague would have 
    voted had he been present. There is no authority for the Chair to 
    recognize a Member for that purpose except by unanimous consent. 
    The Chair, of course, when a Member rises for the purpose of 
    submitting such a unanimous-consent request, feels that in fairness 
    he should submit the matter to the House as a question of unanimous 
    consent. If any objection is made there is no parliamentary 
    authority for a Member to make such a statement.

Sec. 41.7 A point of order having been made earlier in the day against 
    the practice of Members announcing how absent colleagues would have 
    voted, if present, on a roll call vote, the Speaker declined later 
    the same day to recognize Members for that purpose.

    On Aug. 15, 1940,(1) the House voted on a joint 
resolution (S.J. Res. 286) to strengthen the common defense and to 
authorize the President to order members and units of reserve 
components and retired personnel of the Regular Army into active 
military service. The vote having been taken by the yeas and the nays, 
342 Members voted ``yea,'' 34 Members voted ``nay,'' and 54 Members did 
not vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 10448, 10449, 10460, 10461, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly after the announcement of the result of the vote, the Chair 
recognized Mr. Joseph A.

[[Page 11729]]

Gavagan, of New York, who commenced the following exchange:

        Mr. Gavagan: Mr. Speaker, I announce that my colleagues the 
    gentlemen from New York, Mr. Celler----
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I very much 
    regret to have to call attention to the rule against announcement 
    of how another Member would have voted if present.
        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from Missouri objects 
    to the announcement of how the colleagues of the gentleman from New 
    York would have voted. Under the rule, such an announcement is not 
    in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few moments later, the Speaker announced that ``the Chair will 
now recognize Members only for unanimous-consent requests,'' thereby 
prompting another brief exchange initiated by Mr. Gavagan, as follows:

        Mr. Gavagan: Mr. Speaker, under the right to submit unanimous-
    consent requests, I wish to announce to the House that my 
    colleagues----
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I regret that I have to object, Mr. 
    Speaker. The proper method would be for the Member himself to later 
    speak or extend remarks giving his views.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri objects to the 
    announcement. . . .
        Mr. Englebright: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
    proceed for one-half minute to make a short statement.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Englebright: Mr. Speaker, I am authorized to state that had 
    Mr. Andresen of Minnesota, and Mr. Hope, of Kansas, been present 
    they would have voted ``aye''----
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot entertain that statement in view 
    of the objection made by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cannon) 
    earlier in the day, to other statements of that sort.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of any 
    Member objecting but, under the rules, the Chair is not permitted 
    to recognize Members for that purpose.
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I yield.
        Mr. Wolcott: May not the whip or the leader, or whoever is 
    charged with that responsibility obtain a minute to address the 
    House for that purpose by unanimous consent?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Unfortunately, the whips, like other 
    Members, are subject to the rules of the House. It is a rule which 
    has been observed for a hundred years, and, like every other rule 
    of the House, there is an excellent reason for its observance.
        In the first place, it places a Member on record by proxy. A 
    Member may not be recorded unless present and answering when his 
    name is called and a Member may not vote by proxy. Such 
    announcements in effect nullify both these provisions of the rules 
    and place Members on record on the announcements of a colleague.
        In the second place, such announcements flagrantly misrepresent 
    the position of other Members of the House.

[[Page 11730]]

    All Members who fail to answer on roll call are arbitrarily paired 
    without consulting their wishes or inquiring as to their attitude 
    on the question on which the vote is taken, and always without 
    their knowledge or consent as to with whom paired. Then for some 
    Member to rise on the floor at the conclusion of the vote and 
    announce that the Member with whom they are unwittingly paired 
    would have voted in the affirmative or the negative if present, 
    automatically places them on the opposite of the question although 
    they may have been emphatically pledged to their constituency to 
    the contrary. Again, such announcements are a reflection on all 
    Members who, through some unavoidable exigency, failed to vote on 
    the roll call, as they infer less interest in the proceedings and 
    less attention to the question at issue than that exhibited by the 
    Members whose position is announced by an assiduous, if not 
    officious, colleague. If such a practice should become general it 
    would impose on spokesmen for each delegation in the House the 
    nerve-wracking duty of seeing that every Member of his delegation 
    was accounted for in these announcements at the close of every vote 
    thereby contributing immeasurably to the confusion on the floor and 
    the delay in the proceedings of the House every time the roll was 
    called.
        Not the least objectionable feature of this violation of the 
    rules is its encouragement of delinquency. When a Member may enter 
    his appearance in and be placed of record in this manner he has 
    less hesitancy in absenting himself from the Chamber and the city. 
    Something like 40 Members were included in a recent announcement of 
    this character, and if it is extended to permit the whips on either 
    side of the aisle to thus round up their charges, it is easy to 
    foresee a situation in which a majority of the membership of the 
    House might leave their vote and their conscience in the keeping of 
    a colleague while they attend to more inviting matters. In fact, so 
    objectionable is the practice that the Chair has held that Members 
    could not be recognized even for the purpose of asking unanimous 
    consent to make such announcements.
        Mr. Wolcott: Will the gentleman yield further?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I yield.
        Mr. Wolcott: I am merely asking this question to clarify the 
    matter. I can see the gentleman's points, but is this a rule or a 
    tradition?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: It is a practice of immemorial 
    standing. There are decisions by practically every Speaker of the 
    House since Mulhenberg to the effect that the Chair cannot 
    recognize for that purpose.
        Mr. Wolcott: It would not be violating any of the rules if the 
    whip on either side, for the purpose of announcing the votes, asked 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute for that purpose, would 
    it?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The Speaker is not authorized to put a 
    unanimous-consent request for that purpose. You cannot vitiate the 
    rule by indirection. It is a long-established rule that you cannot 
    do by indirection anything directly prohibited by the rules.
        Mr. Wolcott: That is why I asked if it was a rule or simply a 
    practice.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Both. The rules do not provide for it 
    and the

[[Page 11731]]

    practice of the House does not permit it.
        Mr. Wolcott: There is nothing in the written rules of the House 
    to prevent it, as I understand?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: There is nothing in the written rules 
    of the House to permit it.
        Mr. Wolcott: But the gentleman is familiar with the rules. Will 
    he advise the House whether there is anything in the written rules 
    which prevents such announcement?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The gentleman remembers the statement 
    by the distinguished Member from Ohio, Mr. Longworth, at one time 
    Speaker of the House, in which he said that about half of the law 
    of the House was written and half unwritten, and that frequently 
    the unwritten was the more important of the two. And Speaker 
    Cannon, in passing on a point of order in a proceeding under 
    suspension of the rules, pointed out that the motion not only 
    suspended all rules but included in its scope the unwritten law and 
    practice of the House.
        Mr. Gavagan: The gentleman concedes that the written rules of 
    the House make no provision for the gentleman's objection to the 
    unanimous-consent request.

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The written rules of the House make no 
    provision for it. It is not permissible under the rules.
        Mr. Gavagan: I would like also to call the gentleman's 
    attention to a specific rule of this House which prevents Members 
    from voting standing here in the Well of the House; yet I have seen 
    the gentleman time in and time out violate that rule. From today 
    onward the gentleman will stand at his seat and vote.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I would like to have the gentleman cite 
    an occasion when I did so.
        Mr. Gavagan: I submit that repeatedly the gentleman has stood 
    in the Well of this House and voted.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The gentleman is mistaken about that.
        Mr. Gavagan: Unquestionably the gentleman is not mistaken, and 
    from today onward the gentleman from Missouri will vote from his 
    seat and not the Well.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The gentleman's memory is in error. I 
    positively have never violated that rule.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: As I understand the 
    situation now, the gentleman from California asked and did receive 
    unanimous consent to proceed for one-half minute.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: A Member speaking under unanimous 
    consent cannot violate a rule of the House.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California asked unanimous 
    consent to proceed for one-half minute. When he got to the point of 
    stating how certain Members would have voted, the Chair, under the 
    protest made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], said the 
    Chair could not recognize him for that purpose. There are a number 
    of precedents to sustain the Chair in this ruling.

Sec. 41.8 In the later practice, the Chair has repeatedly held that it 
    is not in order to announce or place in the Record a statement as 
    to

[[Page 11732]]

    how an absent colleague would have voted on a roll call, if 
    present--regardless of whether unanimous consent was sought or 
    whether another Member raised a point of order against the 
    practice.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In a series of rulings over a 13-month 
period between January 1941, and February 1942, the Chair 
(3) gradually delineated the parliamentary status of 
Members' announcements as to how certain absent colleagues would have 
voted on particular roll call votes. While the permissibility of such 
announcements had always been a matter of some doubt,(4) the 
trend of the Chair's rulings ultimately culminated in the determination 
that these announcements were improper, per se.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.), occupied the Chair in each of the 
        instances which follow.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 41.5, 41.6, 41.7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, on Jan. 22, 1941,(5) Mr. Richard J. Welch, of 
California, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 87 Cong. Rec. 243, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, Mr. Johnson, is ill 
    and confined to his room. Were he here, he would have voted ``yea'' 
    on the bill (H.R. 1437) authorizing additional shipbuilding and 
    ordnance manufacturing facilities for the United States Navy, and 
    for other purposes.

    Before any other Member could make a similar announcement, however, 
the Speaker stated:

        The Chair desires to make an announcement. The Chair a moment 
    ago recognized a gentleman to make an announcement of how an absent 
    Member would vote if he were here. The Chair did that because the 
    present occupant of the chair has not yet made a ruling upon the 
    matter. A statement like that is prohibited by the rules of the 
    House and the Speaker will hereafter recognize no Member to 
    announce how an absent Member would vote.

    Later in the year, after a roll call vote on a bill (H.R. 6159) 
making supplemental appropriations for the national defense, the Chair 
recognized Mr. John Taber, of New York, who sought unanimous consent to 
address the House for one minute.(6) There being no 
objection to his request, Mr. Taber proceeded to announce how certain 
absent Members would have voted on the preceding roll call. Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, then raised the point of order that Mr. 
Taber's announcements were out of order. A brief discussion ensued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 87 Cong. Rec. 9496, 9497, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 5, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of that discussion, Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michi

[[Page 11733]]

gan, noted that Mr. Taber ``was given the unanimous consent of the 
House to proceed for one minute; therefore he is permitted to say 
anything so long as he uses parliamentary language.'' Mr. Cannon, 
however, subscribed to a different point of view, noting that he 
wished:

        . . . there were some parliamentary way for this information to 
    be made available to the House at this time. But it is a rule of 
    long standing . . . and we cannot relax it for one and enforce it 
    for others. As a matter of fact, a point of order is not required. 
    It is the duty of the Speaker, and the practice of the Speaker to 
    enforce it just as he would enforce the rule against an explanation 
    of a vote during roll call or any other automatic rule of 
    procedure. . . .

    The Chair ruled that:

        . . . Even though the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] had 
    unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute, when he began making the 
    explanation he did, the Chair must sustain the point of order under 
    all precedents.

    Three days later, on Dec. 8, 1941,(7) the House having 
just voted on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 254) declaring war on Japan, the Speaker made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to announce that he has held in the past and 
    will hold henceforth that it is contrary to the rules of the House 
    for any Member to announce how an absent Member would vote if 
    present.

    In the second session of the same Congress, the Chair was again 
pressed to rule on this issue. After a roll call vote on a Navy 
Department appropriations bill (H.R. 6460), Mr. Fred C. Gilchrist, of 
Iowa, was recognized by the Chair, and posed the following question: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 88 Cong. Rec. 757, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, would it be in order as a parliamentary regulation 
    for me at this time to ask if I might place in the Record a 
    statement which the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen], who is absent 
    on account of illness, would have voted for the measure just passed 
    had he been present?

    The Chair neither relied on a point of order (9) nor 
felt compelled to address any unanimous-consent implications 
(10) in stating that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 41.7, supra.
10. See Sec. 41.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks it is positively against the rules and 
    practices for one Member to announce how another would have voted 
    had he been present.

[[Page 11734]]



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 42. In General


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

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

Substantive Proposition Requirement

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

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

[[Page 11735]]

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

        Amendment offered by Mr. White:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11736]]

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

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

Substantially Equivalent Questions

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

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

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

                                  H. Res. 1416

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11737]]

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

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

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

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

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

    The previous question was ordered.

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

[[Page 11738]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11739]]

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

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

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

                  revision of amounts for department of energy

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

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

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

Demand for Division, When in Order

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

[[Page 11740]]

    sent is not required for that purpose.

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

                               operating expenses

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11741]]

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

Concurrent Resolution on Budget

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11742]]

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

Prefatory Words May Not Destroy Divisibility

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

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

[[Page 11743]]

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

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

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

                  compensatory education for the disadvantaged

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

                              vocational education

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11744]]

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

    Much later in the proceedings, the following occurred:

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

[[Page 11745]]

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

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

                  compensatory education for the disadvantaged

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

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

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

                              vocational education

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

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

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

Divisibility of Perfecting Amendments Striking Text

Sec. 42.7 An amendment striking out various unrelated parts

[[Page 11746]]

    of text is subject to a division of the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Engrossment and Third Reading

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

[[Page 11747]]

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

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

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

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

Divisibility of Resolution Established by Special Order

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

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

[[Page 11748]]

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

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

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

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 5

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

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

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

[[Page 11749]]

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

Who May Demand; When in Order

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

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

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

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

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

Withdrawal of Demand

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

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

[[Page 11750]]

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

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

Timing of Demand for Division

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11751]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11752]]

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

Order of Voting on Divisible Parts

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

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

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

                      adjustment of the thrifty food plan

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

[[Page 11753]]

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

                    authority of office of inspector general

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11754]]

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

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

Chair Has Some Discretion in Order of Voting

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

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

[[Page 11755]]

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

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

            At the end of the bill, add the following:

                       division d--additional provisions

          title xli--united states educational and cultural exchange 
                                    programs

                  sec. 4001. authorization of appropriations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11756]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 11757]]

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



 
                               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]]



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 44. Motions To Amend an Amendment

Amendments From the Floor

Sec. 44.1 An amendment containing two distinct propositions may be 
    divided, and each is subject to amendment as it is taken up for 
    consideration.

    On Aug. 17, 1951,(8) the House having resolved itself 
into the Committee of the Whole, Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, 
offered an amendment to the Mutual Security Act of 1951. Mr. Fulton's 
amendment called for reductions in both the military and economic aid 
to be provided pursuant to the act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 10226, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he Clerk read as follows:

            On page 2, line 22, section 101(a) subsection (1): Strike 
        out ``$5,028,000,000'' and insert ``$4,828,000,000.''
            On page 3, line 16, strike out ``$1,335,000,000'' and 
        insert ``$1,035,000,000.''

    Pursuant to Mr. Fulton's request, the Chairman divided the proposed 
amendment in order to provide for a ``separate vote on the military cut 
and a separate vote on the economic cut.'' Following debate, an 
amendment to the amendment was proposed, as indicated below:

        Mr. [Lawrence H.] Smith of Wisconsin: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) Is it a substitute for the first 
    portion of the Fulton amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Wisconsin: My amendment applies to both parts, Mr. 
    Chairman, but I can ask unanimous consent to offer the first part 
    to the Fulton amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman offers an amendment to the first 
    section?
        Mr. Smith of Wisconsin: Yes. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Wisconsin to 
        the first portion of the amendment of Mr. Fulton: Page 2, line 
        22, section 101(a), subsection (1) strike out 
        ``$5,028,000,000'' and insert ``$4,799,999,999.''

        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Judd: Is it possible to divide an amendment and offer an 
    amendment to a portion of an amendment or is a division applicable 
    only in the case of voting on an amendment?

    The Chair responded to the effect that an amendment may be divided, 
and the divisible portion thereof is similarly subject to amendment. 
Unstated though implicit in the Chairman's ruling was the fundamental 
requirement

[[Page 11768]]

that every divisible question consist of two or more substantive 
propositions.

Senate Amendments

Sec. 44.2 Senate amendments are considered in their entirety, and it is 
    not in order to consider separate items contained therein.

    On May 20, 1936,(10) the House entertained the 
conference report on the Department of the Interior appropriation bill 
of 1937 (H.R. 10630). The report having been agreed to, amendments 
remaining in disagreement between the Houses were then discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 80 Cong. Rec. 7611, 7616, 7623, 7624, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among these was a Senate amendment which read as follows:

            Page 24, after line 21, insert the following:
            ``The following-named reclamation projects are hereby 
        authorized to be constructed, the cost thereof to be 
        reimbursable under the reclamation law:
            ``Central Valley project, California: For flood control, 
        improving and in aid of navigation, and to provide for the 
        general welfare in cooperation with the State of California, 
        and for incidental purposes, including irrigation, drainage, 
        and power production.
            ``Grand Lake-Big Thompson transmountain diversion project, 
        Colorado: To irrigate public lands of the United States and to 
        provide for the general welfare in cooperation with the State 
        of Colorado, and for incidental purposes, including the 
        irrigation of patented land, power production, and flood 
        control: Provided, That said project shall include the 
        construction and the permanent maintenance of adequate 
        compensatory or replacement reservoirs, necessary feeder 
        canals, and other incidental works at the most suitable sites 
        within said State; the water impounded by said reservoirs to be 
        used within the Colorado River Basin, and the cost of 
        constructing and maintaining such reservoirs, feeder canals, 
        and incidental works shall be included in the cost of said 
        project and be repaid by the beneficiaries of the water so 
        diverted from said basin: Provided further, That said project 
        shall be constructed and operated in such manner as to 
        continuously maintain the normal levels of the waters of said 
        Grand Lake.
            ``Carlsbad project, New Mexico: To provide for the general 
        welfare in cooperation with the State of New Mexico and for 
        incidental purposes, including irrigation and flood control.
            ``Deschutes project, Oregon: To provide for the general 
        welfare in cooperation with the State of Oregon and for 
        incidental purposes, including irrigation and flood control.
            ``Provo River project, Utah: To provide for the general 
        welfare in cooperation with the State of Utah and for 
        incidental purposes, including irrigation and flood control.
            ``Yakima project, Washington, Roza division: To provide for 
        the general welfare in cooperation with the State of Washington 
        and for incidental purposes, including irrigation and flood 
        control.
            ``Casper-Alcova project, Wyoming: To irrigate public lands 
        of the United States and to provide for the general welfare in 
        cooperation with the State of Wyoming and for incidental 
        purposes, including the irriga

[[Page 11769]]

        tion of patented lands, power production, and flood control.''

    Mr. Edward T. Taylor, of Colorado, rose to offer a motion following 
the reading of the amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Taylor of Colorado moves to recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment with an amendment as follows: ``Strike out the 
        third paragraph in said amendment, in lines 9 to 26, inclusive, 
        relating to the Grand Lake-Big Thompson transmountain diversion 
        project, Colorado.

    The Taylor motion prompted the following exchange between Mr. Fred 
N. Cummings, of Colorado, and the Speaker:

        Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cummings: Will a motion be in order to consider these items 
    separately?
        The Speaker: No; there is only one Senate amendment.
        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I think the 
    House ought to vote down the motion to concur. I am going to demand 
    a division of the question (to recede and concur).



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 45. Motions To Instruct Conferees; Motions To Recommit

To Concur With Amendment to Senate Amendment

Sec. 45.1 A motion to instruct conferees to agree to a Senate amendment 
    with an amendment is not divisible.

    On May 9, 1946,(12) the Speaker (13) 
requested the Clerk to read a motion to instruct conferees offered by 
Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 4750, 4751, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Spence moves to instruct the managers on the part of 
        the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
        Houses on the bill H.R. 4761 to agree to section 11(a) of the 
        Senate amendment, with an amendment, as follows: Strike out 
        ``$600,000,000, as it appears therein, and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``$400,000,000''.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, posed a 
parliamentary inquiry, as follows:

        Mr. Marcantonio: As I understand the motion filed by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky, it provides for agreeing to the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment. Is it possible to have the motion 
    divided so that a vote may be taken on the Senate amendment itself?

[[Page 11770]]

        The Speaker: It is one proposition, it is not divisible.

Recommittal of Conference Reports

Sec. 45.2 On a motion to recommit a conference report with 
    instructions, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on the 
    instructions or various branches thereof.

    On Apr. 11, 1956,(14) following a motion to recommit a 
conference report with instructions to insist on the alteration and 
striking of several sections and titles, Mr. Arthur Miller, of 
Nebraska, inquired as to whether a separate vote may be had on the 
various amendments. The Speaker (15) ruled that a motion to 
recommit is not subject to division.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 6157, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
16. See also 93 Cong. Rec. 7845, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 27, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommital of Bill

Sec. 45.3 While the motion to recommit with instructions is not 
    divisible, a substantially and grammatically distinct amendment 
    contained in a successful motion to recommit with instructions may 
    be divided when reported back to the House forthwith.

    On June 29, 1993,(17) a motion to recommit a general 
appropriation bill with instructions to report the bill back 
immediately with an amendment of two parts was pending when a 
parliamentary inquiry was directed to the Speaker Pro Tempore. The 
inquiry assumed that the motion to recommit with instructions was not 
divisible (18) but was directed to the divisibility of the 
amendment in the event the motion to recommit were to be adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 139 Cong. Rec. 14617, 14618, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6134; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2737, 3170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Is the gentleman 
    opposed to the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Myers of Indiana: In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Myers of Indiana moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2491, 
        to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report 
        back the same to the House forthwith with the following 
        amendments:
            On page 69, after line 2, insert the following new section:
            ``SEC. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
        except for Title I, Department of Veterans Affairs, each amount 
        appropriated or otherwise made available that is not re

[[Page 11771]]

        quired to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a 
        provision of law is hereby reduced by 6 percent.'';
            And on page 58, line 16, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$25,000,000''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] 
    is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I would just propound the question, 
    if the motion to recommit is adopted, is it not then in order for a 
    demand for a division of the question under the rules of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the motion to recommit is adopted, 
    the amendment in the form presented could be divided when reported 
    back to the House forthwith.
        Mr. Solomon: I thank the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to 
    recommit.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 46. Motions for the Previous Question

Sec. 46.1 A motion for the previous question cannot be divided.

    On Apr. 25, 1940,(20) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
moved the previous question on an amendment and the adoption of a 
resolution pertaining to the wage-hour law. Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of 
New York, inquired as to whether such a motion was divisible thereby 
prompting the following discussion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 86 Cong. Rec. 5051, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to have separate 
    votes on the two propositions?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A motion of the previous question 
    cannot be divided.
        Mr. [Phil] Ferguson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ferguson: Can a separate vote be had on the two 
    propositions if the previous question is ordered?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the previous question is ordered, 
    the question will first recur on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Georgia and then on the rule.
        Mr. [Reuben T.] Wood [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wood: The vote will be on the amendment?

[[Page 11772]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The vote now is on the previous 
    question. If the previous question is ordered, the vote will then 
    be on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia and then 
    on the resolution, as amended or not.

    The previous question was ordered, and separate votes were taken on 
the amendment and the resolution thereafter.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 47. Motions To Rise

Sec. 47.1 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
    clause be stricken out is not divisible.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(2) Mr. Lyle Boren, of Oklahoma, moved 
that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a Senate bill back to 
the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
out. Mr. Clarence E. Hancock, of New York, inquired as to whether the 
motion was divisible. The Chairman (3) ruled that such a 
motion was not divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 82 Cong. Rec. 2125, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 48. Motions To Strike Out and Insert

    Rule XVI clause 7, explicitly provides that a motion to strike out 
and insert is indivisible.(4) Where it is proposed to strike 
out text and insert new language embracing several connected matters, 
it is not in order to demand a separate vote on each of those different 
propositions (5) except through an amendment process 
addressing all or a portion of the text proposed to be inserted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 793 (1995).
 5. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The doctrine applies to a pending House amendment to a bill under 
consideration as well as to a Senate amendment. So where there is 
pending a House bill and a Senate amendment striking the House text and 
substituting new language, the motion to concur in the Senate amendment 
is not divisible as between concurring and amending. However, a special 
order, reported from the Committee on Rules or brought up by unanimous 
consent or under suspension, can be adopted which would subject the 
Senate text to separate votes on its various 
provisions.

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

Sec. 48.1 Where a motion to concur in a Senate amendment

[[Page 11773]]

    is divided pursuant to a special rule permitting that procedure, 
    the Chair puts the question on the first portion of the Senate 
    amendment, and then on the remaining portion which was the portion 
    targeted for a separate vote by the special rule.

    In the 103d Congress, the House had before it a resolution reported 
as a special order of business from the Committee on Rules. The 
resolution made it in order to move to take from the Speaker's table a 
House bill dealing with the extension of emergency unemployment 
compensation and to concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate 
amendment was in the nature of a substitute for the House text. The 
proceedings of Mar. 4, 1993,(6) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 4139 Cong. Rec. 4163, 4164, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           emergency unemployment compensation amendments of 1993

        Mr. Moakley, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a 
    privileged report (Rept. No. 103-26) on the resolution (H. Res. 
    115) providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the 
    bill (H.R. 920) to extend the emergency unemployment compensation 
    program, and for other purposes, which was referred to the House 
    Calendar and ordered to be printed:

                                  H. Res. 115

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider in the House, any rule of the 
        House to the contrary notwithstanding, a motion to take from 
        the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 920) to extend the emergency 
        unemployment compensation program, and for other purposes, with 
        the Senate amendment thereto, and to concur in the Senate 
        amendment. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read. 
        The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion 
        to final adoption without intervening motion. The motion shall 
        be divided for a separate vote on concurring in section 7 of 
        the Senate amendment, any rule of the House to the contrary 
        notwithstanding.

        Mr. [John Joseph] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 115 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The question is, will 
    the House now consider House Resolution 115?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and, two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof, the House agreed to consider House Resolution 115.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
    Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Moakley: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
    yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Quillen], pending

[[Page 11774]]

    which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 115 makes it in order to consider 
    in the House--any rule to the contrary notwithstanding--a motion to 
    take from the Speaker's table H.R. 920 with the Senate amendment, 
    and to agree to the Senate amendment. The Senate substitute is the 
    same as the House bill with the addition of a freeze on Members' 
    pay for calendar year 1994 at this year's level.
        The rule provides 1 hour of general debate. The rule also 
    automatically divides the question, allowing a separate vote on the 
    last section of the bill, elimination of cost of living adjustment 
    for Members of Congress in 1994. Mr. Speaker, the division is in 
    order any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back 
    the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table . . .
        Mr. Moakley: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 115, I 
    move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 920) ``an Act 
    to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, and for 
    other purposes'', with the Senate amendment thereto, and to concur 
    in the Senate amendment.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the Senate amendment 
    is considered as read.
        The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause 
        and insert:
        section 1. short title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Unemployment 
        Compensation Amendments of 1993''.

           sec. 2. extension of emergency unemployment compensation 
                                    program.

            (a) General Rule.--Sections 102(f)(1) and 106(a)(2) of the 
        Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 
        102-164, as amended) are each amended by striking ``March 6, 
        1993'' and inserting ``October 2, 1993''.

        sec. 7. elimination of cost of living adjustment for members of 
                               congress in 1994.

            (a) Cost of Living Adjustment.--Notwithstanding section 
        601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
        U.S.C. 31(2)), the cost of living adjustment (relating to pay 
        for Members of Congress) which would become effective under 
        such provision of law during calendar year 1994 shall not take 
        effect.
            (b) Severability.--If any provision of this Act, or an 
        amendment made by this Act, or the application of such 
        provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, 
        the remainder of this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, or 
        the application of such provision to other persons or 
        circumstances, shall not be affected.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Matsui] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] will be recognized for 
    30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Matsui].
        Mr. Matsui: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.

[[Page 11775]]

    After adoption of the resolution, and at the conclusion of the 
debate provided therein, the provision of the rule which permitted the 
separate vote was implemented as follows:

            Mr. [Robert T.] Matsui [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have 
        no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of 
        my time.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All time has expired.
        Pursuant to House Resolution 115, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion, and pursuant to House Resolution 115, the 
    question on concurring in the Senate amendment will be divided.
        The first question before the House is on concurring in 
    sections 1 through 6 of the Senate amendment.
        The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Matsui: 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 Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    247, nays 156, not voting 27, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the Members that 
    the question, having been divided, now before the House is on 
    concurring in section 7 of the Senate amendment which, the Chair 
    advises, deals with the cost-of-living adjustment.
        The question, therefore, is on concurring in section 7 of the 
    Senate amendment to H.R. 920.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.

        Mr. [Rick] Santorum [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    403, noes 0, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 24, as follows: . . 
    .
        So section 7 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 920 was concurred 
    in.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 49. Propositions Affecting Several Persons

    The rules of the House confirm that a resolution electing Members 
to standing committees of the House is not subject to division (Rule 
XVI clause 6). This prohibition is precise but other resolutions naming 
more than one person may be subject to a division if drafted in a 
manner which makes the proposition susceptible to the 
request.

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

Generally

Sec. 49.1 A resolution directing the Speaker to certify a report 
    containing the names of three persons refusing to testify has been 
    held to be indivisible.

[[Page 11776]]

    On May 28, 1936,(8) Mr. Charles J. Bell, of Missouri, 
sought the certification of the Speaker with respect to the report of 
the committee (9) he chaired regarding the refusal of three 
witnesses to testify before that committee. The resolution embodying 
this request read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 80 Cong. Rec. 8222, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The Select Committee to Investigate Old Age Pension Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 532

        Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
    certify the report of the Select Committee to Investigate Old Age 
    Pension Plans as to the willful and deliberate refusal of Francis 
    E. Townsend, Clinton Wunder, and John B. Kiefer to testify before 
    said committee, together with all the facts in connection 
    therewith, under seal of the House of Representatives, to the 
    United States attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end 
    that the said Francis E. Townsend, Clinton Wunder, and John B. 
    Kiefer may be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by 
    law.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, inquired 
as to the resolution's divisibility.

        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dirksen: Is the resolution divisible as to the three 
    gentlemen named?
        The Speaker: It is not.

Sec. 49.2 A demand for a division of the question on a resolution 
    confirming several nominations is in order at any time during the 
    consideration of the resolution or after the previous question has 
    been ordered thereon but before the question has been put by the 
    Chair.

    On Mar. 19, 1975,(11) a resolution confirming certain 
nominees to the Federal Election Commission was made in order by 
unanimous consent. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 7344, 7345, 7353, 7354, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on House Administration, I call up House Resolution 314 
    and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 314

            Resolved, That pursuant to the Federal Election Campaign 
        Act Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-443, the following named 
        individuals be confirmed for appointment to the Federal 
        Election Commission:
            (a) Joan D. Aikens of Pennsylvania for a term ending on the 
        April 30 first occurring more than six months after the date on 
        which she is appointed;
            (b) Robert O. Tiernan of Rhode Island for a term ending one 
        year after

[[Page 11777]]

        the April 30 on which the term of the member referred to in 
        clause (a) immediate above ends;
            (c) Neil O. Staebler of Michigan for a term ending two 
        years thereafter;
            (d) Thomas E. Harris of Virginia for a term ending three 
        years thereafter;
            (e) Vernon W. Thomson of Wisconsin for a term ending four 
        years thereafter; and
            (f) Thomas B. Curtis of Missouri for a term ending five 
        years thereafter.

        Mr. Hays of Ohio (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and 
    printed in the Record.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the present consideration of 
    the resolution?
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, and I do not think I will object at this time, 
    but I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the committee 
    a question.
        It is my understanding that there will be approximately 1 hour 
    of debate, which the gentleman from Ohio has agreed to share with 
    the minority?
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: That is correct.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, is this resolution, as it is 
    presented at this time or later, divisible so that we can demand a 
    separate vote on one or all of the six nominees?
        The Speaker: If consent for the consideration of the resolution 
    is given, the resolution is subject to a division of the question 
    with respect to the various nominations.
        Mr. Dickinson: And at that time it will be proper for me, or 
    any other Member, to ask for a separate vote on any one or more of 
    the nominees?
        The Speaker: If consent is granted for the consideration of the 
    resolution, any Member can ask for a division of the question at 
    the proper time.
        Mr. Dickinson: I thank the Speaker.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
    may consume.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Ohio yield to the 
    gentleman from Alabama?
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make sure I understood, 
    and I would ask the Chair, when is the proper time to ask for a 
    division of the question?
        The Speaker: Now, or when the previous question is ordered.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, I will at this time ask for a 
    division of the nominees individually.
        The Speaker: The gentleman asks for a division on all the 
    nominations, and the question will be divided when put. . . .
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: Pursuant to the request of the gentleman from 
    Alabama

[[Page 11778]]

    (Mr. Dickinson), the question on the adoption of the resolution 
    will be divided.
        The Clerk will report the first portion of the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That pursuant to the Federal Election Campaign 
        Act Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-443, the following named 
        individuals be confirmed for appointment to the Federal 
        Election Commission:
            (a) Joan D. Aikens of Pennsylvania for a term ending on the 
        April 30 first occurring more than six months after the date on 
        which she is appointed;

        The Speaker: The question is on the part of the resolution 
    including the nomination of Joan D. Aikens.
        The first part of the resolution was agreed to and the 
    nomination was confirmed.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the next portion of the 
    resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            (b) Robert O. Tiernan of Rhode Island for a term ending one 
        year after the April 30 on which the term of the member 
        referred to in clause (a) immediate above ends;

        The Speaker: The question is on the portion of the resolution 
    which includes the nomination of Robert O. Tiernan.

        Clause (b) of the resolution was agreed to and the nomination 
    was confirmed.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the next portion of the 
    resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            (c) Neil O. Staebler of Michigan for a term ending two 
        years thereafter:

        The Speaker: The question is on the portion of the resolution 
    which includes the nomination of Neil O. Staebler.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. 
    . . .
        Clause (c) of the resolution was agreed to and the nomination 
    was confirmed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the next portion of the 
    resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            (d) Thomas E. Harris of Virginia for a term ending three 
        years thereafter;

        The Speaker: The question is on clause (d) of the resolution 
    including the nomination of Thomas E. Harris.
        Clause (d) of the resolution was agreed to and the nomination 
    was confirmed.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the next portion of the 
    resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            (e) Vernon W. Thomson of Wisconsin for a term ending four 
        years thereafter; and

        The Speaker: The question is on clause (e) of the resolution 
    which includes the nomination of Vernon W. Thomson.
        Clause (e) was agreed to and the nomination was confirmed.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the final portion of the 
    resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            (f) Thomas B. Curtis of Missouri for a term ending five 
        years thereafter.

        The Speaker: The question is on the final clause of the 
    resolution including the nomination of Thomas B. Curtis.

[[Page 11779]]

        Clause (f) was agreed to and the nomination was confirmed.
        A motion to reconsider the votes whereby the various parts of 
    the resolution were agreed to was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of 
    the House.

Sec. 49.3 A resolution with two resolve clauses separately directing 
    the Speaker to certify to the United States attorney the 
    contemptuous conduct of two individuals is subject to a demand for 
    a division of the question as to each individual.

    In the 74th Congress, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, had 
held that one contempt resolution certifying three persons in one 
resolved clause was not divisible since the resolution was drafted in a 
manner that was grammatically indivisible. In the present case, the 
Foreign Affairs Committee was advised to draft separate resolved 
clauses for each witness, as logically each certification should be 
subject to a separate vote. On Feb. 27, 1986,(13) the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs sought recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 132 Cong. Rec. 3040, 3048, 3049, 3050, 3061, 3062, 99th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I offer a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 384) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 384

            Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
        Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs, detailing the refusal of Ralph Bernstein to 
        answer questions of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific 
        Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to the United 
        States Attorney for the District of Columbia, for him to be 
        proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law; and 
        be it further
            Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
        Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs, detailing the refusal of Joseph Bernstein to 
        answer questions of the Subcommittee of Asian and Pacific 
        Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to the United 
        States Attorney for the District of Columbia, for him to be 
        proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Fascell] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
    yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach]. I yield 
    the remainder of my time for the purposes of debate to the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Solarz], and pending that, I yield 
    myself such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the approval of House Report 
    99-462, which concerns proceedings against Ralph Bernstein and 
    Joseph Bernstein. This action is made necessary by the

[[Page 11780]]

    refusal of these two individuals to cooperate with the 
    investigation of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs of 
    the Committee on Foreign Affairs. . . .
        Mr. [Jim] Leach of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
    report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs regarding the refusals 
    of Joseph and Ralph Bernstein to answer certain questions. . . .
        The subcommittee's inquiry was well founded in legislative 
    purpose. Joseph and Ralph Bernstein demonstrated a contempt of 
    Congress by refusing to cooperate with that inquiry. However, I 
    would like to emphasize again, and I'm sure the distinguished 
    chairman of the Subcommittee share this preventive, that the 
    subcommittee prefers to seek information and not punitive actions 
    against these witnesses. They hold the keys to their potential 
    incarceration in their pockets. We continue to hope that Joseph and 
    Ralph Bernstein will cooperate with the subcommittee in its search 
    for the truth in this investigation. In the meantime, I urge my 
    colleagues to support the contempt citation before us to protect 
    the legislative powers and responsibilities of this institution. In 
    this regard, however, as they are individuals of differing 
    circumstances, I demand division of the question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's rights will be 
    protected. The question will be divided. . . .
        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. Leach of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I renew my demand for a 
    division.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the first part 
    of the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
        Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs, detailing the refusal of Ralph Bernstein to 
        answer questions of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific 
        Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to the United 
        States Attorney for the District of Columbia, for him to be 
        proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law;

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the first part of 
    the resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the second part 
    of the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
        Speaker of the House certify the report of the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs, detailing the refusal of Joseph Bernstein to 
        answer questions of the Subcommittee of Asian and Pacific 
        Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to the United 
        States Attorney for the District of Columbia, for him to be 
        proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the second part of 
    the resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Leach of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 11781]]

        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    343, noes 50, not voting 41, as follows: . . .

Sec. 49.4 Where an amendment in the form of a limitation is offered to 
    an appropriation bill providing that no part of the appropriation 
    shall be paid to several individuals named, such amendment is 
    divisible and a separate vote may be had on each name.

    On Feb. 5, 1943,(14) Mr. Joseph E. Hendricks, of 
Florida, offered an amendment to an appropriation bill then before the 
Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 645, 646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hendricks: Page 12, line 22, after 
        the word ``Treasury'', strike out the period and insert a colon 
        and the following: ``Provided further, That no part of any 
        appropriation contained in this act shall be used to pay the 
        compensation of William Pickens, Frederick L. Schuman, Goodwin 
        B. Watson, William E. Dodd, Jr., Paul R. Porter, John Herling, 
        Paul F. Brissenden, David J. Saposs, Maurice Parmelee, Harold 
        Loeb, Sam Schmerler, Emil Jack Lever, David Lasser, Tom 
        Tippett, Henry C. Alsberg, David Karr, Guiseppi Facci, David 
        Wahl, Hugh Miller, Walter Gellhorn, Karl Borders, Jack Fahy, 
        Nathaniel Weyl, Robert Morss Lovett, Merle Vincent, Alice 
        Barrows, Arthur F. Goldschmidt, Marcus I. Goldman, Leonard Emil 
        Mins, Henry T. Hunt, Mary McLeod Bethune, Harry C. Lamberton, 
        T. A. Bisson, Katherine Kellock, Jay Deiss, Milton V. Freeman, 
        George Slaff, A. C. Shire, and Edward Scheunemann.''

    Mr. John H. Folger, of North Carolina, rose subsequently to make a 
point of order and stated:

        . . . Thirty-eight or forty names are included within the 
    amendment, and I make the point of order that it is out of order 
    for that reason. Each one must be taken separately. It is a 
    divisible amendment.

    The Chairman (15) subsequently overruled Mr. Folger's 
point of order, noting that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William W. Courtney (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [W]hen it comes to voting on the amendment, should the 
    House so desire, the amendment is divisible and a separate vote 
    could be had with respect to each individual name.

Sec. 49.5 A resolution reported from an elections committee providing 
    that one individual is not entitled to a seat in the House and that 
    another individual is entitled to a seat has been held to be 
    divisible.

    On June 9, 1938,(16) Mr. John H. Kerr, of North 
Carolina, called up House Resolution 482, which stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 8642, 8660, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Arthur B. Jenks is not entitled to a seat in the 
    House of

[[Page 11782]]

    Representatives in the Seventy-fifth Congress from the First 
    Congressional District of the State of New Hampshire; and be it 
    further
        Resolved, That Alphonse Roy is entitled to a seat in the House 
    of Representatives in the Seventy-fifth Congress from the First 
    Congressional District of the State of New Hampshire.

    After debate, Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, demanded a 
division of the question.
    The Speaker (17) ruled that Mr. Snell was ``entitled to 
ask for a division of the question.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to Election of House Officers

Sec. 49.6 Prior to adoption of the rules, a resolution providing for 
    the election of the officers of the House is divisible.

    On Jan. 21, 1971,(18) Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, 
sought immediate consideration of the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 117 Cong. Rec. 13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H. Res. 1

        Resolved, That W. Pat Jennings, of the Commonwealth of 
    Virginia, be, and he is hereby, chosen Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives;
        That Zeake W. Johnson, Jr., of the State of Tennessee, be, and 
    he is hereby, chosen Sergeant at Arms of the House of 
    Representatives;
        That William M. Miller, of the State of Mississippi, be, and he 
    is hereby, chosen Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives;
        That H. H. Morris, of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, be, and he 
    is hereby, chosen Postmaster of the House of Representatives;
        That Reverend Edward G. Latch, D.D., of the District of 
    Columbia, be, and he is hereby, chosen Chaplain of the House of 
    Representatives.

    Mr. John B. Anderson, of Illinois, then requested a division of the 
question so that a separate vote could be obtained with respect to the 
Office of the Chaplain. The Speaker (19) honored Mr. 
Anderson's request, and that portion of the resolution was voted on and 
agreed to.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
20. For a similar instance, see 113 Cong. Rec. 27, 90th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 10, 1967. This procedure is usually followed on 
        opening day of each Congress in order to show unanimity of 
        support for the Chaplain of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 50. Propositions Considered Under a Motion To Suspend the Rules

Sec. 50.1 It is not in order to demand a division of the question on a 
    proposition considered under a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(1) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts,

[[Page 11783]]

moved to suspend the rules and agree to the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 7655, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be extended to 
    4 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs: and said motion to suspend the rules shall be the 
    continuing order of business of the House until finally disposed 
    of.

    A discussion of the resolution ensued after which the following 
exchange took place:

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dirksen: The resolution contains two substantive proposals. 
    Is it by reason of this fact divisible?
        The Speaker: Not under a suspension of the rules, because the 
    first proposal suspends all the rules.


 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 51. Reports From the Committee of the Whole on Amendments 
    Considered Therein

    When Senate amendments to a House bill are referred to the 
Committee of the Whole, the text for consideration in that Committee is 
the language of the Senate amendment. When the text of a bill is before 
the Committee of the Whole, the Committee has only the authority to 
recommend changes to that text. The Chairman's report, when the 
Committee rises, is that ``the Committee of the Whole has had under 
consideration the bill H.R. 1234 and reports the same back with the 
recommendation that the bill pass with the following amendments.'' When 
Senate amendments are reported back, the report is that the ``Senate 
amendment be disagreed to, agreed to, or agreed to with an amendment.'' 
In either case, each amendment recommended by the Committee of the 
Whole is subject to being voted on separately, absent a special rule or 
unanimous consent.

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

Sec. 51.1 A recommendation from the Committee of the Whole that a 
    Senate amendment be concurred in with an amendment striking out the 
    text of the Senate amendment and inserting new text is not 
    divisible as between concurring and the amendment.

    On July 12, 1945,(3) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
3368)

[[Page 11784]]

making appropriations for war agencies and for other purposes, with 
Senate amendments. The Chairman (4) directed the Clerk to 
report the first Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 7474, 7489, 7493, 7494, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the Senate amendment as follows:

            Senate Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 9, insert:

                     Committee on Fair Employment Practice

            Salaries and expenses: For all expenses necessary to enable 
        the Committee on Fair Employment Practice to carry out any 
        functions lawfully vested in it by Executive Orders No. 8802 
        and 9346, including salary of a Chairman at not to exceed 
        $8,000 per annum and 6 other members at not to exceed $25 per 
        diem when actually engaged; travel expenses (not to exceed 
        $63,800); expenses of witnesses in attendance at Committee 
        hearings, when necessary; printing and binding (not to exceed 
        $4,800); purchase of newspapers and periodicals (not to exceed 
        $500); not to exceed $694 for deposit in the general fund of 
        the Treasury for cost of penalty mail as required by section 2 
        of the act of June 28, 1944 (Public Law 364); and the temporary 
        employment of persons, by contract or otherwise, without regard 
        to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes and the civil-service 
        and classification laws (not to exceed $8,900); $250,000: 
        Provided, That no part of the funds herein appropriated shall 
        be used to pay the compensation of any person to initiate, 
        investigate, or prosecute any complaint against any defendant 
        where such defendant does not have the same right to appeal an 
        adverse decision of the Committee on Fair Employment Practice 
        to the President of the United States, or to refer said 
        complaint to the President of the United States for final 
        disposition, as is asserted by or allowed the said Committee on 
        Fair Employment Practice in cases where persons complained 
        against refuse to abide by its orders: Provided further, That 
        no part of this appropriation shall be used to pay the 
        compensation of any person to initiate, investigate, or 
        prosecute any proceedings against any person, firm, or 
        corporation which seeks to effect the seizure or operation of 
        any plant or other property of such person, firm, or 
        corporation by Federal authority for failure to abide by any 
        rule or regulation of the Committee on Fair Employment 
        Practice, or for failure to abide by any order passed by the 
        Committee on Fair Employment Practice: Provided further, That 
        no part of the funds herein appropriated shall be used to pay 
        the compensation of any person employed by said Committee on 
        Fair Employment Practice who issues or attempts to enforce any 
        rule, regulation, or order which repeals, amends, or modifies 
        any law enacted by the Congress.

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, offered an amendment which, as 
additionally amended by Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, was 
subsequently agreed to after debate.
    A motion that the Committee rise and report the bill back to the 
House was agreed to and the following then occurred:

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Sparkman, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that

[[Page 11785]]

    Committee, having had under consideration the Senate amendments to 
    the bill (H.R. 3368) making appropriations for war agencies for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes, directed 
    him to report the same back to the House with the recommendation 
    that the House concur in Senate amendment numbered 1, with an 
    amendment, and that the House disagree to Senate amendments 
    numbered 2 to 33, inclusive, and agree to the conference asked by 
    the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question.
        The Speaker: (5) The Clerk will report the first 
    recommendation of the Committee [Mr. Cannon's amendment, as 
    amended].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            The Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        recommends that the House concur in Senate amendment No. 1, 
        with the following amendment:
            ``Strike out the matter proposed to be inserted by Senate 
        amendment No. 1 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                   `` `Committee on Fair Employment Practice

            `` `Salaries and expenses: For completely terminating the 
        functions and duties of the Committee on Fair Employment 
        Practice, including such of the objects and limitations 
        specified in the appropriation for such agency for the fiscal 
        year 1945 as may be incidental to its liquidation, $250,000: 
        Provided, That if and until the Committee on Fair Employment 
        Practice is continued by an act of Congress, the amount named 
        herein may be used for its continued operation until an 
        additional appropriation shall have been provided: Provided 
        further, That in no case shall this fund be available for 
        expenditure beyond June 30, 1946.'' '

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the recommendation.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: As I understand it, this entire amendment, 
    beginning on line 9, page 1, and ending on line 14, page 3, as 
    amended, is a Senate amendment. It is brought in here as a Senate 
    amendment. Now the question is on adopting that Senate amendment, 
    the entire amendment; not adopting the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri to the amendment, but on adopting the 
    entire FEPC amendment?
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion agreed to in 
    Committee of the Whole. That is, to agree to the Senate amendment 
    with an amendment. There is no division of the question, if that is 
    what the gentleman is asking.
        Mr. Rankin: Then we have a right to vote on whether or not we 
    will adopt the Senate amendment as amended.
        The Speaker: There is just one question before the House. That 
    is, to concur in the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on this 
    entire Senate amendment. The rules of the House provide that when 
    an amendment is brought in, even though it is amended in Committee 
    of the Whole, when we

[[Page 11786]]

    get back to the House we do not vote on amendments to the amendment 
    but we vote on the amendment as amended.
        The Speaker: We vote on the recommendation which the Committee 
    of the Whole made to the House. That is all there is before the 
    House at this time.
        Mr. Rankin: That is that the amendment as amended be adopted?
        The Speaker: That is the question.
        Mr. Rankin: I would like to have a separate vote on that 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: That is what we are attempting to do right 
    now.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2420 (and Sec. 3192), where a Senate 
        amendment considered in Committee of the Whole was amended by 
        the insertion of several words. The recommendation of the 
        Committee, that the Senate amendment be concurred in with the 
        amendment, being rejected, the House then concurred in the 
        Senate amendment. See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3176, 
        which affirms the proposition that a motion to concur in a 
        Senate amendment with an amendment is not divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 51.2 A proposition reported from the Committee of the Whole as an 
    entire and distinct amendment may not be divided, but must be voted 
    on as a whole in the House.

    On July 20, 1951,(7) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
3871) to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950. When the Committee 
rose, the Speaker resumed the chair, and the Chairman (8) 
reported the bill back to the House with the amendments adopted by the 
Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 8538, 8608, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker stated that under the rule, the previous question was 
ordered, whereupon demands were made for separate votes on several 
amendments, and then an inquiry was directed to the Speaker, as 
follows:

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to ask for a separate 
    vote on the Sabath amendment at page 83, section 206?
        The Speaker: The Sabath amendment was not adopted in Committee 
    of the Whole.
        Mr. Yates: It was a motion, however, Mr. Speaker, to strike out 
    a portion of the committee amendment. Is it not therefore in order?
        The Speaker: Separate votes may be had only on amendments that 
    have been reported by the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Yates: Has not the amendment been adopted by the Committee, 
    Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The Sabath amendment is an amendment to the com

[[Page 11787]]

    mittee amendment and was not agreed to in Committee. . . .
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may a separate vote be taken on a 
    portion of a committee amendment, namely section 206(a) and (b) on 
    page 83?
        The Speaker: A separate vote cannot be had on a portion of the 
    amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole. The amendment 
    must be voted on in its entirety as reported by the Committee of 
    the Whole.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Similar, though less explicit, rulings may be found in later 
        Congresses. See, for example, the following: 114 Cong. Rec. 
        24242, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1968; 114 Cong. Rec. 
        21546, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 1968; 114 Cong. Rec. 1421, 
        90th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 30, 1968; 113 Cong. Rec. 29317, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1967; and 104 Cong. Rec. 16264, 85th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                 D. DIVISION OF THE QUESTION FOR VOTING
 
Sec. 52. Motions To Recede and Concur

    The divisibility of the motion to recede and concur may alter the 
preferential nature of certain motions following such division. The 
motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment, for example, takes 
precedence over a motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment,(11) since, after the stage of disagreement has 
been reached, the motion which most quickly brings the two Houses 
together is preferential. But if the House recedes from its 
disagreement, then a motion to amend takes precedence over concurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. It is to be noted that the phrase ``a motion to recede and concur 
        with an amendment'' is a term of art in parliamentary parlance 
        and refers to a motion that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur therein with a 
        further House amendment. It must be distinguished from the 
        ``motion to recede and concur''--which refers to a simple 
        motion that the House recede from its disagreement to a Senate 
        amendment and decide to concur in that Senate 
        amendment.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a Senate Amendment

Sec. 52.1 A motion that the House recede and concur in a Senate 
    amendment is divisible upon request of any Member, and the House 
    does not vote on whether to divide the motion.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. This precedent is well established. For similar instances, see 109 
        Cong. Rec. 8506, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 14, 1963; 107 Cong. 
        Rec. 16325, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 10, 1961; 106 Cong. Rec. 
        14074, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1960; 91 Cong. Rec. 4492, 
        79th Cong. 1st Sess., May 11, 1945; and 89 Cong. Rec. 5899, 
        78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.

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

[[Page 11788]]

    On June 28, 1972,(13) Mr. Robert R. Casey, of Texas, 
called up the conference report on a bill (H.R. 13955) making 
appropriations for the legislative branch for the fis-cal year ending 
June 30, 1973, and for other purposes. The vote was taken on the 
conference report, and it was agreed to.
    Thereafter, the Speaker directed the Clerk to report the amendments 
remaining in disagreement between the Houses. Among those was Senate 
amendment No. 36, as to which the following discussion took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 22959, 22974, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment numbered 36: Page 24, line 20, insert:

                            Extension of the Capitol

            Funds available under this appropriation may be used for 
        the preparation of preliminary plans for the extension of the 
        west central front: Provided, however, That no funds may be 
        used for the preparation of the final plans or initiation of 
        construction of said project until specifically approved and 
        appropriated therefor by the Congress.

        Mr. Casey of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Casey of Texas moves that the House further insist on 
        its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 36.

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Stratton moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 36 and concur 
        therein.

        Mr. Casey of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I request a division of the 
    question.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Is the request for a division of the question 
    presumably to recede on one part and concur on the other part? Is 
    this subject to a vote or something?
        The Speaker: All of the motion is subject to a vote. The 
    question is on the matter of receding from disagreement.
        Mr. Stratton: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. If 
    a Member is in favor of accepting the Senate amendment, then he 
    would oppose the motion to divide on the vote. Is that correct?
        The Speaker: This is not a question of voting on the division 
    but a question of voting on the motion to recede.
        Mr. Stratton: A further parliamentary inquiry. My understanding 
    is that if the motion to divide succeeds and passes, then it is 
    possible parliamentarily to offer an amendment to the Senate 
    amendment rather than

[[Page 11789]]

    to accept the Senate amendment. Is that not correct?
        The Speaker: If the motion to recede from disagreement is 
    adopted, then a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an 
    amendment is in order. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I am confused. My original question 
    was whether the proposal to divide the question into two parts was 
    subject to a vote.
        The Speaker: Division of a question is a right which any Member 
    of the House enjoys.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. At what point is it in order for the 
    gentleman from New York to offer his motion to recede and concur 
    with the Senate.
        The Speaker: The motion is pending. The gentleman from Texas 
    asked for a division.
        Mr. Yates: Is it in order at this point for the gentleman from 
    New York to offer his motion to recede and concur?
        The Speaker: That motion is pending. The question is shall the 
    House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 52.2 A preferential motion to recede and concur having been 
    divided, the House agreed first to recede and subsequently to 
    concur.

    On Aug. 10, 1961,(15) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, 
called up the conference report on a bill (H.R. 7851) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1962, and for other purposes. The report was agreed to, and 
the House then proceeded to consider the Senate amendments remaining in 
disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 15320, 15325, 15326, 15331, 15336, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of these amendments (No. 26) provided for $207,600,000 to be 
utilized for civil defense activities, including the hiring of motor 
vehicles and the providing of fall-out shelters in government-owned or 
leased buildings. Mr. Mahon moved that the House recede from its 
disagreement to this amendment and concur therein.
    Mr. John Taber, of New York, requested the question be divided and 
upon so doing, the Speaker Pro Tempore (16) put the question 
to the House.
    The House having decided to recede from its disagreement to Senate 
amendment No. 26, Mr. Taber subsequently moved to concur in the 
amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After some discussion of the proposed Taber amendment which called 
for a reduction in the funding by $93 million, Mr. Mahon moved the 
previous question and the House rejected Mr. Taber's motion.

[[Page 11790]]

    The motion to concur with an amendment having failed, the 
previously offered Mahon motion to concur in the Senate amendment was 
then put before the House. The motion was agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 14081, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.3 A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment having 
    been divided, the House receded from disagreement, rejected both a 
    motion to concur with an amendment and a motion to concur, and 
    decided thereafter to insist on disagreement.

    On May 14, 1963,(18) the conference report on the 
supplemental appropriation bill of 1963 (H.R. 5517) having been agreed 
to, Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, moved that the House recede from its 
disagreement to a Senate amendment No. 76, and concur therein with an 
amendment. Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, then offered a 
preferential motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment. Mr. 
Thomas having demanded a division of the proposition, the motion to 
recede was entertained and subsequently agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 8504, 8505, 8506, 8509-11, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Thomas moved that the House concur in 
the Senate amendment with the same amendment which had been 
incorporated in Mr. Thomas' original motion. Since the House had 
already receded, this motion was now preferential to the remaining 
portion of the Barry motion. The Thomas proposal was rejected, however.
    The question then recurred on the second part of the Barry motion 
(i.e., to concur in the Senate amendment) which was also rejected. Mr. 
George Meader, of Michigan, then moved that the House insist on its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment. This motion was agreed to, 
without discussion.

Sec. 52.4 A motion that the House recede from its disagreement and 
    concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment is divisible only as 
    between receding and then concurring with an amendment.

    On Mar. 21, 1946,(19) the House had under consideration 
a conference report pertaining to the independent offices appropriation 
bill of 1947. Among those Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 5201) 
which remained in disagreement were Nos. 10 and 18. After

[[Page 11791]]

the conference report was agreed to, the aforementioned amendments were 
discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 2521, 2523, 2525, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first amendment remaining in disagreement was read to the House 
at the Speaker's (20) request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 10: Page 4, line 21, insert the 
        following:

                        Emergency Fund for the President

            Emergency fund for the President: Not to exceed $5,000,000 
        of the appropriation ``Emergency fund for the President,'' 
        contained in the First Supplemental National Defense 
        Appropriation Act, 1943, as supplemented and amended, is hereby 
        continued available until June 30, 1947: Provided, That no part 
        of such fund shall be available for allocation to finance a 
        function or project for which function or project a Budget 
        estimate of appropriation was transmitted pursuant to law 
        during the Seventy-ninth and Eightieth Congresses and such 
        appropriation denied after consideration thereof by the Senate 
        and House of Representatives or by the Committees on 
        Appropriations of both bodies.

    Mr. Joseph E. Hendricks, of Florida, then moved to recede and 
concur in the Senate amendment with the following amendment:

            After the word ``Senate'' in line 12 of said amendment 
        strike out the remainder of the line and all of lines 13 and 14 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``or House of 
        Representatives or by the Committee on Appropriations of either 
        body.''

    Mr. Richard B. Wigglesworth, of Massachusetts, asked for a division 
of the question. Mr. Hendricks having risen to a point of order that 
the question could not be divided, the Speaker ruled to the contrary. 
Thereafter, the motion, as divided, (i.e., to recede) was put to the 
House and agreed to.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 80 Cong. Rec. 7616, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Division on Determining the Question

Sec. 52.5 The motion to recede and concur having been divided, the 
    first vote applies only to the motion to recede.

    On May 14, 1963,(2) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, called 
up the conference report on a bill (H.R. 5517) making supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and for other 
purposes. Following adoption of the report, the House considered Senate 
amendment No. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 8502, 8505, 8506, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This was a proposal to authorize the payment of some $73 million to 
the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with 
previously passed legislation dealing with war dam

[[Page 11792]]

age claims and in conjunction with certain newly proposed conditions. 
Mr. Thomas moved that the House recede from its disagreement with the 
amendment and concur with an amendment.
    Mr. Robert Barry, of New York, then offered a preferential motion 
that the House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate 
amendment. This motion, in turn, was followed by a demand from Mr. 
Thomas that the question be divided. The Speaker (3) then 
indicated that the first concept in the motion, that is, whether the 
House would recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment, was 
the question under consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.6 Where both the motion to adhere and the motion to recede and 
    concur are pending, and a division of the latter motion is 
    demanded, the vote comes first on the motion to recede.

    On June 23, 1960,(4) Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia, 
called up a bill (H.R. 10569) making appropriations for the Treasury 
and Post Office Departments, and the Tax Court of the United States for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes, with a 
Senate amendment thereto. Immediately after so doing, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached, Mr. Gary moved that the House adhere 
to its disagreement to the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 14074, 14081, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, then offered a preferential 
motion that the House recede from its disagreement and concur therein. 
Mr. Gary sought a division of the question on the preferential motion, 
and the Speaker Pro Tempore (5) recognized him for an hour 
to control the debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wilbur Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After some discussion of the matter, which pertained to how the 
franking privilege was to be used, Mr. John Taber, of New York, 
initiated the following exchange:

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Is not the parliamentary situation this: The 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] has offered a motion to 
    recede and concur. The gentleman from Virginia asked for a division 
    of the question. The parliamentary situation is this: We first vote 
    on the question of receding, and if that carries we can vote on the 
    other part of the motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On the question of concurrence?

[[Page 11793]]

        Mr. Taber: Yes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct.
        Mr. Taber: If the motion to recede is not agreed to, then that 
    is the end of it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No. The vote then would be on the 
    motion to adhere.

    The motion to adhere was not voted upon, however, as the motion to 
recede carried by a substantial margin.

Sec. 52.7 The motion to recede and concur having been divided, and the 
    House having receded from its disagreement to a Senate amendment, 
    the motion to concur with an amendment takes precedence over the 
    motion to concur.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For more information about the disposition of amendments between 
        the Houses, see Ch. 32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 1963,(8) the conference report on the 
supplemental appropriation bill of 1963 was before the House. Among 
those Senate amendments remaining in disagreement was a provision 
calling for some $73 million to be paid to the Philippine government 
for the purposes of war-damage compensation. Mr. Albert Thomas, of 
Texas, moved that the House recede from its disagreement to this 
amendment (No. 76) and concur with an amendment. After some discussion, 
Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, offered the preferential motion that 
the House recede and concur in Senate amendment No. 76. A division 
being demanded by Mr. Thomas, the motion to recede was agreed to, and 
Mr. Thomas then moved to concur with an amendment, which was part of 
his original motion. This motion now occupying a preferential status, 
it was entertained before the remaining portion of the Barry motion. 
Mr. Thomas' proposal was rejected, however, and the Speaker 
(9) then indicated that the question before the House was 
Mr. Barry's motion to concur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 8502, 8505, 8506, 8509, 8510, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.8 A motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment 
    and concur therein being divided, and the House having receded, if 
    a preferential motion to concur with an amendment is offered and 
    rejected, the question recurs on the motion to concur in the Senate 
    amendment.

    A motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment and 
concur therein having

[[Page 11794]]

been divided,(10) the motion to recede was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 8506, 8509, 8510, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 14, 
        1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, a preferential motion to concur in the Senate amendment 
with an amendment was offered by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas. After 
some debate thereon, the Speaker put the question on that motion:

        The Speaker: (11) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas that the House concur in the 
    Senate amendment, with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was rejected.
        The Speaker: The question now is on the second part of the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from New York that the House concur 
    in the Senate amendment.

    Thus, the rejection of the preferential motion revives the second 
portion of the previously divided motion to recede and concur 
(12) unless another preferential motion is offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also 93 Cong. Rec. 9319, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Division When Followed by Rejection of Motion To Recede

Sec. 52.9 The motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment having 
    been divided, the Chair informed a Member that the effect of voting 
    down the motion to recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment 
    would permit the offering of a motion to insist on disagreement.

    On May 14, 1963,(13) the conference report on the 
supplemental appropriation bill of 1963 (H.R. 5517) having been agreed 
to, Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, moved that the House recede from its 
disagreement to a Senate amendment No. 76, and concur therein with an 
amendment. A preferential motion to recede and concur having been 
offered, Mr. Thomas demanded the division of the latter motion, and 
subsequently moved the previous question on the motion to recede.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 8504-06, 8508, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. George Meader, of Michigan, then rose and the following 
exchange took place:

        Mr. Meader: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Meader: Would it be in order, either before the previous 
    question is agreed to or thereafter, to offer a motion to further 
    disagree with the Senate amendment?

[[Page 11795]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that can be 
    accomplished, if desired, by voting down the motion to recede.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is in order, following the refusal of 
the House to recede, to entertain a motion to insist on 
disagreement.(15) They are not equivalent questions, since 
the House, upon refusing to recede, could also adhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See also 103 Cong. Rec. 15519, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 1957; 
        115 Cong. Rec. 40902, 40912, 40915, 40921, 40922, 91st Cong. 
        1st Sess., Dec. 22, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 52.10 There being two motions currently pending--one to recede and 
    concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment and the other a 
    preferential motion to recede and concur--if the House refuses to 
    recede when the motion to recede and concur is divided, both 
    motions are then inoperable. The House has in effect reiterated its 
    disagreement to the Senate amendment and a motion to further insist 
    on (or a motion to adhere to) that position is in order.

    On Dec. 16, 1943,(16) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
called up the conference report on a supplemental defense appropriation 
bill for 1944 (H.R. 3598). The House subsequently agreed to the report, 
and discussion ensued with respect to those amendments remaining in 
disagreement between the Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 10753, 10756, 10777-80, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among them was a Senate amendment No. 49, as to which Mr. Cannon 
offered a motion to recede and concur with an amendment. The Senate 
amendment dealt with a supplemental appropriation for the Bureau of 
Reclamation. Mr. Cannon's proposal read as follows:

        In lieu of the sum of ``$2,800,000'' named in such amendment, 
    insert ``$700,000''; and in lieu of the sum of ``$800,000'' named 
    in such amendment, insert ``$200,000''.

    Shortly thereafter, Mr. Compton I. White, of Idaho, offered a 
preferential motion.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. White moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to Senate amendment No. 49 and concur in the same.

    Mr. Cannon then requested a division of the question, and the House 
refused to recede.
    Thereafter, Mr. Cannon moved that the House further insist on its 
disagreement to the Senate amendment. This motion prompted a series of 
parliamentary in

[[Page 11796]]

quiries from a number of Members:

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case: The first question for division was a division on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. White]. The 
    House has refused to recede on the division of that motion. Then it 
    seems to me that the question recurs on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] to recede and concur with an 
    amendment. On that motion I ask for a division.
        The Speaker: The gentleman asks for a division of the question. 
    The House has already refused to recede. Therefore, it would be 
    rather anomalous if we had a division of the motion of the 
    gentleman from Missouri, and voted again on the question of 
    receding.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I insist on my motion that 
    the House insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendment.
        Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case: Since the motion which was offered by the gentleman 
    from Idaho [Mr. White] was a preferential motion as against the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], I 
    question whether or not the gentleman can then move to insist. The 
    vote, it seems to me, must recur on the motion previously pending, 
    which was the motion of the gentleman from Missouri to recede and 
    concur with an amendment. A division of the question is entirely 
    different when two different propositions are before the House. The 
    House has refused to recede on the dividing of the question offered 
    by the gentleman from Idaho, but has not refused to recede on 
    dividing the question offered by the gentleman from Missouri in his 
    original motion.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] has moved 
    to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment. The Chair 
    believes there is nothing to do at this time but to put the 
    gentleman's motion.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Missouri, that the House insist on its disagreement.

    Shortly thereafter, the Speaker put the question to a vote. The 
motion to insist carried, but was objected to on the ground that a 
quorum was not present. More parliamentary inquiries preceded the vote:

        Mr. [John R.] Murdock [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Murdock: I am confused as to what the question is. Will the 
    Chair restate it?
        The Speaker: The motion to recede was voted down. The only 
    motion the gentleman from Missouri had left, therefore, was to 
    further insist on the disagreement to the Senate amendment. That is 
    what we are voting on now.

[[Page 11797]]

        Mr. [Clinton P.] Anderson of New Mexico: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Anderson of New Mexico: Did the gentleman from Missouri 
    withdraw his motion to recede and concur with an amendment?
        The Speaker: He did not; it was not necessary. Because of the 
    fact that a motion to recede had been voted down, a second motion 
    to recede was not in order.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: The motion to recede and concur with an amendment 
    having been displaced by a motion to recede and concur, and this 
    motion having been divided so that we voted on the motion to recede 
    alone, the only motion that could possibly be made would be the one 
    the gentleman from Missouri did make, that the House further 
    insist; is that correct?
        The Speaker: The Chair has so stated.

    The roll was then called, and the motion to insist was agreed 
to.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 89 Cong. Rec. 7384, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 7, 1943, 
        where the Speaker indicated that ``the House cannot concur 
        until it has receded;'' and 86 Cong. Rec. 5892, 76th Cong. 3d 
        Sess., May 9, 1940, where the Speaker Pro Tempore answered a 
        parliamentary inquiry by stating that the rejection of a motion 
        to recede (which question had been divided from an original 
        motion to recede and concur) would preclude the subsequent 
        offering of a motion to concur with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Division on Time Allotted for Debate

Sec. 52.11 A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment having 
    been divided, the proponent of the initial motion retains control 
    of the floor.

    On Dec. 22, 1969,(19) the House having called up a 
conference report on a bill (H.R. 15209) making supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other 
purposes, certain Senate amendments remained in disagreement between 
the Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 40902, 40915, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, moved that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 33 and concur therein. 
A division of the question having been demanded, the Speaker put the 
first portion of the question before the House, and the following 
discussion ensued:

        The Speaker: (20) The question is, Will the House 
    recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
    numbered 33?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11798]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacGregor: I should like to ask the Speaker if the time for 
    debate on the motion of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) is 
    under the control of the gentleman from Texas and if it is in order 
    for me at this time to ask the gentleman from Texas to yield to me 
    for 5 minutes?
        Mr. Mahon: I have agreed to yield to the gentleman from 
    Minnesota for 5 minutes for the purpose of debate.
        Mr. MacGregor: Am I recognized, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas will be recognized for 1 
    hour, but the question before the House now is on the motion of the 
    gentleman from Texas that the House recede from its disagreement to 
    the Senate amendment.

    The Speaker having confirmed Mr. Mahon's control of the time for 
debate, Mr. Mahon then yielded the floor to Mr. MacGregor for 5 
minutes.

Sec. 52.12 Debate on a motion that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur in the same is under 
    the hour rule, and if the question is divided, the hour rule 
    applies to each motion separately, unless the previous question has 
    been ordered on the motion prior to the division of the question.

    On May 9, 1940,(1) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
moved that the House recede from its disagreement to a Senate amendment 
to the agricultural appropriation bill of 1941 and concur therein with 
an amendment which he sent to the Clerk's desk. Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, 
of Georgia, then offered a preferential motion that the House recede 
from its disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment, itself. The 
question having been divided by request, the House entertained the 
motion to recede.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 5887, 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of that debate, the following occurred:

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, as 
    I understand, there is 1 hour debate allowed on the motion to 
    recede and concur. Request has been made for a division. My inquiry 
    is this: Will there be 1 hour of debate on each motion?
        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Cannon] controls the time. If one is demanded on the motion to 
    recede, that hour is granted. Then an hour will be granted on the 
    motion to concur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whittington: That satisfies my inquiry.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), debate on 
a motion to dispose of an

[[Page 11799]]

amendment in disagreement is divided between the majority and minority 
parties--or divided three ways if both floor managers are in support of 
the motion and if another Member demands 20 minutes in opposition. See 
H. Res. 7, 131 Cong. Rec. 393, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1985.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
 E. POSTPONING VOTES; CLUSTERING VOTES; REDUCED VOTING TIME; SEPARATE 
                                 VOTES
 
Sec. 53. Evolution of House Rules on Postponement and Reduced Voting 
    Time


Introduction

    The concepts of postponing votes, clustering a series of votes, and 
of reducing voting times were introduced into the rules by the adoption 
of House Resolution 5 on the first day of the 96th 
Congress.(1) Amendments were made to Rules I, XV, XXIII, and 
XXVII.(2) The first instance where the Speaker utilized his 
new authority to postpone a series of votes to another day occurred on 
Feb. 21, 1979,(3) when the debate on a series of 10 
committee funding resolutions was conducted but where the votes were 
postponed until Feb. 26, 1979.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 7-10, 12, 13, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 15, 1979.
 2. Id. at pp. 8, 9.
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 2906, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Id. at pp. 3255, 3256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Speaker may not on his own volition and discretion 
reduce the times in which votes are taken with the electronic system, 
the House may authorize such action by unanimous consent or special 
order.                          -------------------

The Development of the Speaker's Postponement Authority and Its Place 
    in the Rules

Sec. 53.1 In the 96th Congress, the Speaker was given discretionary 
    authority to postpone record votes on the final passage of bills, 
    the adoption of resolutions and conference reports to a time 
    certain within two legislative days. In separate amendments to 
    Rules XI and XXVII, the authority to postpone and ``cluster'' votes 
    on resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules and on motions 
    to suspend the rules

[[Page 11800]]

    until the same or the next legislative day was clarified.

    New rules adopted on Jan. 15, 1979,(5) included the 
following authorities [those parts of the resolution relating to 
postponing and clustering votes are shown in italic]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 7-9, 12, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 5

            Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of 
        the Ninety-fifth Congress, including all applicable provisions 
        of law which constituted the rules of the House at the end of 
        the Ninety-fifth Congress, be, and they are hereby, adopted as 
        the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-sixth 
        Congress, with the following amendments included therein as 
        part thereof, to wit: . . .
            (2) In Rule I, clause 5 is amended by inserting ``(a)'' 
        immediately after ``5'' and by adding at the end of such clause 
        the following new paragraph:
            ``(b)(1) On any legislative day whenever a recorded vote or 
        the yeas and nays are ordered on the question of passing bills 
        or resolutions or agreeing to conference reports, or when a 
        vote is objected to under clause 4 of Rule XV on the question 
        of passing bills or resolutions or agreeing to conference 
        reports, the Speaker may, in his discretion, postpone further 
        proceedings on each such question to a designated time or place 
        in the legislative schedule on that legislative day or within 
        two legislative days.
            ``(2) At the time designated by the Speaker for further 
        consideration of proceedings postponed under subparagraph (1), 
        the Speaker shall put each question on which further 
        proceedings were postponed, in the order in which that question 
        was considered.
            ``(3) At any time after the vote has been taken on the 
        first question on which the Speaker has postponed further 
        proceedings under this paragraph, the Speaker may, in his 
        discretion, reduce to not less than five minutes the period of 
        time within which a rollcall vote by electronic device on the 
        question may be taken without any intervening business on any 
        or all of the additional questions on which the Speaker has 
        postponed further proceedings under this paragraph.
            ``(4) If the House adjourns before all of the questions on 
        which further proceedings were postponed under this paragraph 
        have been put and determined, then, on the next following 
        legislative day the unfinished business shall be the 
        disposition of all such questions, previously undisposed of, in 
        the order in which the questions were considered.''; . . .
            (11)(a) In Rule XI, clause 4(e) is amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(e)(1) On any legislative day when reports from the 
        Committee on Rules are being considered, the Speaker may 
        announce to the House, in his discretion, before consideration 
        of the first resolution, that he will postpone further 
        proceedings on such of the resolutions reported from that 
        committee as he may designate if a recorded vote or the yeas 
        and nays are ordered or if the vote is objected to under clause 
        4 of Rule XV when the Chair puts the question on the previous 
        question or on the adoption of the resolution, until--

[[Page 11801]]

            ``(A) all such resolutions on that legislative day have 
        been considered and any debate thereon concluded, with the 
        question having been put and determined on each such resolution 
        on which the taking of the vote will not be postponed; or
            ``(B) the next legislative day, with the question having 
        been put and determined on each such resolution on which the 
        taking of the vote will not be postponed.
            ``(2) Where the Speaker has postponed votes pursuant to 
        paragraph 4(e)(1)(A) of this clause, when the last of such 
        resolutions so designated has been considered and any debate 
        thereon concluded, with the question put and determined on each 
        such resolution on which further proceedings were not 
        postponed, the Speaker shall put the appropriate question on 
        each such resolution on which further proceedings were 
        postponed in the order in which each such resolution was 
        considered.
            ``(3) Where the Speaker has postponed votes pursuant to 
        paragraph (e)(1)(B) of this clause, on the next legislative day 
        the Speaker shall put as unfinished business the appropriate 
        question on each such resolution on which further proceedings 
        were postponed in the order in which each such resolution was 
        considered.'';
            (b) Redesignate subparagraphs (3) and (4) as (4) and (5) 
        respectively. ; . . .
            (18)(a) In Rule XXVII, amend clause 3 to read as follows:
            ``3. (a) When a motion to suspend the rules has been 
        submitted to the House or has been seconded pursuant to clause 
        2 of this rule, it shall be in order, before the final vote is 
        taken thereon, to debate the proposition to be voted upon for 
        forty minutes, one-half of such time to be given to debate in 
        favor of, and one-half to debate in opposition to, such 
        proposition; and the same right of debate shall be allowed 
        whenever the previous question has been ordered on any 
        proposition on which there has been no debate.
            ``(b)(1) On any legislative day on which the Speaker is 
        authorized to entertain motions to suspend the rules and pass 
        bills or resolutions, including the last six days of a session, 
        he may announce to the House, in his discretion, before 
        entertaining the first such motion, that he will postpone 
        further proceedings on each of such motions on which a recorded 
        vote or the yeas and nays is ordered or on which the vote is 
        objected to under clause 4 of Rule XV, until--
            ``(A) all of such motions on that legislative day have been 
        entertained and any debate thereon concluded, with the question 
        having been put and determined on each such motion on which the 
        taking of the vote will not be postponed; or
            ``(B) the next legislative day, with the question having 
        been put and determined on each such motion on which the taking 
        of the vote will not be postponed.
            ``(2) Where the Speaker has postponed votes pursuant to 
        paragraph (b)(1)(A) of this clause, when the last of all 
        motions on that legislative day to suspend the rules and pass 
        bills or resolutions has been entertained and any debate 
        therein concluded, the Speaker shall put the question on each 
        motion which further proceedings were postponed, in the order 
        in which that motion was entertained.
            ``(3) Where the Speaker has postponed votes pursuant to 
        paragraph (b)(1)(B) of this clause, on the next legislative day 
        the Speaker shall put as unfinished business the question of 
        each motion on which further proceedings were postponed, in the 
        order in which that motion was entertained.''; . . .

        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I yield, for purposes of debate only, 
    30 minutes of that hour to the distinguished mi

[[Page 11802]]

    nority leader, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes), and pending 
    that, I yield myself such time as I may require. . . .
        The rules changes we propose are modest. Their thrust is to 
    assist the House in facilitating the business of the House. I think 
    basically these changes embodied in this resolution will do four 
    things:
        First, some of the changes would grant authority to the Speaker 
    to group record votes in clusters in order to expedite the 
    consideration of relatively noncontroversial legislation. The 
    purpose of this, quite obviously, is to save time. . . .
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, 
    consideration of our rules is an important area of discussion, for 
    they are going to determine how we proceed in this House for the 
    next 2 years.
        The rules changes proposed are complex and technical. I am 
    going to place in the Record an analysis and an expression of my 
    concern over what I consider to be the more significant changes 
    proposed by the majority, but I want to mention the two areas which 
    could lead to the greatest mischief: the postponing of votes and 
    the budget amendments.
        Mr. Speaker, the clustering of votes at the end of the day or 
    on the following day may expedite the business of this House, but 
    that practice certainly will not lead to better legislation. It 
    will actually encourage absenteeism, as was alluded to by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), and will tend to inhibit open 
    debate and discussion.
        Mr. Speaker, votes on rules reported and suspensions can 
    actually be deferred until the next day, but it is my understanding 
    that the Speaker would give prior notice of these votes if the 
    votes would be deferred.

Sec. 53.2 In the 97th Congress, the House adopted changes to Rule I to 
    consolidate under one clause the separate authorities to postpone 
    record votes on a variety of issues.

    In the process of adopting new rules for the 97th Congress, the 
House, on Jan. 5, 1981,(7) consolidated the various 
authorities for the Speaker to postpone record votes in Rule I clause 
5. As part of the same amendment, the period of time for which a vote 
on a suspension motion can be postponed was increased from one to two 
legislative days. The new rule provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 127 Cong. Rec. 98, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H. Res. 5

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
    Ninety-sixth Congress, including all applicable provisions of law 
    which constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the Ninety-
    sixth Congress, be, and they are hereby, adopted as the Rules of 
    the House of Representatives of the Ninety-seventh Congress, with 
    the following amendments included therein as part thereof, to wit:
        (1) In Rule I, clause 4 is amended by adding at the end thereof 
    the following new sentence: ``The Speaker is author

[[Page 11803]]

    ized to sign enrolled bills whether or not the House is in 
    session.''.
        (2) In Rule I, clause 5(b)(1) is amended to read as follows:
        ``(b)(1) On any legislative day whenever a recorded vote is 
    ordered or the yeas and nays are ordered, or a vote is objected to 
    under clause 4 of Rule XV on any of the following questions, the 
    Speaker may, in his discretion, postpone further proceedings on 
    each such question to a designated time or place in the legislative 
    schedule on that legislative day or within two legislative days:
        ``(A) the question of passing bills;
        ``(B) the question of adopting resolutions;
        ``(C) the question of ordering the previous question on 
    privileged resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules;
        ``(D) the question of agreeing to conference reports; and
        ``(E) the question of agreeing to motions to suspend the 
    rules.''.

Special Orders Used To Regulate Deferral and Clustering of Votes; 
    Postponement Authority in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 53.3 The House for the first time, by the adoption of a special 
    order, granted the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole special 
    authority to defer requests for recorded votes, to cluster votes on 
    amendments which are deferred, and to vary the order of 
    consideration of amendments established in the special order.

    In an effort to introduce more logical consideration of major 
issues in annual defense authorization bills, and to expedite their 
consideration, the Committee on Armed Services (redesignated as the 
Committee on National Security in the 104th Congress) has requested the 
Committee on Rules to report increasingly detailed and structured 
special orders governing consideration of such measures. The rule 
adopted by the House in the 102d Congress, second session, is 
illustrative of the detailed special orders which have been utilized in 
more recent Congresses. The text of House Resolution 474 was as 
follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Portions of the rule dealing with the amendment process and voting 
        are shown in italics. 138 Cong. Rec. 13239-41, 102d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., June 3, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Martin] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                H. Res. 474

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House

[[Page 11804]]

        resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
        the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5006) to 
        authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1993 for military 
        functions of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
        personnel levels for fiscal year 1993, and for other purposes. 
        The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
        points of order against consideration of the bill for failure 
        to comply with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act 
        of 1974 are waived. After general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this 
        resolution and which shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
        and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
        the Committee on Armed Services, the bill shall be considered 
        for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order 
        to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
        under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now 
        printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
        against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
        for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, clause 5(a) of 
        rule XXI, and section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute shall be in order except the amendments 
        printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
        this resolution and amendments en bloc described in this 
        resolution. Pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate may 
        be offered only by the chairman or ranking minority member of 
        the Committee on Armed Services. Unless otherwise specified in 
        this resolution, the amendments printed in the report of the 
        Committee on Rules shall be considered in the order and manner 
        specified in the report. Unless otherwise specified in the 
        report, each amendment may be offered only by the named 
        proponent or a designee, shall be considered as read when 
        offered, shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
        subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
        division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
        the Whole. All points of order against amendments printed in 
        the report are waived. If more than one of the following 
        amendments relating to funding levels for the Strategic Defense 
        Initiative is adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be 
        considered as finally adopted and reported to the House: (1) by 
        Representative Dellums of California; (2) by Representative Kyl 
        of Arizona; (3) by Representative Durbin of Illinois; and (4) 
        Representative Aspin of Wisconsin or Representative Dickinson 
        of Alabama. If more than one of the following amendments 
        relating to B-2 procurement is adopted, only the last to be 
        adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to 
        the House: (1) by Representative Andrews of Maine; and (2) 
        Representative Aspin of Wisconsin or Representative Dickinson 
        of Alabama. At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
        the Committee on Rules may file a supplemental report for the 
        purpose of printing additional amendments relating to economic 
        conversion and adjustments in funding levels. Amendments 
        printed in the supplemental report shall be considered as 
        though included in the original report to accompany this 
        resolution except that the consideration of any amendments 
        relating to economic conversion: (1) shall be in order not 
        sooner than one hour after the chairman of the Committee on 
        Armed Services announces from the floor a

[[Page 11805]]

        request to proceed thereto; and (2) shall begin with general 
        debate on that subject for one hour equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Armed Services. It shall be in order at any time 
        for the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or his 
        designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments 
        printed in part II of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
        germane modifications thereof. Amendments en bloc shall be 
        considered as read except that modifications shall be reported. 
        Amendments en bloc shall be debatable for twenty minutes 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their 
        respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
        shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
        in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
        order against amendments en bloc are waived. The original 
        proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc may 
        insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately 
        before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. The chairman 
        of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during 
        further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
        for a recorded vote on any amendment made in order by this 
        resolution. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
        reduce to not less than five minutes the time for voting by 
        electronic device on any postponed question that immediately 
        follows another vote by electronic device without intervening 
        business, provided that the time for voting by electronic 
        device on the first in any series of questions shall be not 
        less than fifteen minutes. The chairman of the Committee of the 
        Whole may recognize for the consideration of an amendment 
        printed in the report of the Committee on Rules at a time other 
        than its prescribed place in the order, but not sooner than one 
        hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
        announces from the floor a request to that effect. At the 
        conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
        Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been finally adopted. Any Member may 
        demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
        the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question 
        shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit with or without instructions.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Frost] is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 474 provides for the 
    consideration of H.R. 5006, the National Defense Authorization Act 
    for Fiscal Year 1993.  . .
        Mr. Speaker, in devising the rule providing for the 
    consideration of the fiscal year 1993 Defense Department 
    authorization, the Committee on Rules considered over 180 
    amendments which were submitted to the committee for possible 
    inclusion in the rule. The proposed rule not only allows the House 
    to debate all of the major policy issues associated with our 
    national defense, it also allows the House to work its will on a 
    number of amendments which deal with a variety of issues relating 
    to the Department of Defense. However, the rule providing for the 
    consideration of all these issues

[[Page 11806]]

    is necessarily complicated and I would like to take a few minutes 
    to explain to the House the procedure recommended by the Rules 
    Committee.
        Only those amendments printed in the report accompanying House 
    Resolution 474, as well as certain amendments en bloc and pro forma 
    amendments for the purpose of debate, if offered by the chairman or 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, will be 
    eligible for consideration. The amendments made in order in the 
    report are to be considered in the order and manner specified, and, 
    unless otherwise specified in the rule, the amendments are 
    debatable for 10 minutes each, to be equally divided and controlled 
    by a proponent and opponent of the amendment. The rule also 
    provides that unless otherwise specified, amendments may be offered 
    only by the named proponent or a designee, and provides that the 
    amendments shall be considered as read when offered, shall not be 
    subject to a demand for a division in the House or in the Committee 
    of the Whole, and waives all points of order against the amendments 
    printed in the report. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, because a number of amendments made in order in 
    the rule do deal with major policy issues, the Committee on Rules 
    has structured the consideration of two of those issues in a king-
    of-the-hill procedure. The rule provides that during the 
    consideration of amendments relating to the strategic defense 
    initiative, that each of the four amendments eligible for 
    consideration shall be debated for 30 minutes, with the time to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the named proponent and an 
    opponent. Each amendment will be debated and voted on and the last 
    amendment agreed to shall be considered as finally adopted and 
    reported to the House. . . .
        The rule also grants the Committee on Rules the authority to 
    file a sup-plemental report which will include amendments relating 
    to economic conversion and add backs of DOD funds to reflect the 
    spending levels envisioned in the fiscal year 1993 budget 
    resolution. The rule provides that the amendments printed in the 
    supplemental report shall be considered as though they had been 
    printed in the original report accompanying House Resolution 474. 
    However, the rule does provide that any amendment relating to 
    defense conversion shall not be considered until 1 hour after the 
    chairman of the Committee on Armed Services announces a request to 
    proceed to the consideration of those amendments and until after 
    the completion of general debate, not to exceed 1 hour on that 
    subject. The rule provides that general debate on the issue of 
    defense conversion shall be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
    Services.
        The rule provides for the consideration of two amendments 
    relating to defense conversion, but which shall be debatable for 10 
    minutes, equally divided and controlled. The first amendment will 
    be offered by Chairman Aspin, and the second, a substitute 
    amendment, will be offered by Representative Dickinson. . . .
        In order to expedite the consideration of this lengthy and 
    complicated process in the House, House Resolution 474 provides 
    that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone

[[Page 11807]]

    a request for a recorded vote, votes may be reduced to 5 minutes 
    the time for voting on amendments after the first 15-minute vote in 
    a series of votes, and may recognize for consideration of 
    amendments out of the order in which they are printed in the report 
    accompanying this rule, but only after 1 hour's notification by the 
    chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Sec. 53.4 While the authority of the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole to postpone and cluster votes is provided by special orders, 
    drafted to fit the specific amendment process established for a 
    particular bill, the concept of reducing voting times to five 
    minutes was incorporated into the standing rules in the 102d 
    Congress. Rule XXIII clause 2(a), permits a five-minute vote on an 
    amendment immediately following a 15-minute quorum call; and clause 
    2(c) permits the reduction of voting time on an amendment or 
    amendments where the vote comes immediately after a 15-minute vote 
    on another amendment.

    The first instance where the Chairman announced his intention to 
use the new authority in clause 2(c), Rule XXIII, occurred on May 15, 
1991.(10) During consideration of H.R. 1415, the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act of fiscal years 1992 and 1993, a partial 
amendment tree was pending: an amendment, a perfecting amendment 
thereto, and a substitute for the original amendment. The Chairman's 
statement of his intention to have two five-minute votes, if recorded 
votes were in fact ordered, following a 15-minute vote on the 
perfecting amendment, was in fact thwarted by further debate which 
intervened after the first of the three votes. Proceedings were as 
indicated below.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 137 Cong. Rec. 11115, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Id. at pp. 11090, 11093, 11109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Olympia J.] Snowe [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments en bloc explicitly made in order under the rule.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments en bloc offered by Ms. Snowe:
            Strike paragraph (7) of section 101(a).
            Strike section 132 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:

                       sec. 132. moscow embassy security.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 401(a) of the 
        Diplomatic Security Act (22 U.S.C. 4851) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4) by striking ``Amounts'' and inserting 
        ``Except as provided in paragraph (5), amounts''; and
            (2) by adding after paragraph (4) the following new 
        paragraph (5):

[[Page 11808]]

            (5) Moscow embassy security.--Of the amounts authorized in 
        paragraph (4), $130,000,000 shall be available for fiscal year 
        1993 only for the costs of deconstruction of the partially 
        constructed new chancery of the United States Embassy in Moscow 
        to the basement level and reconstruction of a new chancery on 
        the same site.''.
            (b) Extraordinary Security Safeguards.-- . . .

        Mr. [Harold L.] Berman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendments en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Berman to the amendments en bloc 
        offered by Ms. Snowe:
            Page 1, after ``Strike paragraph (7) of section 101(a)'' 
        insert ``and insert the following:
            (7) Moscow Embassy.--Subject to the provisions of section 
        132, for construction of a new United States Embassy office 
        building in Moscow, Soviet Union, $130,000,000 for fiscal year 
        1992 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1993.
            Page 1, strike subsection (a) (lines 2 through 16) and 
        insert the following (and redesignate subsections as may be 
        appropriate);
            (a) Limitation.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated 
        under section 101(a)(7) shall be available for obligation and 
        expenditure subject to the provisions of this section.
            (b) Comprehensive plan.-- . . .

        Mr. [Frederick S.] Upton [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendments en bloc.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Upton as a substitute for the 
        amendments en bloc offered by Ms. Snowe:
            Strike paragraph (7) of section 101(a).
            Strike section 132 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:

                       sec. 132. moscow embassy security.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 401(a) of the 
        Diplomatic Security Act (22 U.S.C. 4851) is amended--
            (1) In paragraph (4) by striking ``Amounts'' and inserting 
        ``Except as provided in paragraph (5), amounts''; and . . .

        Mr. Berman: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. David R. Nagle (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Berman: Mr. Chairman, were the Berman amendment to pass, 
    would then the Upton substitute be a substitute for the Berman 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: If the Berman amendment were to be adopted, the 
    Upton substitute would be for the Snowe amendment, as amended. But 
    it would, if adopted, eliminate the Berman perfecting amendment.
        Mr. Berman: And restore the Snowe amendment with the additional 
    provisions regarding Soviet funding.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Berman: At this particular point, you will ask for a vote 
    on the Berman amendment. If there is a rollcall requested following 
    that vote, is there a way to deal with the Upton amendment, or do 
    we have to wait until after that 15-minute rollcall vote?

        The Chairman: The Chair would announce pursuant to clause 2(c), 
    rule XXIII its intent that if a subsequent

[[Page 11809]]

    recorded vote should be ordered without intervening business or 
    amendment or debate, that the Chair would then intend to reduce to 
    not less than 5 minutes the votes on any subsequent recorded votes. 
    The Snowe amendment and amendments thereto.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Berman: On the point of parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Volkmer: Just a point of clarification.
        There is no time limit on debate; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is 
    correct.
        Mr. Volkmer: In addition, Mr. Chairman, if the amendment of the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is successful or not, either 
    way, to the amendment of the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe], I 
    could still rise at the end of that, and, if recognized by the 
    Chair, be able to offer a motion at that time?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, and should that debate 
    or intervening business take place, the subsequent vote will not be 
    reduced to 5 minutes.

Sec. 53.5 In the 104th Congress, the House further amended Rule I, 
    clause 5(b), to reorder and expand the list of questions 
    susceptible to postponement. In certain situations, the vote on the 
    previous question can be postponed, if the question to which it 
    applies is also subject to the Speaker's postponement authority. In 
    the 105th Congress, the House expanded the list of questions 
    susceptible to postponement in Rule I to include votes on amending 
    Corrections bills and suspension motions.

    As amended in the 104th and the 105th Congresses, Rule I clause 
5(b), which contains the authority for the Speaker to postpone votes in 
the House, provides as follows:

        (b)(1) On any legislative day whenever a recorded vote is 
    ordered or the yeas and nays are ordered, or a vote is objected to 
    under clause 4 of rule XV on any of the following questions, the 
    Speaker may, in his discretion, postpone further proceedings on 
    each such question to a designated time or place in the legislative 
    schedule on that legislative day in the case of the question of 
    agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, or within two 
    legislative days, in the case of the other questions listed herein:
        (A) the question of adopting a resolution;
        (B) the question of passing a bill;
        (C) the question of agreeing to a motion to instruct conferees 
    as provided in clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII: (13) Pro

[[Page 11810]]

    vided, however, That proceedings shall not resume on said question 
    if the conferees have filed a report in the House;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Clause 1(c) of Rule XXVIII provides for motions to discharge or 
        instruct conferees in certain situations. See House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 910 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (D) the question of agreeing to a conference report;
        (E) the question of agreeing to a motion to recommit a bill 
    considered pursuant to clause 4 of rule XIII; (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Clause 4 of Rule XIII provides for the ``Corrections Calendar.'' 
        See House Rules and Manual Sec. 745a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (F) the question of ordering the previous question on a 
    question described in subdivision (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E);
        (G) the question of agreeing to an amendment to a bill 
    considered pursuant to clause 4 of rule XIII; and
        (H) the question of agreeing to a motion to suspend the rules.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
 E. POSTPONING VOTES; CLUSTERING VOTES; REDUCED VOTING TIME; SEPARATE 
                                 VOTES
 
Sec. 54. Postponing Votes

Postponement of Votes to Next Legislative Day

Sec. 54.1 An announcement by the Chair, after midnight on one 
    legislative day, that votes will be taken ``tomorrow'' results in 
    their postponement until the next legislative day. Under Rule I 
    clause 5(b), the period for postponement of votes is measured in 
    legislative, not calendar, days.

    On Oct. 15, 1990,(15) the House remained in session 
until after midnight and considered several motions to suspend the 
rules. When the Speaker Pro Tempore, Romano L. Mazzoli, of Kentucky, 
announced that he would postpone recorded votes ordered on the series 
of motions until ``tomorrow,'' a parliamentary inquiry was directed to 
the Chair as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 136 Cong. Rec. 29286, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, what day is tomorrow?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would answer the gentleman's 
    question by stating that it is on the next legislative day.

By Speaker's Authority--Postponement of Suspension Votes; Chair's 
    Discretion

Sec. 54.2 Clause 5(b) does not require the Speaker to announce at the 
    beginning of consideration of a motion to suspend the rules his 
    intention to postpone proceedings if roll call votes are demanded.

    Under Rule I clause 5(b), the Speaker may postpone further 
proceedings after a record vote is ordered or a point of no quorum 
raised under Rule XV clause 4.
    While the Chair, as a courtesy to all Members, normally an

[[Page 11811]]

nounces his intention with respect to the postponing of votes before 
exercising his authority under Rule I clause 5(b), the rule does not 
require such prior notification. The proceedings of Feb. 23, 
1993,(16) are illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 139 Cong. Rec. 3281, 3282, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] that the 
    House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 20, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Kweisi Mfume (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Wolf) there were--ayes 10, noes 16.
        Mr. [William (Bill)] Clay [of Missouri]: 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 Pro Tempore: The Chair announces that pursuant to 
    clause 5 of rule I, further proceedings on this motion will be 
    postponed until tomorrow.
        The point of no quorum is withdrawn.
        Mr. [Frank R.] Wolf [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Wolf: I would ask the Chair if he could tell me why the 
    vote was postponed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair reserves the right to 
    postpone the vote and has made a determination to do so.
        Mr. Wolf: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a privileged motion. . . .
        So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. . . .
        Mr. [Albert R.] Wynn [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the following Members be permitted to extend 
    their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of 
    the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks'': . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Maryland?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so 
    in order to make an inquiry of the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rule that was 
    used to postpone the vote on the bill previous was that that 
    particular announcement is to be made prior to the consideration of 
    the bill and is not to come later rather than earlier.
        In this particular case, the minority was not informed of that 
    particular decision until just before the Chair ruled.
        Is it not true that the normal process in the House is to 
    announce when votes are going to be rolled at the beginning of the 
    suspension day rather than just prior to the vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will be advised that 
    advance announcement is only a courtesy by the Chair, but that the 
    Chair reserves the right under the rule to

[[Page 11812]]

    make that ruling on the motion at any time once the question is 
    put.
        Mr. Walker: The question here is one of courtesy, not of rules?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct in part. It 
    has been, and will continue to be at times, a courtesy of the Chair 
    to do that, but the courtesy is not mandatory. The Chair reserves 
    the right under the rule to make that ruling.

--Flexibility in Use of Speaker's Postponement Authority

Sec. 54.3 The Speaker's authority to postpone recorded votes (see Rule 
    I clause 5) has been interpreted to provide flexibility in the 
    manner of its execution. The Speaker, for example, has announced 
    that suspension votes on which the yeas and nays have been ordered 
    would be postponed until later that same day. When, by unanimous 
    consent, the ordering of the yeas and nays were later vacated, the 
    Speaker announced that postponed votes would be taken, de novo, on 
    the following day.

    The proceedings of July 30, 1990,(18) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 136 Cong. Rec. 20370, 20433, 20434, 20458, 20459, 101st Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Pursuant to the 
    provisions of clause 5 of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Such rollcall votes, if postponed, will be taken after 
    consideration of H.R. 5313, the military construction 
    appropriations bill. . . .
        Mr. [G. V. (Sonny)] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent to vacate the ordering of yeas and nays on 
    all of the 11 motions to suspend the rules, and that the Chair be 
    authorized to put the question de novo on each motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi?
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Reserving the right 
    to object, I would take this time to allow the gentleman from 
    Mississippi to explain his request.
        Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, 
    basically what that means is that it would put all the suspensions 
    off until tomorrow. We would start all over again. The Chair would 
    put the question on each bill, and if a Member wanted to vote on 
    that suspension, that Member could ask for a vote. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    questions will be put on each suspension on tomorrow de novo to a 
    voice vote. . . .

[[Page 11813]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Earlier today, following unanimous 
    consent to vacate the ordering of the yeas and nays on the 
    Suspension Calendar, the Chair announced that he would on tomorrow 
    put the question de novo on the 11 postponed motions to suspend the 
    rules. The Chair wishes to clarify that announcement. Without 
    objection, the Chair will put the question de novo at this point.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, further 
    proceedings 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, rule XV, will be postponed until 
    tomorrow, July 31, 1990.
        Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of earlier today, 
    the pending business is the question of suspending the rules and 
    passing the bill, H.R. 3493, as amended.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] that the House suspend 
    the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3493, as amended.
        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was 
    passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 54.4 Another interpretation of the rule which has allowed 
    flexibility in scheduling is to postpone votes until a time to be 
    announced later.

    The proceedings of Nov. 15, 1983,(20) are illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 32705, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Pursuant to the 
    provisions of clause 5 of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Ronald Coleman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Such rollcall votes, if postponed, will be taken tomorrow after 
    debate has been concluded on all motions to suspend the rules, or 
    at such other time as subsequently announced by the Chair pursuant 
    to clause 5 of rule I.
        Mr. [Walter B.] Jones [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3969) to amend the 
    Panama Canal Act of 1979 to allow the use of proxies by the Board 
    of the Panama Canal Commission.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

    Under his postponement authority, now consolidated in Rule I, the 
Speaker may postpone further proceedings on one motion to suspend the 
rules until designated time later in the current day while postponing 
further proceedings on other such motions until the following day. An 
example of the exercise of such authority is found in the proceedings 
of Sept. 17, 1990,(2) when the House

[[Page 11814]]

considered suspensions before and after the consideration of unfinished 
business from a previous day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 136 Cong. Rec. 24695, 24739-41, 24747, 24748, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Pursuant to the 
    provisions of clause 5 of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The vote on S. 3033, if postponed, will occur at the end of 
    debate on all suspensions, but no earlier than 4 p.m. The vote on 
    the remaining suspension bills will be postponed until tomorrow. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Hayes of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3033) to amend title 
    39, United States Code, to allow free mailing privileges to be 
    extended to members of the Armed Forces while engaged in temporary 
    military operations under arduous circumstances.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                    S. 3033

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 3401(a)(1)(A) of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended in inserting ``engaged in temporary military operations 
        under arduous circumstances,'' before ``or serving.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, a second will be 
    considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Hayes] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Indiana [Mr. Myers] will be recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: . . . S. 3033 is 
    similar to the measure we debated last Thursday, H.R. 5611 and to 
    which a vote on a motion to recommit is pending in the House. This 
    motion contains instructions for our committee to bring H.R. 5611 
    back to the floor with an amendment authorizing the payment of the 
    postage due portion of the cost of providing this service to be 
    extracted from our franking budget, as contained in the legislative 
    appropriations bill. Existing statutes provide that the Department 
    of Defense shall reimburse the U.S. Postal Service for all 
    expenses, postage due and transportation, that are incurred by the 
    Postal Service in providing this service. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hayes] that the House suspend 
    the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 3033.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. Hayes 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. . . .

[[Page 11815]]

        The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
    Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Hoyer] at 5 p.m.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Pursuant to the 
    provisions of clause 5, rule I, the pending business is the 
    question of suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 
    3033, on which further proceedings were postponed earlier today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hayes] that the House suspend 
    the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 3033, on which the yeas and 
    nays are ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    368, nays 0, not voting 64. . . .
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the order of the House of 
    Thursday, September 13, 1990, the unfinished business is the 
    question de novo on the motion to recommit the bill H.R. 5611 with 
    instructions, on which further proceedings were postponed on 
    Thursday, September 13, 1990.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to 
    recommit offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ridge].
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Ridge [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    227, noes 142, not voting 63. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Hayes of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the 
    instructions of the House, and on behalf of the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service, I report the bill, H.R. 5611, back to the 
    House with an amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment.

Authority of Speaker To Postpone as it Pertains to Approval of 
    Journal--Where Journal Vote Is Postponed; Use of Privileged Motion 
    To Adjourn To Get Roll Call at Beginning of Day

Sec. 54.5 Where, pursuant to clause 5(b) of Rule I, the Chair postpones 
    further proceedings on the question of agreeing to the Speaker's 
    approval of the Journal until later on a legislative day, a Member 
    may immediately offer a privileged motion to adjourn and provoke an 
    ``automatic'' roll call vote fol

[[Page 11816]]

    lowing the Chair's announcement of a negative result thereon.

    On July 30, 1992,(5) Speaker Thomas S. Foley, of 
Washington, postponed the vote on the approval of the Journal until the 
end of the legislative day. The sequence of events was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 138 Cong. Rec. 20320, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair has examined the Journal of the last 
    day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
        Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
        Mr. [Curt] Weldon [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's 
    approval of the Journal.
        The Speaker: The question is on the Chair's approval of the 
    Journal.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Weldon: 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: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] 
    demands a vote on the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
        Accordingly, the Chair will postpone the vote on the approval 
    of the Journal in accordance with rule I. The vote on the Journal 
    will occur at the end of the legislative day.
        Mr. Weldon: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Weldon moves that the House do now adjourn.

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
        Mr. Weldon: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

    The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 11, 
nays 368, not voting 57.

--Postponing Vote on Speaker's Announced Approval of Journal

Sec. 54.6 The authority of the Speaker to postpone the vote on agreeing 
    to his announced approval of the Journal was added to the rules at 
    the beginning of the 98th Congress. It was first utilized in 
    November of 1983 to postpone the vote on approval so that a newly 
    elected Member could be sworn before the question was put.

[[Page 11817]]

    House Resolution 5, adopted on Jan. 3, 1983,(6) 
introduced into the rules the authority of the Speaker to postpone a 
record vote on the question of his approval of the Journal until a 
later time on the same legislative day. Rule I clause (b)(1), which had 
earlier listed those votes which could be postponed at the discretion 
of the Speaker, was at that time amended to read as follows: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 51, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Id. at p. 34. Rule I clause 5(b)(1), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 631 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H. Res. 5

        Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
    Ninety-seventh Congress, including all applicable provisions of law 
    and concurrent resolutions adopted pursuant thereto which 
    constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the Ninety-seventh 
    Congress, be, and they are hereby, adopted as the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives of the Ninety-eighth Congress, with the 
    following amendments included therein as part thereof, to wit:
        (1) In rule I, clause 5(b)(1) is amended to read as follows:
        ``(b)(1) On any legislative day whenever a recorded vote is 
    ordered or the yeas and nays are ordered, or a vote is objected to 
    under clause 4 of rule XV on any of the following questions, the 
    Speaker may, in his discretion, postpone further proceedings on 
    each such question to a designated time or place in the legislative 
    schedule on that legislative day, in the case of the question of 
    agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, or within two 
    legislative days, in the case of the other questions listed herein:
        ``(A) the question of passing bills;
        ``(B) the question of adopting resolutions;
        ``(C) the question of ordering the previous question on 
    privileged resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules;

        ``(D) the question of agreeing to conference reports; and
        ``(E) the question of agreeing to motions to suspend the 
    Rules.''.

    The first use of the Speaker's authority to postpone a vote on his 
announced approval of the Journal occurred some nine months following 
its inclusion in Rule I clause 5. The proceedings were as indicated: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 32097, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 10, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The Chair has examined the Journal 
    of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his 
    approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
        Mr. [Howard C.] Nielson of Utah: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's 
    approval of the Journal.
        The Speaker: The question is on the Chair's approval of the 
    Journal.
        Mr. Nielson of Utah: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground that

[[Page 11818]]

    a quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum 
    is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will postpone the vote until after we 
    have sworn in the new Member from Georgia.
        The Speaker laid before the House the following communication 
    from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

                                            Washington, D.C.
                                              November 10, 1983.
    Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
    The Speaker, House of Representatives,
    Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy 
    of the Certificate of Election received from the Honorable Joe 
    Frank Harris, Governor of the State of Georgia, indicating that the 
    Honorable George (Buddy) Darden was elected to the Office of 
    Representative in Congress from the Seventh District of Georgia in 
    a Special Election held on November 8, 1983.
        With kind regards I am,
            Sincerely,
                                        Benjamin J. Guthrie,
                                  Clerk, House of Representatives.

        The Speaker: Will the Member-elect kindly step forward with the 
    dean of the Georgia delegation and the members of the Georgia 
    delegation?
        Mr. Darden appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath 
    of office.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is now a Member of the Congress of 
    the United States and we welcome you.

                                THE JOURNAL

        The Speaker: The question now is on the approval of the 
    Journal.
        Those in favor will vote ``aye''; those opposed will vote 
    ``no.'' Voting will be by electronic device, and the gentleman from 
    Georgia (Mr. Darden) is entitled to vote.

                        announcement by the speaker

        The Speaker: The Chair will announce that following the vote we 
    will go directly to consideration of the continuing resolution. 
    Following the completion of the continuing resolution, we will then 
    take the 1-minute addresses for the day.

By Unanimous Consent

Sec. 54.7 The House has postponed all roll call votes on legislation or 
    amendments for five days by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 11, 1957,(10) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 5541, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in 
    connection with the consideration of any legislation on Monday 
    [April 15, 1957] and Tuesday [April 16, 1957] of next week, if 
    there should be occasion for any rollcalls on such legislation, or 
    any amendments thereto, further consideration of such legislation 
    be postponed until the following Wednesday [April 17, 1957].
        The Speaker: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

[[Page 11819]]

Sec. 54.8 The House has agreed, by unanimous consent, that a 
    prospective vote on the final passage of a bill would be taken by 
    the yeas and nays on the following day.

    On Mar. 31, 1941,(12) after debate on a bill (H.R. 968) 
pertaining to net weights in interstate and foreign commerce 
transactions in cotton, the Speaker (13) made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 2754, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Permit the Chair to make a statement. The Chair has told 20 or 
    30 Members, both on the Republican side and on the Democratic side, 
    that if he could prevent it there would not be a roll call today on 
    any bill, so may the Chair suggest that the request be made that 
    when the House meets tomorrow and this vote is taken it be taken by 
    the yeas and nays.

    A brief discussion ensued, after which Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, offered a unanimous-consent request that the vote be 
postponed until the next day and that when the vote came on the final 
passage of the bill, such vote be taken by the yeas and nays. No 
objection was heard.
    Accordingly, the next day, Apr. 1, 1941,(14) the Speaker 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 87 Cong. Rec. 2799, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business of the day is the vote on the bill H.R. 
    968. Before the House adjourned yesterday unanimous consent was 
    granted for a yea-and-nay vote on the bill.
        The question is on the passage of the bill.

    The question was then taken; and there were--yeas 145, nays 168, 
not voting 116. So, the bill was not passed.

Sec. 54.9 A unanimous-consent agreement providing that yea and nay 
    votes on scheduled bills should be postponed until a day certain 
    was interpreted not to apply to procedural matters such as 
    resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
    consideration of a bill.

    On Mar. 3, 1960,(15) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, rose to address the Speaker Pro Tempore (16) 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 4389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the event of any 
    rollcall being ordered on Monday [Mar. 7, 1960] or Tuesday [Mar. 8, 
    1960] that further proceedings on the bill on which such call is 
    ordered be postponed to Wednesday [Mar. 9, 1960] of next week.

    Following a brief statement by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, with 
respect to another matter, the

[[Page 11820]]

Speaker Pro Tempore asked if there was any objection to the McCormack 
request, and none was heard.
    Four days later,(17) the question was put on a 
resolution (H. Res. 467) providing that upon adoption of the 
resolution, the House would resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 10777) to authorize 
certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes. 
The question was taken; and the Speaker Pro Tempore announced that the 
yeas appeared to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 4787, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 7, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    object to the vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make 
    the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. [After 
    counting.] One hundred sixty-eight Members are present, not a 
    quorum.
        A rollcall is automatic.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that under an order 
    of this House by unanimous consent all yea and nay votes have been 
    ordered to be put over?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Only votes on the passage of bills. 
    This is a procedural matter on a resolution and does not come 
    within the order of the House of Thursday last.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

By Special Order

Sec. 54.10 A special order providing for the consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole may specify the order in which amendments 
    are to be considered, determine the debate time on any or all 
    amendments, and provide the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    with authority to postpone any request for a recorded vote and 
    cluster such requests so that votes will occur back-to-back at a 
    later time during the consideration of the bill in Committee.

    An example of such a grant of authority is shown below: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tony P.] Hall of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 197 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration. [The portion of the special order 
    delineating the amendment process is italicized.]

[[Page 11821]]

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 197

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration 
        of the bill (H.R. 2333) to authorize appropriations for the 
        Department of State, the United States Information Agency, and 
        related agencies, to authorize appropriations for foreign 
        assistance programs, and for other purposes. No further general 
        debate shall be in order. The bill shall be considered for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
        consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under 
        the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs now 
        printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in part 
        1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
        resolution. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute, as modified, shall be considered as read. All 
        points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute, as modified, are waived. No amendment to the 
        committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
        shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of the report 
        of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and 
        amendments en bloc described in this resolution. Amendments 
        printed in part 2 of the report may be offered only in the 
        order printed, may be offered only by the named proponent or a 
        designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
        the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 
        by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
        amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be 
        subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
        or in the Committee of the Whole. . . .
            Sec. 3. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
        postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
        Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
        amendment made in order by this resolution. The chairman of the 
        Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five minutes 
        the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
        question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
        device without intervening business: Provided, That the time 
        for voting by electronic device on the first in any series of 
        questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes.

--Postponement and Clustering Authority in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 54.11 Where a special order permitted the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole to postpone recorded votes, if ordered, on 
    certain first degree amendments offered in an ``issue cluster'' 
    until the consideration of the last such amendment, the Chair 
    announced his intention to use the postponement authority and to 
    reduce voting time to five minutes on the second and subsequent 
    ordered recorded votes.

    The first example in the House where postponement of votes on a 
series of amendments was per

[[Page 11822]]

mitted in Committee of the Whole occurred on May 20, 
1987.(19) Before exercising the authority, the Chair stated 
the provisions of the special order previously adopted by the House 
which bestowed this authority:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 133 Cong. Rec. 13042, 13071, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It is in order for the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole to postpone recorded votes, if ordered, on any said first 
    degree amendment, and the Chair may reduce to a minimum of 5 
    minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
    may be taken on all additional amendments following the first vote 
    in the series. The Chair announces that he will postpone said 
    recorded votes, if ordered, until completion of consideration of 
    the amendment offered by Representative Davis of Illinois. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) The question is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
    vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Pursuant to House Resolution 160, and 
    the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this vote 
    will be postponed.
        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I think it would 
    be useful to all of us if the Chair would delineate the order of 
    voting and how much time and what the sequence is on these cluster 
    votes coming up.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair was in the process of doing 
    that.
        Debate has been concluded on the amendments printed in section 
    1 of House Report 100-84, relating to Central America.
        Pursuant to House Resolution 160, and the Chair's prior 
    announcement, the Chair will now put the question on the adoption 
    of each amendment on which further proceedings were postponed, in 
    the order designated in paragraph (5) of section 2 of House 
    Resolution 160.
        Votes will be taken in the following order:
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Mrazek], a 15-minute vote; the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from California [Mrs. Boxer], a 5-minute vote; the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta], a 5-
    minute vote; and
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Davis], a 5-minute vote.
        The first order of business is the recorded vote on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek].
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    197, noes 225, not voting 10. . . .

--Distinction Between Postponing a Request for a Recorded Vote and 
    Postponing the Vote Itself

Sec. 54.12 Where a special order permits the postponement of the 
    request (or demand) for a

[[Page 11823]]

    recorded vote, the ordering of a second to the request (support of 
    25 Members in Committee of the Whole) is deferred until the 
    postponed proceedings are again before the Committee as unfinished 
    business.

    The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole explained that under the 
special order governing the consideration of the bill H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, in Committee of the Whole, he 
would be postponing requests for recorded votes but not entertaining 
seconds to such demands until the Chair puts the question after the 
postponement. The pertinent part of the very complex rule governing the 
consideration of the bill was as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 22, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone 
    until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the 
    Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment made in order 
    by this resolution. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
    reduce to not less than five minutes the time for voting by 
    electronic device on any postponed question that immediately 
    follows another vote by electronic device without intervening 
    business, provided that the time for voting by electronic device on 
    the first in any series of questions shall be not less than fifteen 
    minutes. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize 
    for consideration of any amendment printed in the report of the 
    Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution out of the order 
    printed, but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means or a designee announces from the floor 
    a request to that effect.

    The Chair's explanation of the procedure was as indicated: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) All time has expired on the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John Linder (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Talent].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ``noes'' appeared to have it.
        Mr. [James M.] Talent [of Missouri]: 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 rule, further proceedings on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] will 
    be postponed.
        The point of order no quorum is considered withdrawn.
        The Chair would like to take this opportunity to remind Members 
    that under the rule, the authority granted under the rule for this 
    bill, the Chair is merely postponing requests for recorded votes 
    until after consideration of amendment No. 8.

[[Page 11824]]

        At that time the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1 
    will be the unfinished business of the House. Twenty-five Members 
    will need to stand at that time in order to obtain a recorded vote 
    on that amendment as well as the other postponed questions in turn. 
    There is no need for a Member making a request for a recorded vote 
    to renew the request.
        The Chair would also like to remind the Members that the first 
    vote taken on the first amendment will be a 15-minute vote, and 
    subsequent votes may be reduced to 5 minutes, if no business 
    interferes between the votes.
        It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House 
    Report 104-85. . . .
        The Chairman: All time has expired on this amendment.

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
        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 rule, further proceedings on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] will 
    be postponed.
        Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on those 
    amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, in the 
    following order: Amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Archer]; amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Archer]; amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Talent]; amendment No. 7 offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn]; and amendment No. 8 offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. . . .
        The Chairman: The pending business is the demand for a recorded 
    vote on amendment No. 1 printed in House Report No. 104-85 offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] on which further 
    proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
    vote.
        The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
        The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
        The Chairman: A recorded vote has been demanded.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    228, noes 203, not voting 3. . . .



 
                               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.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
 E. POSTPONING VOTES; CLUSTERING VOTES; REDUCED VOTING TIME; SEPARATE 
                                 VOTES
 
Sec. 56. Postponed Proceedings and the Quorum Rule

Effect of Announcement of Absence of Quorum on Chair's Authority To 
    Postpone Vote

Sec. 56.1 Where the absence of a quorum has been announced and an 
    automatic vote ordered under Rule XV clause 4, the House may not, 
    even by unanimous consent, conduct any business in the announced 
    absence of a quorum.

    The Speaker's authority to postpone a vote taken in the House may 
not be exercised after a record vote has begun or once the absence of a 
quorum has been announced. The proceedings of July 13, 
1983,(11) are illustrative. On that date, a vote on the 
Speaker's announced approval of the Journal was objected to on the 
ground that a quorum was not present. The Speaker declared that a 
quorum was indeed not present and directed an ``automatic'' call of the 
roll under Rule XV clause 5. When the electronic system then failed, an 
attempt was made to vacate the demand so that the House would not have 
to settle the question by using the time-consuming back-up device of 
having the Clerk call the roll. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 18844, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) The Chair has examined the Journal 
    of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his 
    approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
        Mr. [Bill] Archer [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 
    1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of 
    the Journal.
        The Speaker: The question is on the Chair's approval of the 
    Journal.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.

[[Page 11842]]

        Mr. Archer: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The Chair would like 
    to make an announcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Barbara Boxer (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has been advised that the electronic voting system is 
    at the present time not operable.
        Until further notice, therefore, all votes and quorum calls 
    will be taken by the stand-by procedures which are provided for in 
    the rules.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk 
    will call the roll.
        The Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
        Mr. [William] Carney [of New York] (during the rollcall): Madam 
    Speaker, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Carney: Would it be possible to take the vote on the 
    Journal by a voice vote at this time? Could we make a unanimous-
    consent request to take the Journal vote by a voice vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the yeas and nays must 
    be taken. Since the absence of a quorum has been disclosed, no 
    unanimous-consent business can be transacted.
        Mr. [William R.] Ratchford [of Connecticut]: Madam Speaker as a 
    parliamentary inquiry, may I ask, is it possible under the rules to 
    delay the vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is advised that it is not 
    now possible to postpone the vote which has been commenced, and 
    since the absence of a quorum has been announced by the Chair.

Point of No Quorum Considered as Withdrawn Where Vote Is Postponed

Sec. 56.2 Pursuant to Rule XV clause 6(e), which prohibits the Speaker 
    from entertaining a point of no quorum unless he has put the 
    question on the pending proposition, the Speaker announces, after 
    postponing a vote on a motion to suspend the rules where objection 
    has been made to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
    present, that the point of order is ``considered as withdrawn'' 
    since the Chair is no longer putting the question, and a Member may 
    not insist on the point of order that a quorum is not present.

        Before the adoption on Jan. 4, 1977,(14) of Rule XV 
    clause 6(e), which prohibits the Speaker from entertaining a point 
    of no quorum unless the Speaker has put the pending question to a 
    vote, it was possible to have a call of the House after the Speaker 
    had exercised his authority to postpone further consideration of a 
    suspension motion. The Speaker customarily

[[Page 11843]]

    asked if the Member making the point of no quorum if he or she 
    would withdraw it. Such quorum calls, even though taken by 
    electronic device, were often time-consuming and interrupted the 
    consideration of motions to suspend the rules. An illustration of 
    the practice followed before adoption of clause 6(e) is found in 
    the proceedings of Oct. 20, 1975: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 33004, 33005, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Abzug) that 
    the House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 9924, as 
    amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        Mr. Bauman: 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 Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 
    3(b) of rule XXVII and the prior announcement of the Chair, further 
    proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
        Does the gentleman from Maryland withdraw his point of order 
    that there is no quorum?
        Mr. Bauman: Before I do, Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the Chair announced that 28 Members 
    asked for a recorded vote. Is it not one-fifth of the membership 
    present?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that under clause 5 of rule I, on a recorded vote, one-fifth of a 
    quorum, or 44 Members is required in the House. If the gentleman 
    had asked for the yeas and nays, then it would have been one-fifth 
    of those present. The gentleman asked for a recorded vote.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, is it too late to ask for the yeas 
    and nays?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is at this time. The objection has 
    been made to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, 
    and the Chair has stated that under the rule, further proceedings 
    have been postponed.
        Will the gentleman from Maryland withdraw his point of order 
    that there is no quorum?
        Mr. Bauman: No, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Without objection, a call of the House is ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Since the amendment to Rule XV which became effective in the 
    95th Congress,(17) the following procedure is customary: 
    (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977.
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 14785, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., May 16, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) that the 
    House suspend the

[[Page 11844]]

    rules and pass the bill H.R. 3849, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Ronald M.] Mottl [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mr. Mottl: 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 Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 
    3(b) of rule XXVII, and the prior announcement of the Chair, 
    further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
        The point of order is considered withdrawn.
        The Speaker does have complete discretion to recognize for a 
    motion for a call of the House. If a call is necessary between 
    suspension motions, or indeed between any series of matters where 
    the votes are being postponed, the Speaker can recognize for such a 
    motion. Rule XV clause 6(e)(2),(20) which bestows this 
    discretion, is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 774d (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Notwithstanding subparagraph (1), it shall always be in order 
    for a Member to move a call of the House when recognized for that 
    purpose by the Speaker, and when a quorum has been established 
    pursuant to a call of the House, further proceedings under the call 
    shall be considered as dispensed with unless the Speaker, in his 
    discretion, recognizes for a motion under clause 2(a) of this rule 
    or for a motion to dispense with further proceedings under the 
    call.

    The proceedings of Sept. 24, 1979,(1) are illustrative 
of the Speaker's exercise of this discretion when he refused to 
recognize a Member moving a call of the House after a suspension motion 
had been postponed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 25876, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols) that the 
    House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. Cavanaugh (Neb.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mr. Ashbrook: 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 clause 3 of rule XXVII and the Chair's 
    prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
    postponed.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is considered 
    withdrawn. The question is no longer pending.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair did not recognize the 
    gentleman for that purpose.

Objection to Vote on Ground of No Quorum Takes Precedence of Point of 
    No Quorum

Sec. 56.3 Where a Member makes a point of no quorum when a

[[Page 11845]]

    question is put by the Speaker, as permitted by Rule XV clause 
    6(e), another Member may, pending the Speaker's count of the House, 
    object to the vote on the basis that a quorum is not present under 
    clause 4 of that rule, thereby permitting the Speaker to postpone 
    further proceedings on the question which has the effect of mooting 
    the point of no quorum, there no longer being a pending question to 
    put to a vote.

    Clause 6(e) of Rule XV, which prohibits the Speaker from 
entertaining a point of no quorum unless a pending question is put to a 
vote, was adopted in the first session of the 95th 
Congress.(3) Later in that same session, during 
consideration of a series of motions to suspend the rules, a division 
of the House was requested when the Speaker put the question on the 
adoption of one of the motions. The Chair's count of those supporting 
and opposing the motion was less than a quorum, and Mr. John M. 
Ashbrook, of Ohio, then objected to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum was not present. Subsequent proceedings were as 
follows:(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 54, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977.
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 31048, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz) that the 
    House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 724) 
    as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashbrook) there were--ayes 38, noes 0.)
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Ashbrook) object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
    present?
        Mr. Ashbrook: No. Under article I of the Constitution, which 
    requires a quorum be present for the conduct of business, I make 
    the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a 
    vote on the resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Solarz) object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
    present?
        Mr. Solarz: No objection.
        Mr. [Teno] Roncalio [of Wyoming]: 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 Pro Tempore: Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXVII, 
    and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this 
    motion will be postponed.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order that a 
    quorum is not present, as required under the

[[Page 11846]]

    Constitution, for the conduct of business.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman 
    that further proceedings have been postponed, there is no longer a 
    pending question being put to a vote, and under clause 6(e), rule 
    XV, the point of order is not now in order.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, the Chair counted the House not more 
    than 1 minute ago and found that not even 40 Members were present. 
    I do not think any Member was present who did not stand. There was 
    clearly not a quorum present.
        I want the record to show that I object to that. I think my 
    rights and responsibilities as a Member of Congress have been 
    diluted by this rule, and I want to object to further proceedings 
    because there is not a quorum present, as required by the 
    Constitution.
        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order to that effect.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman 
    that the Chair merely counted a division vote, and did not count 
    the House.

Withdrawal of Objection To Vote on Ground That Quorum Not Present To 
    Permit Demand for Yeas and Nays

Sec. 56.4 Where a Member objects to a vote on a motion to suspend the 
    rules on the ground that a quorum is not present, and the vote is 
    then postponed under the rule, it is too late to demand the yeas 
    and nays (until that motion is again before the House as unfinished 
    business) unless, by unanimous consent, the proceedings are vacated 
    so the questions remain pending before the House.

    Where the yeas and nays are ordered before the Speaker exercises 
his authority to postpone a vote, that order remains valid when the 
question again is before the House as the pending or unfinished 
business. An illustration of this principle is found in the proceedings 
of Mar. 15, 1976,(6) as shown below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 6417, 6418, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) 
    that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 7743, as 
    amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: 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 Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3 
    of rule XXVII, the Chair's prior announce

[[Page 11847]]

    ment, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio withdraw his point of order of no 
    quorum?
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        MR. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, is the Chair putting the question on 
    the bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state that the vote 
    has been put over, on the strength of the gentleman's point of 
    order. We would have to have a quorum call if the gentleman does 
    not withdraw his point of order at this time.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding it could be 
    called and we might not have a vote on it. Is that not correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct. The gentleman could 
    have asked for the yeas and nays to order a rollcall vote.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman should first ask 
    unanimous consent to vacate the previous proceedings under which 
    the vote was postponed by his point of order? Does the gentleman 
    make that request?
        Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXVII and 
    the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion 
    will be postponed.

Where Speaker Authorizes Postponement of Vote, Opportunity To Demand 
    Yeas and Nays Deferred

Sec. 56.5 Where the vote on a motion is postponed because objection to 
    the voice vote is based upon the absence of a quorum, it is then 
    too late to demand the yeas and nays. When the postponed question 
    is later put de novo, the yeas and nays or a recorded vote can then 
    be demanded.

    On May 15, 1984,(8) a motion to suspend the rules was 
put to a voice vote. The proceedings were then as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 130 Cong. Rec. 12240, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) that 
    the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5345.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: 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 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.

[[Page 11848]]

        The point of order of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
    remarks on the bill just under consideration.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky? . . .
        Mr. [William F.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Goodling: Mr. Speaker, I was going to demand the yeas and 
    nays and did not hear the question put. I would like to demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair put the question. There was 
    an objection for lack of a quorum. Under the previous announcement, 
    that vote has been postponed until all suspensions are considered.
        Mr. Goodling: There will be a record vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: There will be an opportunity for a 
    record vote at that time.
        May the Chair clarify once more to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, that question will be decided when the question is 
    out de novo at that time as to whether or not a quorum is present.
        Mr. Goodling: That is why I wanted the yeas and nays.

Putting Deferred Questions De Novo

Sec. 56.6 Where a vote is objected to on the ground that a quorum is 
    not present, and the Speaker then chooses to postpone the vote by 
    exercising his authority under Rule I clause 5, the point of no 
    quorum is considered as withdrawn (no question then remaining 
    before the House) and the question is later put de novo by voice 
    vote as unfinished business.

    Where a suspension motion was under consideration and the Speaker 
put the question to a voice vote, Mr. Robert S. Walker, of 
Pennsylvania, first asked for the yeas and nays, but before the Speaker 
had counted those standing to support the demand, the demand was 
withdrawn. Mr. Walker then objected to the vote under Rule XV clause 4, 
and the Speaker postponed the vote. The proceedings were as carried 
below: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 131 Cong. Rec. 35589, 99th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania demands the yeas and nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas R. Carper (Del.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: 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 Pro Tempore: Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
    Chair's prior announcement, further pro

[[Page 11849]]

    ceedings on this motion will be postponed.
        The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, has a vote been ordered on the 
    measure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania withdrew his demand for the yeas and 
    nays and the vote has been postponed until the conclusion of the 
    other two suspensions at which time the vote will be de novo and a 
    record vote could be ordered.

Putting the Question De Novo on Postponed Vote

Sec. 56.7 Where a Member withdraws his objection to a voice vote on an 
    amendment on the ground that a quorum is not present and the House 
    then agrees by unanimous consent to postpone further proceedings to 
    a future day, the question on adoption of the amendment is put de 
    novo on that future day, and a roll call vote is not automatic at 
    that time.

    On Mar. 23, 1953,(12) the House entertained 
consideration of a bill (H.R. 3655) to provide for the control of 
alcoholic beverages in certain clubs in the District of Columbia and 
for other purposes. In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. 
Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, demanded a separate vote on a particular 
amendment. There being no other requests for separate votes, the 
remaining amendments were put en gross, and agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 99 Cong. Rec. 2251, 2252, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker (13) then directed the Clerk to report 
    the amendment on which a separate vote had been demanded. The Clerk 
    read the proposal, the question was put and taken; and the Speaker 
    announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mr. Hays then objected 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At this point, Mr. Carroll D. Kearns, of Pennsylvania, urged 
    Mr. Hays to withhold his objection to the vote on the amendment. 
    Mr. Kearns pointed out that a vote on other legislation was 
    withheld and carried over as the first order of business on the 
    next Wednesday pursuant to the request of the majority party. He 
    suggested, accordingly, that the amendment be voted on as the 
    second order of business on that Wednesday.
        The following proceedings then occurred:
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that will not jeopardize 
    the gentleman's rights.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Without objection, further proceedings in 
    connection with

[[Page 11850]]

    the amendment and the bill will be postponed until Wednesday next.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Kearns: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia has no further business for today.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that the 
    second order of business on Wednesday next will be a rollcall on 
    this amendment.
        The Speaker: Not a rollcall; it will be a vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I made the point of order that a 
    quorum was not present, and under those circumstances the rollcall 
    is automatic. I will not agree to any withholding of it unless 
    there is a rollcall, because a rollcall is automatic. I think the 
    Speaker will agree that a quorum is not present now.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is mistaken in his impression. Today 
    a rollcall would be automatic, but not on Wednesday, unless the 
    House so orders.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I do not want to agree to anything like that, 
    Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: It has already been agreed to. The gentleman has 
    forfeited any rights he might have. I am very sorry if he did not 
    understand the situation.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
 E. POSTPONING VOTES; CLUSTERING VOTES; REDUCED VOTING TIME; SEPARATE 
                                 VOTES
 
Sec. 57. Reduced Voting Time

Speaker's Authority--Rescinding Announced Intention To Reduce Voting 
    Time on Passage

Sec. 57.1 The utilization of the authority bestowed by Rule XV clause 
    2(c) to reduce the voting time on passage of a bill to five 
    minutes, following a 15-minute vote on a motion to recommit, is 
    completely within the Chair's discretion; and he may rescind his 
    announced decision to reduce the time at any time before the vote 
    commences.

    An illustration of the Chair's exercise of his discretion is found 
in the proceedings of Sept. 29, 1993.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 2401, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 
        Fiscal Year 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Without objection, the 
    previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to 
    recommit.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page 11851]]

        Mr. [Floyd] Spence [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair wishes to announce that a 
    recorded vote on final passage, if ordered, will be a 5-minute 
    vote.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yes 
    192, noes 238, not voting 3. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the passage of the 
    bill.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Notwithstanding the Chair's prior 
    announcement, this will be a 15-minute vote.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yes 
    268, noes 162, not voting 3. . . .

--Reducing Voting Time When Votes Are ``Back to Back''

Sec. 57.2 The Speaker's authority to reduce electronic voting times to 
    five minutes where the vote occurs immediately after a 15-minute 
    vote has been expanded since the concept was first introduced in 
    the 96th Congress.

    As part of the resolution adopting new rules for the 96th Congress, 
Rule XV clause 5 was amended on Jan. 15, 1979,(16) to permit 
the Speaker to reduce the voting time to five minutes on the passage of 
a bill or adoption of a resolution or conference report if the 
electronic roll call immediately followed a 15-minute vote on a motion 
to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XV clause 5(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. .774bb (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e pertinent amendment included in House Resolution 5 
(17) on that date was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 8, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 15, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (12) In Rule XV, clause 5, add at the end thereof the following 
    new sentence: ``The Speaker may, in his discretion, announce after 
    a rollcall vote has been ordered on a motion to recommit a bill, 
    resolution, or conference report thereon, that he may reduce to not 
    less than five minutes the period of time in which a rollcall vote, 
    if ordered, will be taken by electronic device on the question of 
    passage or adoption, as the case may be, on such bill, resolution, 
    or conference report thereon if the question on final passage or 
    adoption follows without intervening business the vote on the 
    question of recommittal.''

    e authority to reduce voting times was supplemented by amendments 
in the 101st,(18) 102d,(19) and 103d 
(20) Congresses,

[[Page 11852]]

so the rule was expanded to permit a reduction in voting time to five 
minutes immediately following a 15-minute vote in three circumstances: 
the vote on passage immediately following a vote on recommittal; the 
vote on successive amendments reported to the House from the Committee 
of the Whole following a roll call on the first of a series of such 
amendments; and on the adoption of a special order of business reported 
from the Committee on Rules where there is a 15-minute vote on the 
previous question. In the 104th Congress,(1) the permitted 
time for any underlying question which immediately follows a 15-minute 
previous question vote was established at a minimum of five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 135 Cong. Rec. 72, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1989 (H. Res. 5).
19. 137 Cong. Rec. 39, 102d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1991 (H. Res. 5).
20. The authority to reduce to five minutes the time to vote on 
        adoption of a special order reported from the Committee on 
        Rules, following a 15-minute vote on the previous question, was 
        first included in the adoption of the rules of Jan. 5, 1993, 
        139 Cong. Rec. 50, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. (H. Res. 5).
 1. Rule XV clause 5(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 774bb (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Reducing Time on Postponed Votes

Sec. 57.3 Where several ``clusters'' of recorded votes were postponed 
    pursuant to Rule I clause 5(b)(1), to occur ``back to back,'' only 
    the first vote in the first cluster was of the 15-minute variety 
    and succeeding votes, regardless of cluster, were reduced to 5 
    minutes.

    Where the House considered a series of motions to suspend the rules 
and then took up seriatim a number of unanimous-consent requests for 
the passage of bills and joint resolutions, the Speaker announced 
postponement of the suspension votes to follow consideration of the 
bills and then postponed the series of votes on the bills brought up by 
unanimous consent until after the votes on suspensions. The proceedings 
of May 17, 1983,(2) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 12505, 12507, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) . . . The question is 
    on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, 
    H.R. 2973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. E (Kika) de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [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 
    of rule I, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings 
    on this motion will be postponed.
        The Chair will now entertain two requests for consideration of 
    joint resolu

[[Page 11853]]

    tions to be called up by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Leland). The 
    Chair will postpone the votes on suspensions until after the 
    consideration of these joint resolutions.
        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be 
    discharged for further consideration of the Senate joint resolution 
    (S.J. Res. 51) designating May 21, 1983, as ``Andrei Sakharov 
    Day,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Texas? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the passage of the 
    Senate joint resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Marty] Russo [of Illinois]: 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 Pro Tempore: Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
    Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question 
    will be postponed.
        The vote will be taken after the recorded vote on H.R. 2973, 
    the last suspension vote.
        The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
        Mr. Leland: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be discharged from 
    further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 226) to 
    designate the week of May 22, 1983, through May 28, 1983, as 
    ``National Digestive Diseases Awareness Week,'' and ask for its 
    immediate consideration in the House.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Texas? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the engrossment and 
    third reading of the joint resolution. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the passage of the 
    joint resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Russo: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, and 
    the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this 
    question will be postponed. The vote will be taken after the vote 
    on H.R. 2973, the last suspension vote.

    Later in the same day,(4) votes were taken as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 129 Cong. Rec. 12508, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Debate has been concluded on all 
    motions to suspend the rules and on the two joint resolutions.
        Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, the Chair will now put the 
    question on each motion on which further pro

[[Page 11854]]

    ceedings were postponed in the order in which that motion was 
    entertained.
        Votes will be taken in the following order:
        H.R. 2733, de novo.
        House Joint Resolution, by the yeas and nays.
        H.R. 1416, by the yeas and nays.
        H.R. 2681, by the yeas and nays.
        H.R. 2936, by the yeas and nays.
        H.R. 2602, by the yeas and nays.
        H.R. 2973, by the yeas and nays.
        Senate Joint Resolution 51, de novo.
        House Joint Resolution 226, by the yeas and nays.
        The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic 
    votes after the first such vote in this series. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 
    5, rule I, the Chair announces that he will reduce to the minimum 
    of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
    device may be taken on all the additional motions to suspend the 
    rules on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings and the 
    two commemorative joint resolutions called up by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Leland).

Varying Voting Times by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 57.4 The House permitted, by unanimous consent, a reduction of 
    voting time to five minutes on the first of a series of postponed 
    suspension votes where that vote was to occur immediately following 
    a five-minute vote on the passage of another measure.

    The proceedings of Nov. 8, 1983,(5) illustrate the use 
of a unanimous-consent request to ``tailor'' the clustering authority 
to meet specific circumstances:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 31505, 31506, 31510, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (6) The question is on the motion to 
    recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on that 
    I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker: Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, 
    the Chair announces that he 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 question of the passage of the bill.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    166, nays 244, not voting 23. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    203, nays 206, not voting 24. . . .

[[Page 11855]]

        The Speaker: Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, the Chair will now 
    put the question on each motion to suspend the rules on which 
    further proceedings were postponed earlier today in the order in 
    which that motion was entertained.
        Votes will be taken in the following order:
        H.R. 2982, de novo, and H.R. 2211, de novo.
        The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic 
    votes after the first such vote in this series.
        Mr. [Elliot H.] Levitas [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the time for the vote on the first 
    suspension, if a vote be taken, be in a 5-minute period.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Georgia?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 57.5 By unanimous consent, waiving the five-minute minimum time 
    set by clause 5(b)(3) of Rule I, the House authorized the Speaker 
    to put remaining postponed questions to two-minute electronic 
    votes.

    On Oct. 4, 1988,(7) as the House was proceeding toward 
an adjournment, there were 40 roll call votes taken on suspension 
motions and procedural questions. After a series of 15-minute votes, 
unanimous consent was granted to reduce to two minutes the time for 
consideration of the 31 remaining suspension motions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 134 Cong. Rec. 28126, 28148, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that after the vote on the next suspension, the 
    Speaker be authorized to reduce the time for the balance of the 
    votes for today to 2 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the next 
    vote will be 5 minutes, and all votes following that will be 2 
    minutes. There will be two bells, and the vote will take 2 minutes. 
    . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The unfinished business is the 
    question of suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 
    795, as amended.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] that the House 
    suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 795, as amended, on 
    which the yeas and nays are ordered.
        This is the final vote. Let us give a great round of applause 
    to the Clerks and the Parliamentarian who did an outstanding job 
    during this whole series.
        This will be a 2-minute vote.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    405, nays 12, not voting 14. . . .

[[Page 11856]]

In Committee of the Whole

Sec. 57.6 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has discretion 
    regarding which votes should be reduced to five minutes.

    Instance where the Chair, contemplating the exercise of his 
authority under clause 2(c), Rule XXIII, to conduct a recorded vote on 
the pending amendment to the bill as a five-minute vote if ordered 
without intervening business after a 15-minute vote on a substitute 
therefor, announced that another recorded vote, already ordered on an 
earlier amendment but postponed pursuant to a previous order 
(9) would also be a five-minute vote if taken without 
intervening business after the questions on the pending 
amendments.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. On June 12, 1991, a unanimous-consent request was agreed to in the 
        House which authorized the Chairman of the Committee of the 
        Whole, during the further consideration of the bill H.R. 2508, 
        the International Cooperation Act of 1991, to ``postpone 
        recorded votes, if ordered, on any amendment to the bill until 
        later that legislative day, and that he be authorized to reduce 
        to a minimum of five minutes the period of time for recorded 
        votes after the first vote in any series.'' 137 Cong. Rec. 
        14403, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
10. 137 Cong. Rec. 15602, 15609, 15613-15, 102d Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        20, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Doug] Bereuter [of Nebraska]:
        Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. It is printed in the 
    Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter:
            Page 705, after line 13, insert the following new chapter 4 
        and redesignate existing chapter 4 of title X (and sections 
        thereof) accordingly:

              CHAPTER 4--HORN OF AFRICA RECOVERY AND FOOD SECURITY
        SEC. 1061. FINDINGS.

            The Congress makes the following findings: . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. . . .
        Mr. Bereuter: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Pursuant to a 
    previous order of the House, the vote on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] will be postponed until 
    after debate on the next amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jim McDermott (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: It is, Mr. Chairman.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 688, after 
        line 3, insert the following: . . .

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an

[[Page 11857]]

    amendment as a substitute for the amendment, as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana, as amended: In lieu 
        of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:
            ``Limitation on Assistance''. Assistance for any fiscal 
        year under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including 
        assistance with funds appropriated before the date of enactment 
        of this Act, may not be delivered to the Communist Party of 
        South Africa or any affiliated or associated organization. . . 
        .

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Pursuant to clause 2(c), rule XXIII, 
    the Chair announces that he will reduce to 5 minutes the time for a 
    recorded vote, if ordered, on the Burton amendment, as amended, if 
    the vote occurs immediately following the pending vote, and then 
    the postponed vote on the Bereuter amendment, immediately 
    thereafter, will be a 5-minute vote.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 
    279, noes 134, not voting 19. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The pending business is the vote on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], 
    as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The pending business is the vote on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
    Bereuter], on which a recorded vote is ordered.
        This vote will be a 5-minute vote.

    The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410, 
noes 0, not voting 22.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
 E. POSTPONING VOTES; CLUSTERING VOTES; REDUCED VOTING TIME; SEPARATE 
                                 VOTES
 
Sec. 58. Separate Votes on Amendments in the House

Amendments Adopted in Committee of the Whole and Reported Back to the 
    House

Sec. 58.1 Where demand is made for separate votes in the House on 
    several amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole, the 
    amendments are voted on in the order in which they appeared in the 
    bill.

    The order of voting in the House on amendments reported from the 
Committee of the Whole normally mirrors that of their sequence in the 
bill. However, the order may be varied by terms of a special rule 
providing for the consideration of the bill and structuring the 
amendment process.
    One frequently utilized form of special order occurs where a bill 
being considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union has a complete amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
customary rule

[[Page 11858]]

would permit the substitute to be read as the original bill and would 
provide that amendments adopted to it be reported to the House for 
separate votes. Such a rule was utilized for the consideration of H.R. 
3950, the Food and Agricultural Resources Act of 1990. When the 
Committee of the Whole had completed its consideration of the measure, 
the Chairman (12) reported the bill back to the House, 
pursuant to the rule, as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
13. 136 Cong. Rec. 21593, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore 
    [Mr. Hughes] having assumed the chair, Mr. Bonior, Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
    that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
    3950) entitled the ``Food and Agricultural Resources Act of 1990,'' 
    pursuant to House Resolution 439, he reported the bill back to the 
    House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Under the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of 
    the Whole?
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Madigan to titles IX and X adopted in the Committee 
    of the Whole en bloc.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    other amendment?
        Mr. [Richard (Dick)] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on every amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
    Whole after titles IX and X.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    other amendment? If not, the Clerk will report the first amendments 
    on which a separate vote has been demanded in the order appearing 
    in the bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments en bloc: Section 107A of the Agricultural Act of 
        1949, as amended by section 901 of the bill, is amended by:

        In subsection (a)(3)(C) (page 193, lines 4 and 5) striking 
    ``not to exceed 5 percent'' and inserting ``not to exceed 10 
    percent''; and

            In subsection (c)(1)(E)(ii) (page 200, at lines 11 and 12 
        and at lines 16 and 17) striking ``7.5 percent (10 percent in 
        the case of the 1994 and 1995 crops)'' and inserting at those 
        two points ``22.5 percent''.

        Section 105A of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended by 
    section 1001 of the bill, is amended by:
        In subsection (a)(3)(C) (page 226, lines 16 and 17) striking 
    ``not to exceed 5 percent'' and inserting ``not to exceed 10 
    percent''; and

            In subsection (c)(1)(E)(ii) (page 233, lines 17 and 18, and 
        line 22)

[[Page 11859]]

        striking ``15 percent and inserting at those two points ``17.5 
        percent''. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment en 
    bloc.
        The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
        Mr. Armey: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
    earlier request.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the proceedings at 133 Cong. Rec. 14030, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        May 28, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
        The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    modified, as amended, was agreed to.

To Withdraw Demand for Separate Vote

Sec. 58.2 Where separate votes are demanded on several amendments 
    reported from the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker puts the 
    question on each amendment in the order in which it appears in the 
    bill, and not in the order in which a separate vote is demanded.

        On May 28, 1987,(16) the House received the report 
    of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on the bill H.R. 
    1451, the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1987. Separate votes 
    were demanded on 10 amendments, but the requests were later 
    withdrawn. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 133 Cong. Rec. 14030, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Under the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of 
    the Whole?
        Mr. [Dale E.] Kildee [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the Armey amendment, as amended.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    other amendment?
        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I demand separate votes on each of the following amendments; the 
    Kildee technical amendments; the Tauke amendment relating to 
    repealing title VII; the Roybal amendment clarifying minority 
    targeting provisions; the Snowe amendment, including adult day care 
    as possible activities; the Pepper amendment requiring States that 
    receive funds under the act to have an elder abuse and prevention 
    program; the Biaggi amendment, reducing the transfer authority; the 
    Gunderson amendment to require technical data collection on rural/
    urban participation; the Bonker amendment and the Roybal amendment 
    authorizing $2 million more.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman asking for a separate 
    vote

[[Page 11860]]

    on each of the amendments he has named?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Kildee: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Kildee: To ask for the yeas and nays, one-fifth of those 
    will have to stand for the yeas and nays; is that not the case? We 
    will put the question on the Armey amendment first, and then if 
    enough Members stand for the yeas and nays, then a recorded vote 
    will be called for?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The amendments will be put in the 
    order in which they appear in the bill.
        Mr. Kildee: In each case, then, the Speaker will ask for a 
    sufficient number to stand to see whether or not the yeas and nays 
    will be ordered?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct.
        Mr. Kildee: Mr. Speaker, I have another parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        Mr. Kildee: At that point, does the Chair have it within his 
    power to reduce the interim between votes to 5 minutes?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Not without unanimous consent.
        Mr. Kildee: I thank the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the first 
    amendment appearing in the bill on which a separate vote has been 
    demanded. . . .
        Mr. Kildee . . . So for that reason, I withdraw my request for 
    a separate vote on the Armey amendment, as amended, in the House.
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Unanimous consent is not required.
        The gentleman from Michigan withdraws his request.
        Does the gentleman from Wisconsin withdraw his requests?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, based upon the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan and with the understanding that we will not 
    be having a separate vote on the Armey amendment--
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has already made the 
    withdrawal.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request for a 
    separate vote on the other nine amendments.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin withdraws 
    his requests.
        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Varying Order of Voting by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 58.3 Separate votes in the House on amendments reported from the 
    Committee of the Whole are taken in the order in which they appear 
    in the bill, but by unanimous consent that order of voting may be 
    changed.

    On June 23, 1987,(18) in the first session of the 100th 
Congress,

[[Page 11861]]

separate votes were demanded in the House on all amendments reported to 
the House from the Committee of the Whole. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 133 Cong. Rec. 17090, 17091, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Under the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Tony Coehlo (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of 
    the Whole?
        Mr. [John] Miller of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the so-called Herger amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    other amendment?
        Mr. [Wally] Herger [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the following amendments:
        The Levine amendment regarding the Pan American Health 
    Organization;
        The Richardson amendment regarding Cuban political prisoners;
        The Richardson amendment concerning human rights abuses in 
    Ethiopia and Paraguay;
        The Oberstar amendment regarding consulates in Germany, Sweden, 
    Italy, France, and Austria; and
        The Neal amendment, as amended, regarding Japanese defense 
    expenditures.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    other amendment?
        The Chair will put the votes in the following order; first, the 
    Levine amendment; second, the Oberstar amendment; third, the 
    Richardson amendment No. 6; fourth, the Richardson amendment No. 8; 
    fifth, the Her-ger amendment; and sixth, the Neal amendment.
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Frenzel: Will the Clerk read the amendments prior to the 
    vote on each?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report each amendment 
    in the order in which they appear in the bill.
        Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the first 
    amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        Mr. [Daniel A.] Mica [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that following a record vote on this amendment the time for 
    record votes on the remaining amendments be reduced to 5 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Florida?
        Mr. Herger: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        Mr. Mica: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Herger 
    amendment, which would have been the last amendment, be voted on 
    out of order

[[Page 11862]]

    as the next amendment, and that after that, without prejudice to 
    the outcome of that vote, each of the remaining votes on amendments 
    be reduced to 5 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Florida?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Herger 
    amendment.

Order of Voting Altered by Special Rule

Sec. 58.4 Where a ``modified closed'' rule prescribes the order for 
    consideration of amendments with the bill considered as read in the 
    Committee of the Whole, then separate votes demand-ed in the House 
    on adopted amendments are taken in that same order, regardless of 
    the order in which the amendments appear in the bill.

    Where a special order determines the order of consideration of 
amendments in Committee of the Whole, the Speaker, in putting the 
question on separate votes on the adopted amendments back in the House, 
follows the dictates of the rule. An example of such a rule and of the 
pattern of voting occurred on Mar. 25, 1993.(20) On this 
occasion, the order for voting and the order of appearance of the 
amendments in the bill coincided, but the numbers given the amendments 
in the rule (numbers 1, 2, and 3) would govern if there were a 
conflict. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 139 Cong. Rec. 6358, 6359, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Under the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  Owen B. Pickett (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted by the 
    Committee of the Whole?
        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a separate vote on the following amendments adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole: No. 1, the DeLay amendment requiring 
    counselors to be professionals who have degrees in medicine or 
    mental health, as amended by the Waxman amendment; No. 2, the so-
    called Waxman amendment regarding the conscience clause; and No. 3, 
    the so-called Burton of Indiana amendment regarding condom 
    standards, as amended by the Waxman amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, I demand separate votes on those three amendments.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the first 
    amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Page 2, line 18, insert before the period the 
        following: ``, and that such information will be provided only 
        through individuals holding professional degrees in medicine or 
        osteopathic medicine, nursing, clinical psychology, the allied 
        health professions, or social work,

[[Page 11863]]

        through individuals meeting such other criteria as the 
        Secretary determines to be appropriate for providing such 
        information, or through individuals allowed under State law to 
        provide such information''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it. . . .
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Page 3, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the 
        following:
            ``(B) the project refers the individual seeking services to 
        another provider in the project, or to another project in the 
        geographic area involved, as the case may be, that will provide 
        such information.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment. . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the final 
    amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment: Page 4, after line 3, insert the following 
        subsection:
            (c) Information on Condoms.--Section 1001 of the Public 
        Health Service Act, as amended by subsection (a) of this 
        section, is amended by inserting after subsection (b) the 
        following subsection:
            ``(c) The Secretary may not make an award of a grant or 
        contract under this section unless the applicant for the award 
        agrees that the family planning project involved will--

Order of Voting Where Special Order Provides ``King of the Mountain'' 
    Process

Sec. 58.5 Under the ``King of the Mountain'' amendment procedure, if 
    more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, 
    only the last such amendment adopted will be considered as finally 
    adopted and voted on for final passage.

    Where a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules limits 
the number of amendments and defines their order of consideration, it 
may also specify that if more than one amendment to the same text is 
adopted, only the last such amendment shall be considered as finally 
adopted. The procedure has been utilized both for consideration of 
bills in Committee of the Whole or in the House. The rule adopted on 
Nov. 8, 1993,(2) providing for the consideration in the 
House of H. Con. Res. 170, directing the President to the War Powers 
Act to remove U.S. Armed Forces from Somalia by a date certain, 
provides an example of the ``King of the Mountain'' procedure. The text 
of the

[[Page 11864]]

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the 
House was as follows (emphasis added):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 293, 139 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tony P.] Hall of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 293 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 293

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider in the House the concurrent 
        resolution (H. Con. Res. 170) directing the President pursuant 
        to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United 
        States Armed Forces from Somalia by January 31, 1994. The 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs now printed in the concurrent 
        resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
        question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent 
        resolution, as so amended, to final adoption without 
        intervening motion except: (1) the further amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute printed in part 1 of the report of the 
        Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution; (2) the 
        further amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part 
        2 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
        resolution; and (3) one motion to recommit. Each of the 
        amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules may 
        be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
        offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
        considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time 
        specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
        proponent and an opponent. All points of order against the 
        amendments printed in the report are waived. If more than one 
        of the amendments printed in the report is adopted, only the 
        last to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted.
            Sec. 2. The provisions of section 7 of the War Powers 
        Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not apply during the 
        remainder of the first session of the One Hundred Third 
        Congress to a concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to 
        section 5 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544) with 
        respect to Somalia.

    In his explanation of the rule of Nov. 8, 1993, Mr. Hall, managing 
the rule for the Committee on Rules, explained the provisions of the 
rule.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that the 
    Foreign Affairs Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    shall be considered as adopted. Under the rule, only two substitute 
    amendments printed in the report to accompany the rule shall be in 
    order. These amendments may be offered by Mr. Gilman or his 
    designee, and Mr. Hamilton or his designee, and shall be considered 
    in the order and manner specified. . . .
        If more than one of the two amendments made in order is 
    adopted, only the last amendment to be adopted shall be considered 
    as finally adopted. This is in keeping with the agreed upon king-
    of-the-hill procedure. . . .

    On the following day, when the House concurrent resolution was 
called up for consideration, the Speaker Pro Tempore (4) 
described

[[Page 11865]]

the operation of the amendment procedure as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jim McDermott (Wash.).
 5. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 9, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All time for general debate has 
    expired.
        It is in order to consider the amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute printed in House Report 103-328. The amendments may be 
    offered only in the order printed and by a Member designated in the 
    report, and shall be considered as read. Debate on each amendment 
    shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
    opponent of the amendment.
        If more than one of the amendments printed in the report is 
    adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally 
    adopted.
        Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to consider the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part 1 of House 
    Report 103-328.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from New York rise?
        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment.
        The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
    follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Gilman: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

           section 1. finding that the united states armed forces in 
                      somalia are engaged in hostilities.

        For purposes of sections 5(c) and 7 of the War Powers 
    Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c) and 1546), the Congress finds that 
    the United States Armed Forces in Somalia are engaged in 
    hostilities without a declaration of war or specific statutory 
    authorization.

                 sec. 2. removal of armed forces from somalia.

            Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 
        U.S.C. 1544(c)), the Congress hereby directs the President to 
        remove the United States Armed Forces from Somalia by January 
        31, 1994.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be recognized for 15 minutes and a 
    Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
        Mr. Gilman: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], a senior member of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs.

    In this instance, the second amendment considered under the ``King 
of the Hill'' procedure had more affirmative votes than the first 
amendment which was considered and which was also decided in the 
affirmative, but the result under the rule would have been the same 
even if the first amendment debated and voted on had received a larger 
number of ``aye'' votes than the second. The final proceedings on the 
concurrent resolution were as follows: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. ______.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment in 
    the

[[Page 11866]]

    nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Gilman].
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Gilman: 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 Pro Tempore: Evidently, a quorum is not present. 
    The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    224, nays 203, not voting 7. . . .
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to the rule it is now in 
    order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    printed in part 2 of House Report 103-328.

                           parliamentary inquiry
    Mr. Gilman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gilman: Mr. Speaker, would the Chair explain to the House 
    the procedure we are about to follow?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will reread his statement. 
    Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to consider the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute printed in part 2 of House Report 
    103-328.
        Mr. Gilman: Mr. Speaker, am I correct--and I submit a 
    rhetorical question--that if there is a vote against the Hamilton 
    amendment, it would be perceived to be support for the Gilman 
    amendment, is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot characterize the 
    meaning of Members' votes.

      amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. hamilton

        Mr. [Lee H.] Hamilton [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the rule I offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    printed in part 2 of the report to accompany House Resolution 293.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute. The text of the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Hamilton: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
        following:

         section 1. removal of united states armed forces from somalia.

            Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 
        U.S.C. 1544(c)), the Congress hereby directs the President to 
        remove United States Armed Forces from Somalia by March 31, 
        1994 (unless the President requests and the Congress authorizes 
        a later date), except for a limited number of members of the 
        Armed Forces sufficient only to protect United States 
        diplomatic facilities and citizens and noncombatant personnel 
        to advise the United Nations commander in Somalia.

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. [John] Linder [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11867]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        Mr. Linder: Mr. Speaker, is it correct to say that a vote in 
    favor of the Hamilton amendment will negate the Gilman amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, if both amendments are 
    adopted, only the last amendment will be finally adopted. . . .
        All time has expired.
        The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. Gilman: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    226, noes 201, not voting 7. . . .
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to House Resolution 293, the 
    previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution, as 
    amended.
        The question is on the concurrent resolution, as amended.
        The concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
        The title of the concurrent resolution was amended so as to 
    read: Concurrent resolution directing the President pursuant to 
    section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States 
    Armed Forces from Somalia.''.

    A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Committee of the Whole Cannot Determine or Set Length of Votes in House

Sec. 58.6 The Committee of the Whole may not, even by unanimous 
    consent, order that votes in the House on recommittal and final 
    passage be conducted as five-minute votes following a 15-minute 
    vote on a final amendment in Committee of the Whole.

    On Oct. 3, 1990,(7) the House had under consideration in 
Committee of the Whole the bill H.R. 4300, the Family Unity and 
Employment Opportunity Immigration Act of 1990. At the conclusion of 
the amendment process, an inquiry was addressed to Chairman George 
(Buddy) Darden, of Georgia: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 136 Cong. Rec. 27273, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul B.] Henry [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Henry: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of meetings back 
    and forth with the White House and all. I understand we have a 
    series of three

[[Page 11868]]

    votes, a vote on this Bryant amendment, then a vote on recommittal, 
    and on final passage. Would it be possible to have the other two 
    votes be 5-minute votes?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not have the authority in the 
    Committee of the Whole. Under the rules pertaining to the 
    Committee, the Chair respectfully denies the request of the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. Henry: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
        The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.



 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                           F. DELEGATE VOTING
 
Sec. 59. Delegate Voting in the Committee of the Whole


    The office of Delegate has its origins in an ordinance adopted by 
the Continental Congress, and the office was confirmed by law in 
August, 1789.(1) Delegates were permitted the right to 
debate, under the theory that a Congress could hear in debate anyone it 
chose. In the earliest Congresses, however, Delegates were not 
permitted to vote; but as the business of the House was increasingly 
considered in committees, Delegates were often named to committees and 
could participate in deliberations there. In 1841, a report relating to 
the qualifications of a Delegate from Florida, a gratuitous statement 
appears in the report: ``With the single exception of voting, the 
Delegate enjoys every other privilege and exercises every other right 
of a Representative. He can act as a member of a standing or special 
committee and vote on the business before such committees, and he may 
thus exercise an important influence on those initiatory proceedings by 
which business is prepared for the action of the House.'' 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 400.
 2. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some later Congresses, the right to participate in committee 
deliberations and vote therein was curtailed.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1300.
            For a general discussion of the role of Delegates and their 
        level of participation, see 2 Hinds' Precedents, 
        Sec. Sec. 1290-1306; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 240-246; 
        Ch. 7 Sec. 3.10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the modern House, the right to membership and the privilege of 
voting in those committees to which named was affirmed by the 1970 
Reorganization Act.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Ch. 7 Sec. 3.10, supra.

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

[[Page 11869]]

    Extending the right of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner 
to vote in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
was a new concept, first included in the rules of the 103d Congress. 
The discussions which surrounded the adoption of this new rule, the 
challenges to its constitutionality and its demise in the 104th 
Congress are discussed in this 
section.                          -------------------

Voting by Delegates and the Resident Commissioner

Sec. 59.1 When the House adopted its rules for the 103d Congress, the 
    rules of the House were amended to permit Delegates and the 
    Resident Commissioner to vote on questions arising in the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

    Rule XII of the rules of the House had, since the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970, permitted the Delegate from the District of 
Columbia and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico the privilege 
and right of voting in the standing committees of the House. In the 
103d Congress, the scope of their participation was significantly 
broadened by including in the rules two new provisions as follows:

        Rule XII clause 2: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. House Rules and Manual, Sec. 740 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        2. In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
    the Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico and 
    each Delegate to the House shall possess the same powers and 
    privileges as Members of the House.

    Rule XXIII clause 2(d): (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. House Rules and Manual, Sec. 864b (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (d) Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided 
    by a margin within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the 
    Resident Commissioner have been decisive, the Committee of the 
    Whole shall automatically rise and the Speaker shall put that 
    question de novo without intervening debate or other business. Upon 
    the announcement of the vote on that question, the Committee of the 
    Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening motion.

    Arguments were raised in the House that this enlargement of voting 
rights for ``non-Members'' was in fact unconstitutional.(7) 
Before beginning debate on House Resolution 5, the resolution adopting 
rules for the 103d Congress, a preferential motion to refer the 
resolution was offered by the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Rules, Gerald B. H. Solomon, of New York. The reso

[[Page 11870]]

lution was laid on the table.(8) The new Delegate rules also 
withstood other attacks on their constitutionality, both in the House 
and in the courts,(9) but they remained in effect through 
the 103d Congress. The first instance where the Delegates and the 
Resident Commissioner cast their votes on a recorded vote in Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union is recorded in the 
proceedings of Feb. 3, 1993, during the consideration of H.R. 1, the 
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See debate on H. Res. 5, adopting rules for the 103d Congress, 139 
        Cong. Rec. 51 et seq., 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
 8. The motion to refer provided as follows:
            ``Mr. Solomon moves to refer the resolution to a select 
        committee of five members, to be appointed by the Speaker, not 
        more than three of whom shall be from the same political party, 
        with instructions not to report back the same until it has 
        conducted a full and complete study of, and made a 
        determination on, the constitutionality of those provisions 
        which would grant voting rights in the Committee of the Whole 
        to the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and the Delegates 
        from American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam and the 
        Virgin Islands.''
            The motion was laid on the table by a vote of 224-176, not 
        voting 31. 139 Cong. Rec. 52, 53, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 
        1993.
 9. See proceedings surrounding the attempt to offer, as a question of 
        the privileges of the House, a resolution delaying the 
        implementation of the rules pending a determination as to their 
        constitutionality. 139 Cong. Rec. p.______, 103d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Feb. 3, 1993. The resolution was determined not to be a 
        proper question of privilege under Rule IX since a delay in the 
        implementation of a rule of the House in effect is a change in 
        that rule, and a change in a rule of the House cannot be 
        effected by a question of privilege. See also Sec. 59.2, infra, 
        for court decisions on constitutionality.
10. 139 Cong. Rec. p.______, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner were decisive, 
and subject to review by the House, on three occasions in the 103d 
Congress.(11) In determining whether the votes were in fact 
decisive, the Chair followed a ``but for'' test: would the result of 
the vote have been different if the Delegates and the Commissioner had 
not voted. On May 19, 1993,(12) during consideration in 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 820, the National Competitiveness

[[Page 11871]]

Act of 1993, a vote was taken on an amendment and the ayes were 208, 
the noes 213. Four votes in the negative were cast by Delegates. Had 
they not voted, the result would have been 208-209, still a vote 
rejecting the amendment. A series of inquiries, as follows, were 
addressed to the Chairman Pro Tempore, Mr. Esteban Edward Torres, of 
California, about how the ``but for'' test should be 
applied.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17, 1994; 140 
        Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1994; 140 
        Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., June 24, 1994. Only 
        in the second of these three instances was the result of the 
        vote in the Committee of the Whole, where the Delegates 
        participated, reversed in the House, where they did not.
12. 139 Cong. Rec. 10408, 10409, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [John J.] Duncan [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    208, noes 213, not voting 16. . . .
        So the amendment was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman may state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the delegates have made a difference 
    in the vote here. Does that result in an automatic revote of the 
    issue?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Four delegates (14) voted 
    no. It was not a decisive vote. Those votes would not have changed 
    the result of the vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The four Delegates voting were: Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo (PR), Eni 
        F. H. Faleomavaega (AS), Ron de Lugo (VI), and Robert A. 
        Underwood (GU).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Wait a minute.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that if the 
    delegates had not voted, the vote would have been 208 to 209. The 
    result would be the same. The amendment would be rejected. The 
    amendment is rejected.
        Mr. [Cliff] Stearns [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman may state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Stearns: Under the rule that was passed, Mr. Chairman, it 
    has to be closer before we revote, is that it? Because some of 
    these people might have voted a little differently if the vote was 
    just one or two, so I do not think we can speculate. That is why I 
    think we should have another vote.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair can only base his ruling on 
    the votes cast, and the Delegates' vote was not decisive.
        Mr. Stearns: Decisive is what, a difference of how much?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: But for the votes of the Delegates, 
    the outcome would have been different.
        Mr. Stearns: So if we take the difference of the four, it is a 
    separation of the two votes.

[[Page 11872]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Vote 208 to 209.
        Mr. Stearns: One vote, a separation of one vote is not worth 
    another vote? It seems to me that is significant.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The result would not have been 
    different.
        Mr. Stearns: Well, it might have been different if everyone saw 
    there was just one vote, and if their vote was the key vote----
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot speculate on that 
    possibility.
        Mr. Stearns: Will the Chair allow me a further indulgence?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. Stearns: Mr. Speaker, if there is a difference of one vote 
    on the House floor, we have seen many times it go up and down 
    because Members feel a stronger compunction or a stronger 
    conscience on an issue.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair again cannot speculate on 
    that possibility.
        Mr. Stearns: Well, would the Chairman consider a revote on this 
    matter, since there was just a difference of one vote?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The vote cannot be reconsidered in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Stearns: I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman may state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Has the Chair just ruled that we can get a separate 
    vote on this matter in the whole House?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The amendment was not adopted. The 
    amendment will not be reported to the House. It was not adopted.
        Mr. Stearns: Mr. Chairman, may I propound a further 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman may state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Stearns: Mr. Chairman, can we move to rise to the full 
    House and vote on this? Is it appropriate for me to move that we 
    rise?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The motion to rise is in order, but 
    it does not provoke another vote in the House.
        Mr. Stearns: Well, I mean, with the consideration that we vote 
    in the full House on this particular issue, because I think as it 
    stands now there is only one vote that separates us.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would state that would not 
    be resolved in the House.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman may state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Tennessee 
    were to offer exactly the same amendment, but with 9 percent 
    instead of 10, that would be in order at this point, would it not, 
    so that Members knowing how close it is would have an opportunity 
    on a slightly smaller number actually to reconsider, is that not 
    true?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule that a different 
    amendment could be offered.
        Mr. Gingrich: And those Members who now know how close it was 
    would

[[Page 11873]]

    have an opportunity to look at voting on this much closer and a 
    slightly smaller amendment?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the minority 
    whip that that is not a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gingrich: I would simply ask the Chair to keep that section 
    of the bill open for one additional moment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Are there any other amendments to 
    title V?
        Mr. Stearns did offer another amendment, with a slightly 
    smaller monetary deduction (9% instead of 10%). The amendment was 
    rejected by a larger majority than the original Duncan amendment.
        A further series of inquiries about this ``test'' occurred on 
    Apr. 20, 1994,(15) where, had the Delegates not 
    participated, the result of a vote would have been a tie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) All time has expired. The 
    question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    [Mr. McCollum].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Robert G. Torricelli (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Bill] McCollum [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, on that I 
    demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    212, noes 217, not voting 9. . . .

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. [Tom] DeLay [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. DeLay: Mr. Chairman, I think I know the answer to this 
    inquiry, but for the record, Mr. Chairman, the delegates No. 5.
        Is it true that the delegates voting, if we voted again, would 
    cause a tie, and the amendment would fail because of a tie?
        The Chairman: The gentleman correctly states that the votes 
    cast by delegates were not decisive.
        Had the Delegates not voted, it would have been a tie. On a tie 
    vote, the amendment fails.
        Mr. DeLay: So actually one could say it is a tie, so each vote 
    to the negative on the amendment is a very crucial vote?
        The Chairman: That is not a parliamentary inquiry. The Chair 
    answered the inquiry as it was stated.
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        Gingrich: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify, because I do 
    not think, given the way the House currently counts votes, that a 
    normal citizen would realize that the real vote among the elected 
    Members was 212 to 212.
        The Chairman: The gentleman must state a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gingrich: In the record, among Members, not counting 
    Delegates, is it

[[Page 11874]]

    correct, first, that the vote was 212 to 212?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman's inquiry is whether or not the 
    delegates were decisive in the outcome, they were not. Had they not 
    voted, it would have been a tie vote, and the amendment would have 
    failed. If that is the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair has answered 
    it.
        Mr. Gingrich: And therefore, each of the 212 was the decisive 
    vote?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. McCollum: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. McCollum: Do not the rules state that when a vote is 
    decided by five or fewer votes and the Delegates have voted, the 
    five Delegates, that a revote is in order regardless of what the 
    outcome might or might not be, hypothetically?
        The Chairman: That is not correct. The rule operates where they 
    are decisive, which means where there would have been a different 
    outcome, had they not voted.
        Mr. McCollum: But since there were, in fact, nine Members, the 
    inquiry is this, Mr. Chairman: Where there were Members not voting, 
    in this case there were nine Members not voting, would not the 
    possibility of a revote be that five or fewer votes could change 
    the outcome in a situation like we have before us today on this 
    previous vote?
        The Chairman: A motion to reconsider is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Delegate Voting Upheld as Constitutional

Sec. 59.2 The constitutionality of the rule permitting Delegates and 
    the Resident Commissioner to vote in Committee of the Whole, 
    subject to review in the House if their votes were decisive, was 
    affirmed in the U.S. District Court. On appeal, the Court of 
    Appeals concurred.

    The amendments to Rule XII and Rule XXIII which permitted the 
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to cast votes in Committee of 
the Whole were adopted on Jan. 5, 1993.(17) The Minority 
Leader of the House, Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, 12 other sitting 
Members of the House and three private citizens filed suit in the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the 
Clerk of the House, the Delegates and the Commissioner, seeking an 
injunction to prevent the implementation of the rule. They also sought 
a ruling to the effect that the provisions allowing the Delegates and 
Commissioner to vote in Committee of the Whole was unlawful. On Mar. 6, 
1993, the court issued an order denying the preliminary

[[Page 11875]]

in-junction and in the accompanying opinion found that the amendment to 
Rule XII, permitting a ``re-vote'' of amendments where the votes by 
non-Members was decisive, negated any unconstitutional power which 
would have been bestowed by the amendment to Rule XII, standing alone. 
Excerpts from the opinion in Michel v Anderson (18) follow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 5, 139 Cong. Rec. 49 et seq., 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Civil Action 93-0039; 817 F Supp. 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Robert H. Michel, et al.,  Plaintiffs,

                                     v

                  Donnald K. Anderson, et al., Defendants.

            United States District Court, District of Columbia.

                               March 8, 1993.

                     Harold H. Greene, District Judge.

                                 i. Opinion

                                 Background

        In this case, thirteen Republican Members of the House of 
    Representatives,(19) led by Minority Leader Robert 
    Michel (R-Ill.),(20) seek to enjoin enforcement 
    (1) of House Rule XII which was amended on January 5, 
    1993 to authorize Delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam, 
    American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands, as well as the Resident 
    Commissioner from Puerto Rico to vote in the House's Committee of 
    the Whole. The Committee of the Whole is comprised of all Members 
    of the House, and it is where a substantial portion of the 
    chamber's business is conducted. The House also amended House Rule 
    XXIII to require a de novo vote on the House floor on any question 
    decided by the Committee of the Whole where the vote of the 
    Delegates (2) was decisive. The Delegates

[[Page 11876]]

     are prohibited from participating in this second vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The following Members of the House of Representatives are 
        plaintiffs in this suit in their capacity as Members of 
        Congress and as voters: Robert Michel (R-Ill.), Newt Gingrich 
        (R-Ga.), Gerald Solomon (R-NY), Don Young (R-Alaska), Craig 
        Thomas (R-Wy.), Christopher Cox (R-Cal.), Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), 
        Michael Castle (R-Del.), Jay Kim (R-Cal.), Deborah Pryce (R-
        Ohio), Henry Bonilla (R-Tex.), Thomas Bliley (R-Va.), and 
        Edward Royce (R-Cal.). Additionally, three individual voters 
        from some of the congressional districts represented by the 
        plaintiff Members are also participating as plaintiffs.
20. Twenty-eight additional Members have joined these plaintiffs by 
        means of an amicus curiae brief. See p. 478, note 4, infra.
 1. Plaintiffs have also asked for a declaratory ruling that non-Member 
        voting in the Committee of the Whole is unlawful.
 2. Throughout this Opinion, the Court's references to ``Delegates'' 
        includes the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico. There is 
        no practical distinction between the rights, privileges and 
        entitlements of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner. 
        [See Deschler's Precedents Ch. 7, Sec. 3, at 38, supra.] The 
        historic origins of these two different titles relate to 
        whether a territory was prepared to apply for statehood, in 
        which case their representative in Congress was called a 
        Delegate. [Id. at 37.] Additionally, where the Court uses the 
        term ``territorial Delegate'' it includes the Delegate from the 
        District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on the ground 
    that these rules unconstitutionally vest the Delegates with 
    legislative power, and that they dilute the legislative power of 
    Members of the House. Alternatively, the plaintiffs claim that, by 
    unilaterally modifying the Delegates' role, the House has violated 
    the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment of 
    legislation to the President.
        The defendants, who are the Clerk of the House and the five 
    House Delegates,(3) argue that the Court should refrain 
    from deciding this case under various jurisdictional and prudential 
    doctrines. Further, the defendants contend that, if the merits were 
    to be reached, the Court should hold that the rule change does not 
    vest the Delegates with legislative power and that the rule is not 
    otherwise constitutionally defective.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Donnald K. Anderson, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, is 
        responsible for tallying and reporting the votes of the 
        Committee of the Whole. The five other defendants are the 
        Delegates who were given a vote in the Committee of the Whole 
        through this rule change: Eleanor Holmes Norton (District of 
        Columbia), Carlos Romero-Barcelo (Resident Commissioner from 
        Puerto Rico), Robert Underwood (Guam), Ron De Lugo (Virgin 
        Islands), and Eni Faleomavaega (American Samoa).
 4. A number of parties have filed amicus curiae briefs on this novel 
        constitutional issue. Twenty-eight other Republican Members of 
        the House of Representatives have filed a brief in support of 
        the request for preliminary injunction. Other briefs advocating 
        the unconstitutionality of the rule changes have been filed by 
        Citizens United, the Conservative Caucus, Inc., and the Abraham 
        Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc.
            An amicus curiae brief supporting the constitutionality of 
        the House rules was filed by a broad spectrum of organizations 
        located in the District of Columbia, including the Federation 
        of Civic Organizations, the League of Women Voters, the AFL-
        CIO, several bar associations, and fourteen past presidents of 
        the D.C. Bar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Both parties have joined in requesting that the Court 
    consolidate the plaintiffs' application for a preliminary 
    injunction with final consideration of this issue on the merits 
    pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2). The Court 
    grants this request, and the decision herein constitutes a final 
    judgment.
        After discussing the history of the Committee of the Whole, the 
    role it plays in the operations of the House, and the history of 
    the position of territorial Delegate, the Court addresses the 
    threshold issue of whether a judicial remedy with respect to this 
    largely

[[Page 11877]]

    internal congressional dispute is appropriate. The Court then 
    considers whether the changes in the House rules, as currently 
    configured, run afoul of the Constitution.

                         II. Committee of the Whole

        In order to appreciate the constitutional issues implicated in 
    this lawsuit and to evaluate the defenses raised, it is necessary 
    to review the origins of the Committee of the Whole, the function 
    it serves in the legislative process, and the traditional role of 
    Delegates in the House of Representatives.
        The Committee of the Whole is comprised of all of the Members 
    of the House of Representatives,(5) and it convenes on 
    the floor of the House with Members serving as the chair on a 
    rotating basis. It is in this procedural forum that the House 
    considers, debates, and votes on amendments to most of the 
    legislation reported out of the standing or select committees. Only 
    after consideration of amendments in the Committee of the Whole is 
    legislation reported to the floor of the House for final, usually 
    perfunctory, consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. There are, in fact, two types of Committees of the Whole. The 
        Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
        considers all public bills affecting taxes and spending. That 
        is the Committee of the Whole at issue in this litigation. The 
        second Committee of the Whole considers private bills relating 
        to claims against the government, special immigration cases, 
        and other private relief bills. The changes in the House Rules 
        challenged here gave the Delegates the vote in the Committee of 
        the Whole House on the state of the Union. [See House Rule XII 
        and 139 Cong. Rec. at H28 (daily ed.) (``Wolfensberger 
        Memorandum'') (Jan. 5, 1993).]
            The Wolfensberger Memorandum which was incorporated into 
        the January 5, 1993 Congressional Record, is entitled 
        ``Committees of the Whole: Their Evolution and Functions.'' It 
        was prepared by Don Wolfensberger, Minority Chief of Staff of 
        the House Rules Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           A. History in England

        The Committee of the Whole has its origins in seventeenth 
    century England during the reign of King James I where it was 
    referred to as the grand committee. Demonstrating that neither 
    ``gridlock'' nor disputes regarding taxes are contemporary 
    phenomena, the concept of convening the legislature in a Committee 
    of the Whole developed in response to antagonism, and sometimes 
    deadlock, between Parliament and the monarchy, particularly on the 
    issue of taxation.

        As the King and the legislature clashed over that issue, 
    members of Parliament feared that the King's spies in the House of 
    Commons, including the Speaker, would report ``disloyal'' votes to 
    the crown. Such acts of betrayal could result in incarceration in 
    jail or other sanctions against the particular member. [See 139 
    Cong. Rec. H27, H28 (daily ed.), 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993 
    (hereinafter, ``Wolfensberger Memorandum'').]
        In order to avoid the perils of recorded voting, members of 
    Parliament met in informal sessions, on a clandestine basis, to 
    debate legislation. The proceedings of these sessions were not

[[Page 11878]]

    recorded, and the King could not learn who had proposed amendments 
    which exhibited disloyalty to or defiance of the monarchy. The 
    Committee reported only its ultimate recommendation to the official 
    House of Commons for confirmation or rejection. Through such a 
    process the members of Parliament could avoid the iron hand of the 
    monarchy. [Id.]
        Other historians have noted that the Committee of the Whole was 
    also used to circumvent the power of the standing committees which 
    were often coopted by special interests or agents of the Crown. 
    [See Kenneth Bradshaw and David Pring, Parliament and Congress, at 
    209 (1981).]

                         B. Early American Practice

        The members of the colonial legislatures, no more trusting of 
    the monarchy than their British ancestors, continued the practice 
    of convening in informal Committees of the Whole to shield their 
    deliberations and actions from the agents of King George III. [See 
    4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4705.]
        The same practice also continued in the Continental Congress, 
    the Congress of the Confederation, and the Federal Convention in 
    Philadelphia where the Framers convened to draft the Constitution. 
    [Wolfensberger Memorandum at H28]. In fact, one of the first 
    decisions made by the Framers was to resolve ``into a Committee of 
    the Whole House to consider the state of the American Union.'' 
    Hinds', supra, at 987. It was in this Committee of the Whole that 
    the Constitution was debated and approved. [1 Records of the 
    Federal Convention of 1787, rev. ed. Farrand. 29-322 (1966).]
        With little fanfare or debate, the First Congress, comprised of 
    many individuals from the Federal Convention and earlier American 
    legislatures made provisions for the Committee of the Whole. In one 
    of the first meetings of the United States House of Representatives 
    on April 7, 1789, one of the first four fundamental rules initially 
    adopted prescribed procedures for the conduct of Committees of the 
    Whole. [George Galloway, History of the United States House of 
    Representatives 10 (1965).] It was in this forum that bills were to 
    be ``twice read, twice debated by clauses, and subjected to 
    amendment. . . . Conspicuous reliance was placed by the House, then 
    as now, on the Committee of the Whole.'' [Id.]
        Similarly, the first important pieces of legislation passed by 
    the early Congresses were debated and significantly modified in the 
    Committee of the Whole. For example, James Madison's bill calling 
    for the establishment of executive departments passed through the 
    Committee of the Whole which excised the President's removal power. 
    [See Myers v United States, 272 U.S. 52, 112-114 (1926), (citing, 1 
    Annals of Cong. 585 (1789)).] The Bill of Rights was likewise 
    debated in the Committee of the Whole before it was referred to the 
    full House for ultimate passage. [See Lee v Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 
    (1992) (Souter, J., concurring) (citing, 1 Annals of Cong. 731 
    (1789)).]
        Over the years the House has deployed, at times, more than one 
    Committee of the Whole to perform additional functions in the 
    legislative process. [See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4705 and see 
    note 5, p. 479, supra.] In any event, by the late 1800s the central 
    role of the Committee of the Whole on

[[Page 11879]]

    the state of the Union was firmly established in the operations of 
    the House. Beginning in that era and continuing until the present, 
    all significant legislation, particularly revenue and expenditure 
    bills, are referred to the Committee of the Whole for debate and 
    the consideration of amendments prior to being reported to the 
    House floor.(6) [See Wolfensberger Memorandum at H30 and 
    Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit 3 (Affidavit 
    of Representative Robert Michel) (here-inafter ``Michel 
    Affidavit'').] (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. The two other House calendars were a calendar for public bills that 
        did not touch on money matters, and a calendar for the 
        ``other'' Committee of the Whole for private bills.
 7. The defendants submitted no affidavits or other evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            C. Current Functions

        The critical function played by the Committee of the Whole is 
    evident from House Rule XIII which provides that ``all bills 
    raising revenue, general appropriation bills, and bills of a public 
    character directly or indirectly appropriating money or property'' 
    are to be referred to the calendar of the Committee of the Whole. 
    [See also House Rule XIII clause 3.] (8) Even though the 
    historic secrecy justifications for convening in the Committee of 
    the Whole are, of course, no longer present, the Committee 
    continues to be the focus of legislative activity in the House. The 
    Committee of the Whole is still heavily relied upon because it is 
    less subject to parliamentary delaying tactics than the House 
    itself, such as motions to table bills, proposals to adjourn, 
    motions to reconsider votes cast, and other such procedures. [See 4 
    Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4716-4724.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. [House Rule XXIII clause 3] provides: All motions or propositions 
        involving a tax or charge upon the people, all proceedings 
        touching appropriations of money, or bills making 
        appropriations of money, or property, or requiring such 
        appropriation to be made, or authorizing payments out of 
        appropriations already made, or releasing any liability to the 
        United States for money or property, or referring any claim to 
        the Court of Claims, shall be first considered in a Committee 
        of the Whole, and a point of order under this rule shall be 
        good at any time before the consideration of a bill has 
        commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Moreover, in the Committee of the Whole a Member is limited to 
    five minutes of debate per amendment as opposed to the one hour of 
    debate time accorded each Representative on the floor of the House. 
    [See Wolfensberger Memorandum H30.] Lastly, the quorum requirement 
    in the Committee is only 100 as compared to the constitutionally 
    required quorum of 218 for the full House.(9) In short, 
    it is simply more convenient and expedient for the House to 
    continue to convene in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Constitution states that ``. . . a majority of each [House] 
        shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;'' U.S. Const. art. I, 
        Sec. 5, cl. 1. Now that the House has 435 full Members, a 
        quorum, under this clause, is comprised of 218 Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the House Rules in effect prior to the January 5, 1993, 
    amendments that were rejected in the Com

[[Page 11880]]

    mittee of the Whole could not be considered again on the House 
    floor. The only exception to this general restriction was the 
    ``rarely successful'' procedure by which a defeated coalition could 
    make one motion to recommit. [See Michel Affidavit at 7.] This 
    procedure basically involves an initiation of the legislative 
    process all over again by a reference of the pertinent bill back to 
    a standing committee. [See Wolfensberger Memorandum H30.] 
    (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Contrary to the defendants' claim, the availability of this 
        cumbersome procedure does not mean that amendments defeated in 
        the Committee of the Whole can effectively be reviewed by the 
        full House. Defeat of an amendment in the Committee of the 
        Whole is realistically the final consideration of that issue by 
        the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        After the Committee of the Whole completes its work on a piece 
    of legislation it ``rises,'' and the bill is sent to the floor of 
    the House for final approval.(11) Once the bill is so 
    reported to the floor, no other amendments may be offered on that 
    legislation. In fact, once a bill arrives on the House floor from 
    the Committee of the Whole, the House usually conducts a straight 
    ``up or down'' vote on the legislation as a whole [see Michel 
    Affidavit at 7], and the bill considered by the full House is the 
    legislation as it was amended during the deliberations of the 
    Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. A majority of the Committee of the Whole must approve a motion to 
        rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Upon a motion from the floor, each amendment to the bill 
    approved by the Committee of the Whole can be subjected to a 
    separate vote on the House floor. [See Michel Affidavit at 7.] 
    However, as noted supra, an amendment that was defeated in the 
    Committee of the Whole could not be resurrected in the House, at 
    least not prior to the January 5, 1993 rules change. This was also 
    true of amendments barred from consideration by rulings of the 
    chair or effectively rejected through substitute or second degree 
    amendments. [Michel Affidavit at 5-6; Affidavit of Representative 
    Gerald Solomon at 4-11.]
        As is evident, the most significant portion of the House of 
    Representatives' business is done in the Committee of the Whole. 
    The ``work of the Committee of the Whole is seldom reversed or 
    recommitted by the House for the simple reason that the work was 
    done by the same House under a different name and using different 
    procedures.'' [See Wolfensberger Memorandum H30; see also, Charles 
    Tiefer, Congressional Practice and Procedure 340, 386 (1989) (the 
    Committee of the Whole is the ``dominant phase in the chamber's 
    consideration of a bill'' and is ``the heart of the chamber's 
    operations'').]

                          III. Status of Delegates

        Before discussing the manner in which the recent changes in the 
    House rules affect the legislative process just described, it is 
    useful to provide a brief history of the office of ``Delegate'' and 
    a review of the present status of that position. As indicated, 
    there are currently five non-voting participants in the House of 
    Representatives, representing the District of Columbia, Puerto 
    Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

[[Page 11881]]

        Article I of the United States Constitution vests ``[a]ll 
    legislative Powers . . . in a Congress of the United States.'' 
    [art. I, Sec. 1.] Article I goes on to require that ``[t]he House 
    of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen . . . by the 
    People of the several States . . . .'' [art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1.]
        Obviously the five Delegates do not represent ``States'' nor 
    are they chosen by ``People of the several States.'' These 
    Delegates are also not subject to the age, citizenship, and 
    residency qualifications for membership set forth in the 
    Constitution for all Members of the House of 
    Representatives.(12) For example, unlike Members of 
    Congress who, by Article I of the Constitution, are required to be 
    American citizens, the Delegate from American Samoa is only 
    required to ``owe allegiance to the United States.'' [See 48 USC 
    Sec. 1733 (1988).] (13) Moreover, American Samoa, the 
    Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico are generally self-funded, 
    retaining their own tax collections. [See 26 USC Sec. Sec. 876(a), 
    931, 932(c)(4), 933, 7654 (1988).] (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Constitution states that: No Person shall be a Representative 
        who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, 
        and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who 
        shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in 
        which he shall be chosen. [art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 2.]
13. Under various statutes, the other Delegates must be American 
        citizens.
14. Plaintiffs point to the anomaly of such Delegates passing upon 
        taxation and appropriations for the United States as part of 
        the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Beyond that, these five individuals represent areas and 
    constituents with vastly different political, cultural, geographic, 
    and economic ties to the rest of the United States. The populations 
    of these areas range from 47,000 in American Samoa to 3.6 million 
    in Puerto Rico. By comparison, the average population of the 
    congressional districts represented by the thirteen Member 
    plaintiffs here is approximately 569,864.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Indeed, under Wesberry v Sanders [376 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1964)], the 
        number of inhabitants in the various congressional districts of 
        this nation must, ``as nearly as practicable,'' contain an 
        equal number of people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Each of these five non-voting Delegate positions was created 
    through a different statute. The common theme in all these statutes 
    is that the particular Delegate is given a seat in Congress with 
    the ``right of debate, but not of voting.'' [See, e.g., 2 USC 
    Sec. 25a(a) (1988) (statute creating D.C. Delegate).] 
    (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Legislation authorizing the other Delegates to sit in the House 
        similarly states that each is to be a ``nonvoting delegate.'' 
        [See 48 USC Sec. 1711 (1988) (Guam and the Virgin Islands), 48 
        USC Sec. 1731 (1988) (American Samoa), and 48 USC Sec. 891 
        (1988) (Puerto Rico).]
            The office of Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico was 
        established by Congress in 1900 [31 Stat. 86]; in 1972 Congress 
        authorized the election of a Delegate from Guam and from the 
        Virgin Islands [48 USC Sec. 1711 (1988)]; in 1978 a Delegate 
        was authorized for American Samoa [48 USC Sec. 1731 (1988)]; 
        and the office of Delegate for the District of Columbia was 
        established in 1970 [84 Stat. 848].

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

[[Page 11882]]

        The concept of permitting non-voting Delegates to serve in the 
    House of Representatives is well-rooted in the history of the 
    American Congress. The Constitution vests Congress with plenary 
    power to regulate and manage the political representation of the 
    territories.(17) A similar vesting of power is conferred 
    on Congress to govern the District of Columbia.(18) The 
    Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the broad authority of 
    Congress to take action with respect to the territories and the 
    District of Columbia pursuant to these clauses. [See Sere & Laralde 
    v Pitot, 10 U.S. 332, 336-37 (1810) (``we find Congress possessing 
    and exercising absolute and undisputed power of governing and 
    legislating for the territories''); Binns v United States, 194 U.S. 
    486, 491 (1904) (``Congress, in the government of the territories 
    as well as the District of Columbia, has plenary power, save as 
    controlled by the provisions of the Constitution'').] On the 
    specific question of Congress' power to prescribe the political 
    rights of the territories, the Supreme Court has stated that ``in 
    ordaining government for the Territories, and the people who 
    inhabit them, all the discretion which belongs to legislative power 
    is vested in Congress.'' [Murphy v Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 44 (1885).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The Constitution states with regard to the territories, ``Congress 
        shall have the power to make all needful rules and regulations 
        respecting'' these entities. [art. IV, Sec. 3.]
18. The Constitution states that ``Congress shall have Power . . . to 
        exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever'' over 
        the District of Columbia. [art. I, Sec. 8.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the territorial and other Delegates have never before 
    been granted authority to vote in the Committee of the Whole, they 
    have, intermittently over the past two centuries and consistently 
    over the past two decades, been given significant authority in 
    standing and select committees of the House.
        For example, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 created the post 
    of territorial Delegate who was given a ``seat'' in Congress with 
    the right to debate, but not the right to vote. [1 Stat. 50, 52 
    (1789).] The second Delegate from the Northwest Territories was a 
    future President, William Henry Harrison. During his service as a 
    Delegate in Congress, at a time when numerous Framers of the 
    Constitution served in the national legislature, Harrison was 
    allowed to chair an important public lands committee and play a 
    significant role in the passage of legislation. [See Dorothy Burne 
    Goebel, William Henry Harrison 44 (1926); 6 Annals of Cong. 209-10, 
    Dec. 24, 1799; 6 Annals of Cong. 529, Feb. 19, 1800.] 
    (19) Other Delegates followed Harrison's example and 
    served on various standing committees of the House. [See 2 Hinds' 
    Precedents Sec. Sec. 1297-1301.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Harrison was also appointed to serve on a House committee 
        established to address the urgent problem of the political 
        division of the territories. [Goebel, William Henry Harrison at 
        49; 6 Annals of Cong. 198, Dec. 10, 1799.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The frequency of this practice in the early Congress was noted 
    by an 1840

[[Page 11883]]

    House Committee report which observed that:

            With the single exception of voting, the Delegate enjoys 
        every other privilege and exercises every other right of a 
        Representative. He can act as a member of a standing or special 
        committee and vote on the business before said committees, and 
        he may thus exercise an important influence on those initiatory 
        proceedings by which business is prepared for the action of the 
        House.
    [2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1301 (quoting, H. Rept. No. 10, 27th 
    Cong., 1st Sess. 4-5 (1841)). See also, Ch. 7, Sec. 3, infra (``in 
    early Congresses, Delegates and Resident Commissioners were 
    entitled to vote in the committees to which they were assigned'') 
    (citations omitted).]

        The practice of allowing Delegates to vote in standing 
    committees apparently continued until the middle of the nineteenth 
    century at which time the Delegates relinquished this power in 
    exchange for other concessions. [See Cong. Globe 42d Cong., 2d 
    Sess. 117-118, Feb. 13, 1871.] (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. According to the defendants, the Delegates were persuaded to give 
        up their seats in exchange for ``guaranteed memberships with 
        substantial rights on the key committees of greatest importance 
        to them--the Committee of the District of Columbia, and the 
        Committee of the Territories.'' [See Defendants' Motion to 
        Dismiss at 22.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the next century, until 1970, Delegates no longer possessed 
    the right to vote in standing committees. That year, as part of the 
    1970 Legislative Reorganization Act, Congress expanded the powers 
    of the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico to include the right 
    to vote in standing committees. And over the next three years, the 
    House periodically amended its rules, so that by 1973 all Delegates 
    had once again the power to vote in standing committees. There were 
    no further modifications of the Delegates' powers until the changes 
    that were made in January, 1993.

                              IV. Rules Change

        The genesis of this lawsuit was a decision by the House of 
    Representatives, on Jan. 5, 1993, to amend House Rule XII to give 
    the five non-voting Delegates in the House of Representatives a 
    vote in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:

            In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
        Union, the Resident Commissioner to the United States from 
        Puerto Rico and each Delegate to the House shall possess the 
        same powers and privileges as Members of the House.
    [Rule XII clause 2.]

        This rule change, made pursuant to the House's broad 
    constitutional power to adopt its internal rules,(1) was 
    opposed by all the Republican Members of the House and by 23 
    Democrats. [139 Cong. Rec. H53, H54 (daily ed.), 103d Cong. 1st 
    Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.] (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Constitution provides that each chamber of Congress ``may 
        determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' [art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 
        2.]
 2. Concern was expressed by the opponents that the Democrats in 
        Congress were seeking by this means to increase their House 
        majority by five, all five Delegates being Democrats.

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

[[Page 11884]]

        As discussed above, this rule change marks the first time in 
    the history of the House of Representatives that territorial 
    Delegates, or any other non- Members, were given a vote in the 
    Committee of the Whole.(3) The House also amended its 
    rules to allow these Delegates to serve periodically as chair of 
    the Committee of the Whole.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. The mere fact that this change in the House rules is unprecedented 
        is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for striking it 
        down. In considering an alteration of the means by which the 
        House determined whether a quorum was present, the Supreme 
        Court stated that ``it is no objection to the validity of a 
        rule that a different one has been prescribed and in force for 
        a length of time.'' [United States v Ballin, 114 U.S. 1, 5 
        (1892).]
 4. House Rule XXIII clause 1(a) now states that ``In all cases, in 
        forming a Committee of the Whole House, the Speaker shall leave 
        his chair after appointing a Member, Resident Commissioner, or 
        Delegate as Chairman to preside. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the House gave the Delegates these unprecedented powers, it 
    also adopted a rule [Rule XXIII clause 2(d)] that is generally 
    described as a ``savings clause'' which, as elaborated on in Part 
    VII, infra, calls for an automatic de novo vote in the House itself 
    whenever the votes of the Delegates are decisive in the Committee 
    of the Whole. As will be seen, the interplay between the House's 
    decision by Rule XII to authorize Delegate voting in the Committee 
    of the Whole and the ``savings clause'' in Rule XXIII is critical 
    to the outcome of this lawsuit.

              V. Jurisdictional and Prudential Considerations

        The Court cannot reach the merits unless it is able first to 
    cross several jurisdictional and prudential barriers: the doctrines 
    of standing, textual commitment, and remedial discretion. Because 
    in this case several Members of Congress request the Judiciary to 
    invalidate the action of the House of Representatives, separation 
    of powers concerns require the Court to tread cautiously and to 
    weigh the impact of these doctrines at the outset.

                                A. Standing

        The Court turns first to the question of standing. Article III 
    of the Constitution limits judicial action to ``cases or 
    controversies.'' [art. III, Sec. 2.] The doctrine of standing 
    ensures that courts remain within the boundaries of their 
    constitutional power by requiring that the plaintiffs have a 
    personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, at least by 
    allegation. [Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962).]
        The four-part test to determine whether a party has standing 
    (5) is well-established: (1) there must be an injury in 
    fact; (2) to an interest arguably within the zone of interests 
    protected by the constitutional guarantee at issue, here the [art. 
    I, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2]; (3) resulting from the putatively illegal 
    conduct and; (4) which could be redressed by a favorable decision 
    of the court. [Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights 
    Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For purposes of determining standing, the Court accepts plaintiffs' 
        pleaded facts as valid. [See Warth v Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 
        (1975).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the instant matter, the standing debate revolves primarily 
    around the

[[Page 11885]]

    issue whether there is a judicially-cognizable injury. [Vander Jagt 
    v O'Neill, 699 F2d 1166, 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1983).] Where separation 
    of powers concerns are present, the Court will not lightly exercise 
    its authority to decide litigation, and absent a compelling and 
    specific injury, the Court must decline to involve itself in an 
    action against a coordinate branch of government. Mere generalized 
    or speculative injury cannot create standing in such actions.
        For example, a claim that the alleged unconstitutional action 
    merely diminishes a legislator's effectiveness, as perceived by 
    that legislator, is too amorphous an injury to confer standing. 
    [See Harrington v Bush, 553 F2d 190, 205-206 (D.C. Cir. 1977) 
    (Representative did not have standing because claim that illegal 
    activities of CIA diminished his effectiveness as legislator was 
    not concrete injury).] By contrast, the loss of a vote or 
    deprivation of a particular opportunity to vote is a sufficiently 
    particularized injury to warrant judicial involvement in 
    congressional affairs. [Moore v United States House of 
    Representatives, 733 F2d 946, 952-53 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Coleman v 
    Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 438 (1939); Dellums v Bush, 752 F Supp 1141, 
    1147 (D.D.C. 1990).]
        In the instant action, the required showing of particularized 
    injury is clearly met. The Constitution guarantees the right to 
    proportional representation in the House of 
    Representatives.(6) Among the plaintiffs' claimed 
    injuries is an abridgement of that right. Article I, section 2, 
    provides in pertinent part: ``Representatives . . . shall be 
    apportioned among the several States which may be included within 
    this Union, according to their respective Numbers. . . .'' [art. I, 
    Sec. 2, cl. 3.] The alleged dilution of that representational 
    voting power set forth in the Constitution satisfies the 
    requirement of injury in fact. Although the House majority's action 
    does not entirely strip Members of that body of their right to 
    vote, it is claimed to take from them precisely what the 
    Constitution guarantees--votes carrying weight proportional to 
    their States' population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Each State is of course entitled to two Senators regardless of 
        population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In Vander Jagt [supra, 699 F2d at 1170], the Court of Appeals 
    found sufficient injury when ``the essence of the lawsuit is that 
    the Democratic House leadership has successfully diluted the 
    political power of Republican representation on congressional 
    committees.'' Similarly, in holding unconstitutional an action by a 
    State executive branch overriding the votes of state senators, the 
    Supreme Court has stated that ``these senators have a plain, direct 
    and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their 
    votes. . . . They have set up and claimed a right and privilege 
    under the Constitution to have their votes given effect.'' [Coleman 
    v Miller, supra, 307 U.S. 438.] So, too, here. [See also, Montana v 
    United States Department of Commerce, 775 F Supp 1358 (D. Mont. 
    1991) (three-judge court), reversed on other grounds, 503 U.S. 442 
    (1992).]
        The remaining requirements of standing are also satisfied. The 
    alleged harm falls squarely within the zone of interests protected 
    by Article I of the Constitution. The political system created by 
    the Framers vests legislative power in the House of Representatives

[[Page 11886]]

    and the United States Senate. [art. I, Sec. 1.] Members of the 
    House are chosen in proportion to the number of citizens in their 
    respective States, and they are each given a vote as the tool with 
    which to craft legislation. As the pool of possible votes expands, 
    the effectiveness of each individual vote shrinks. The action of 
    the House majority, if there is merit to the allegations--an issue 
    discussed below--impairs the role of House Members in the 
    constitutional scheme of lawmaking and thus directly impairs the 
    effectiveness of each Representative's individual vote. [See 
    Dellums v Bush, supra.]
        Turning to the third requirement, the Court is able to trace 
    the injury to the House majority's challenged action. Plaintiffs 
    need only make a reasonable showing that but for defendants' 
    actions, the alleged injury would not have occurred. The plaintiffs 
    here sufficiently established this connection.
        Unlike other cases in which a variety of forces could possibly 
    be responsible for a plaintiff's injury, here the nexus connecting 
    act and injury is direct and clear. [See, e.g., Community Nutrition 
    Institute v Block, 698 F2d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1983), reversed on other 
    grounds, 467 U.S. 340 (1984).] Absent the passage of House Rule 
    XII, permitting the five Delegates to vote in the Committee of the 
    Whole, the alleged dilution of the other Members' votes would not 
    have occurred. Accordingly, the Court finds that the plaintiffs 
    have alleged the requisite causal link.
        Finally, the alleged injury is capable of redress by the 
    Judiciary. Plaintiffs seek only a ruling that House Rule XII is 
    unconstitutional. Passage of that House rule allegedly caused the 
    injury complained of here, and a judicial decision finding that 
    rule constitutionally infirm and enjoining the House from enforcing 
    it would certainly cure any harm.
        Inasmuch as the plaintiffs meet the requirements of all four 
    prongs under Simon, supra, the Court concludes that they have 
    standing to proceed.

                           B. Textual Commitment

        A controversy is non-justiciable where there is ``a textually 
    demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate 
    political department.'' [Baker v Carr, supra, 369 U.S. 217; Nixon v 
    United States, 61 U.S.L.W. 4069, Jan. 13, 1993.] However, while the 
    Constitution confers on the House the power ``to determine the 
    Rules of its Proceedings,'' [art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2], the Judiciary, 
    too, has a role to play. It rests with the courts to evaluate the 
    validity of House rules in relation to the Constitution. [See 
    Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).] As the Supreme Court has 
    stated, ``the Constitution empowers each house to determine its 
    rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional 
    restraints or violate fundamental rights.'' [United States v 
    Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1892).]

        Thus, while the prudential concerns continue to have great 
    vitality, ``it is nonetheless critical that we do not deny our 
    jurisdiction over the claims in the case. As it is conceivable that 
    the committee system could be manipulated beyond reason, we should 
    not abandon our constitutional obligation--our duty and not simply 
    our province--`to say what the law is.' '' [Vander Jagt, supra, 699 
    F2d 1170 (quoting Marbury v Madison, supra).]

[[Page 11887]]

        Again, separation of powers concerns require caution in 
    reviewing House rules, but it has never been held that this textual 
    commitment renders disputes regarding such rules ipso facto 
    nonjusticiable. [Vander Jagt, supra, 699 F2d 1173.] Thus, although 
    a court may not order the House to adopt any particular rule, 
    ``Article I does not alter our judicial responsibility to say what 
    rules Congress may not adopt because of constitutional infirmity.'' 
    [Id.] On this basis, while the subject of House rules is textually 
    committed to the House, the courts are not thereby ousted of 
    jurisdiction to consider the consistency of a particular rule with 
    the Constitution.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. This line of reasoning also disposes of the related political 
        question doctrine of justiciability. [See United States 
        Department of Commerce v Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992); Powell v 
        McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           C. Remedial Discretion

        Separation of powers concerns are also incorporated into 
    principled decision making which holds that, in certain 
    circumstances, a federal court may, in its discretion, grant or 
    withhold injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to 
    intramural disputes in Congress. Under this ``remedial discretion'' 
    doctrine,(8) the Court will consider a number of factors 
    in determining whether the dispute calls for judicial intervention 
    or is best left to congressional resolution. Among these are the 
    possibility of an alternate remedy through congressional action or 
    a private suit, the egregiousness of the constitutional violation, 
    and the extent of the intrusion of the Judiciary into legislative 
    action if the court entertains the suit. [See, e.g., Humphrey, 
    supra, 848 F2d 214 note 4; Moore, supra, 733 F2d 954-56; Vander 
    Jagt, supra, 699 F2d 1174-75; Riegle, supra, 656 F2d 881; contra 
    Melcher v Federal Open Market Committee, 836 F2d 561, 564-65 (D.C. 
    Cir. 1987).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The doctrine of remedial discretion is recognized and applied in 
        this Circuit. [Humphrey v Baker, 848 F2d 211, 213 (D.C. Cir. 
        1988); Melcher v Federal Open Market Committee, 836 F2d 561 
        (D.C. Cir. 1987).] It has not been addressed by the Supreme 
        Court. [Humphrey, supra.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Defendants contend that, because plaintiffs' dispute and 
    potential remedy is with their colleagues, the remedial discretion 
    doctrine ipso facto compels the Court to dismiss the action. Under 
    this interpretation of the doctrine, if there is any hope, however 
    remote, that the House's new rule will be remedied by Congress, the 
    Court must decline to grant relief. That is clearly 
    incorrect.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. If defendants' argument were correct, there would be no discretion 
        and indeed no doctrine of remedial discretion because in view 
        of the nature of intramural congressional disputes, one could 
        always hypothesize that a congressional remedy may exist. 
        Certainly, for example, if a House majority decided to deprive 
        blacks or Republicans of their votes, the courts would remedy 
        the situation notwithstanding the theoretical possibility that 
        the majority could, somehow, be persuaded to change its mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The court's remedial discretion is not inflexibly applied, and 
    in considering

[[Page 11888]]

    whether a remedy is appropriately given, the court weighs a variety 
    of factors. Although the case law is equivocal, a suit in which 
    there are also non-congressional, private plaintiffs may be able to 
    resist dismissal. [Moore, supra, 733 F2d 956; Vander Jagt, supra, 
    699 F2d 1175 note 24; Riegle, supra, 656 F2d 881; contra Melcher, 
    836 F2d 564-65.] In those instances in which a suit was essentially 
    an intramural dispute and could have been brought by private 
    plaintiffs but was not, the Court dismissed the action. For 
    example, in Riegle, supra, the court exercised its discretion in 
    refusing to invalidate the allegedly unconstitutional Federal 
    Reserve Act [12 USC Sec. 221 et seq. (1976)], passed by a majority 
    of Senator Riegle's colleagues, or to enjoin five members of the 
    Federal Reserve Bank from voting pursuant to the Act. Several 
    factors were cited in the opinion, but its principal basis was 
    that, because there were private plaintiffs who had the ability to 
    challenge the statute, judicial review could be obtained without 
    creating separation of powers problems. [656 F2d 882; contra 
    Melcher, supra, 836 F2d 564-65.] (10) There the court 
    indicated that had private plaintiffs been joined, the court 
    ``would be obliged to reach the merits of the claim.'' [Moore, 656 
    F2d 881.]
        In the instant case, the Republican House Members sued not only 
    in their congressional capacity but also in their capacity as 
    voters. Moreover, other, non-congressional private citizens have 
    also joined in the suit as plaintiffs.(11) [See Gregg v 
    Barrett, 771 F2d 539, 546 (D.C. Cir. 1985).] The House's rules 
    change, by allegedly granting legislative power to territorial 
    Delegates, at least one of whom represents as few as one-tenth of 
    the number of citizens represented by each Member of the House 
    pursuant to constitutionally-required reapportionment [art. I, 
    Sec. 2, cl. 3], dilutes the vote of these citizens. [See Franklin v 
    Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (O'Connor, J., plurality 
    opinion); Montana v U.S. Department of Commerce, supra.] It follows 
    that the private plaintiffs are legitimately in the suit, and their 
    presence presents a more compelling claim for judicial involvement. 
    [Moore, supra, 733 F2d 956; Vander Jagt, supra, 699 F2d 1175 note 
    24; Riegle, supra, 656 F2d 881; contra Melcher, 836 F2d 564-65.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The court also did note that Senator Riegle could obtain 
        substantial relief from the action of his fellow legislators by 
        convincing them to enact, amend, or repeal the offending 
        statute.
11. Gregory T. Chambers, Becky M. Costantino, and Lois Stetzler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In Moore, too, the court relied on the possibilities of 
    congressional repeal and citizen suit to dismiss a challenge to the 
    constitutionality of a statute (Tax Equity and Fiscal 
    Responsibility Act of 1982). [733 F2d 955-56.] As in Riegle, supra, 
    private plaintiff had standing to bring the suit but were not 
    plaintiffs. [Id.]
        Some of the pertinent cases were decided on other grounds in 
    the general remedial discretion framework. In Humphrey, supra, 
    while the court concluded that a legislative remedy was available 
    to correct the plaintiffs' grievance, it nevertheless considered 
    the merits, and found the law to be constitutional. [848 F2d 213.] 
    In Vander

[[Page 11889]]

    Jagt, for example, the Republican plaintiffs contended that the 
    majority Democrats had provided them with fewer seats on House 
    committees and subcommittees than they were proportionally owed. In 
    rejecting the invitation to have the dispute decided by the courts, 
    the Court of Appeals explained that the prospect of fashioning a 
    remedy, while not impossible, was ``a startling unattractive 
    idea.'' [699 F2d 1176.] (12) A remedy would have 
    required the court to dictate to the Speaker ``how many Democrats, 
    and perhaps even which Democrats, he is to appoint to the standing 
    committees.'' [Id.] Rather than to inject itself so deeply into the 
    legislative process, the Court of Appeals declined to approve 
    equitable and declaratory relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Republican plaintiffs complained about underrepresentation on 
        the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Ways 
        and Means Committee, and the Rules Committee. [699 F2d 1167.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the instant case, by contrast, the remedy would be 
    uncomplicated and unintrusive. The Court is not called upon to 
    devise rules for the operation of the House but only to pass on the 
    legality of a rule already enacted. In the view of this Court, it 
    is not precluded by prudential considerations from performing this 
    single, relatively simple act, if it turned out, on the merits, 
    that Rule XII and XXIII, taken together, improperly granted votes 
    to the Delegates in violation of Article I of the Constitution and 
    to the detriment of the Members from the several States. Once that 
    matter is decided, judicial involvement will be at an end.
        There is yet another reason for not abstaining in the exercise 
    of the Court's discretion. The precedents (e.g., Riegle and Moore) 
    involved situations where, even without judicial intervention, the 
    controversies would not have a long-lasting impact because they 
    involved only a single statute. By contrast, the instant case 
    revolves around the legislative process itself. Therefore, if House 
    Rule XII is constitutionally infirm, and the courts do not resolve 
    the matter, Delegates will improperly vote in the Committee of the 
    Whole for the indefinite future, and a shadow of 
    unconstitutionality will be cast on much future House action. The 
    argument for judicial decisionmaking in the face of such 
    potentially broad and long-lasting effects is compelling.
        The Court concludes that it does not lack jurisdiction and that 
    there is no prudential reason for judicial abstention. The 
    defendants' request for a dismissal of the action on grounds short 
    of the merits is therefore denied.

          VI. Vesting of Legislative Power in Individuals Who Are Not 
                              Members of Congress

        Now as to the merits. The plaintiffs challenge the 
    constitutionality of the changes in the House rules on two grounds. 
    First, they argue that, by allowing them to vote in the Committee 
    of the Whole, the House has unconstitutionally invested the 
    territorial Delegates with legislative power. Second, they claim 
    that the House of Representatives has violated the principles of 
    bicameralism and presentment by unilaterally increasing the power 
    of the Delegates. These contentions are discussed below in turn.
        One principle is basic and beyond dispute. Since the Delegates 
    do not represent States but only various terri

[[Page 11890]]

    torial entities, they may not, consistently with the Constitution, 
    exercise legislative power (in tandem with the United States 
    Senate), for such power is constitutionally limited to ``Members 
    chosen . . . by the People of the several States.'' [art. I, 
    Sec. 8, cl. 1.]
        It is not necessary here to consider an exhaustive list of the 
    actions that might constitute the exercise of legislative power; 
    what is clear is that the casting of votes on the floor of the 
    House of Representatives does constitute such an exercise. Thus, 
    unless the areas they represent were to be granted statehood, the 
    Delegates could not, consistently with the Constitution, be given 
    the authority to vote in the full House.
        On the other hand, not all votes cast as part of the 
    congressional process constitute exercises of legislative power. 
    For example, as discussed in Part III, supra, representatives of 
    the territorial entities have at various times in United States 
    history been given the authority to sit on and vote in standing and 
    select committees of the House of Representatives, and they 
    exercise that authority now.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. There has been no litigation concerning this authority, and thus no 
        judicial decision one way or the other on the authority of the 
        Delegates to participate in standing and select committee 
        deliberations and votes. However, the plaintiffs in this case 
        have affirmatively stated that they are not here questioning 
        that authority, although they note in passing that the practice 
        ``may well be constitutionally infirm.'' [Plaintiffs' 
        Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Preliminary 
        Injunction at 20 note 4.] One of the amici does assert that the 
        Delegates should not be allowed to participate in any House 
        committee deliberations and votes. [See Amicus Curiae Brief 
        filed on behalf of Republican Members of Congress at 8-18.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question here, of course, is whether, consistently with the 
    constitutional mandate that only representatives of States who meet 
    the required qualifications may exercise legislative power, 
    Delegates may cast votes in the Committee of the Whole. This body 
    has broader responsibilities than the standing and select 
    committees of the House, but it is obviously not the House of 
    Representatives itself.
        In the opinion of this Court, defendants' claims to the 
    contrary notwithstanding, voting in the Committee of the Whole 
    constitutes an exercise of legislative power. Today, the Committee 
    of the Whole performs much the same functions that it did in the 
    past. According to the uncontradicted evidence produced by 
    Congressman Michel, one of the plaintiffs herein, the Committee of 
    the Whole is a committee only in name. It is convened on the floor 
    of the House and is chaired from the Speaker's rostrum. The bulk of 
    the chamber's time is occupied by the molding of legislation 
    through debate and amendment in the Committee of the Whole. Indeed, 
    the Committee of the Whole occupies a central role on taxes, 
    appropriations, and all other matters touching upon money. [Michel 
    Affidavit at 3-6.]
        Beyond that, consideration of a bill in the Committee of the 
    Whole normally represents the sole mechanism by which 
    Representatives who are not

[[Page 11891]]

    Members of the proposing standing committee may help to shape 
    legislation in the House. [Solomon Affidavit at 5.]

        Amendments that are defeated or precluded from consideration as 
    a result of parliamentary decisions in the Committee of the Whole 
    may not be heard again by the House. [Michel Affidavit at 6.] 
    Again, according to the Michel and Solomon affidavits, a bill, as 
    amended by the Committee of the Whole, is in most circumstances, 
    passed by the full House: no further debate is permitted; no new 
    amendments may be offered, and no previously rejected amendments 
    may be reintroduced. [See Michel Affidavit, at 7; and Solomon 
    Affidavit, at 5-6.]
        It is true that in no instance does a vote in the Committee of 
    the Whole end the House's consideration of a bill. A bill is 
    officially passed by the House of Representatives on the floor of 
    the House, and all the work of the Committee of the Whole must 
    ultimately be approved by the full House before it becomes 
    official. However, for the reasons stated, House action is 
    frequently formal and ceremonial rather than substantive. For 
    practical purposes, most decisions are final insofar as the House 
    of Representatives is concerned when they are made by the Committee 
    of the Whole.
        Indeed, formal legislative action and legislative power are not 
    interchangeable terms. The Supreme Court has defined legislative 
    power as action which has ``the purpose and effect of altering 
    legal rights, duties and relations of persons . . . outside the 
    legislative branch.'' [Immigration and Naturalization Service v 
    Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 952 (1986).] Action taken by the Committee of 
    the Whole does, in many instances, have precisely that 
    effect.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Delegate for the District of Columbia was not far off the mark 
        when she stated, upon passage of the new rules in January 1993 
        that on ``99 percent of the business of the House, the District 
        will have a vote . . . .'' [``Jenkins, D.C. Wins Vote on House 
        Floor,'' Washington Post, Jan. 6, 1993 A1.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In short, the Committee of the Whole is the House of 
    Representatives for most practical purposes. For these reasons, the 
    Court concludes that, to allow Delegates to cast votes in the 
    Committee of the Whole, without qualification or condition, would 
    be to invest them with legislative power in violation of Article I 
    of the Constitution.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. However, the Court concludes that allowing the Delegates to serve 
        as the chair of the Committee of the Whole does not violate 
        Article I. The chair of the Committee makes the initial 
        determination of whether an amendment may properly be 
        considered by the Committee of the Whole (e.g., whether it is 
        germane to the underlying bill). However, the chair's ruling is 
        subject to appeal to the Committee of the Whole. Therefore, the 
        mere vesting of the Delegates with the authority to chair the 
        committee is not equivalent to allowing these Delegates to 
        exercise legislative power.
            As to the other duties of the chair, such as recognizing 
        speakers, only through gross abuses of this power could this 
        responsibility be used to exert ``legislative power.'' 
        Theoretically, a chair could refuse to recognize any members of 
        the minority and thus influence the debate, but such a scenario 
        is wholly implausible. In sum, in the normal duties of the 
        chair there is no opportunity to exercise legislative power.

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

[[Page 11892]]

                            VII. Savings Clause

        This conclusion does not end the Court's inquiry into the issue 
    raised by the current litigation. For the House of Representatives 
    did not simply amend its rules to allow the Delegates to vote in 
    the Committee of the Whole. Instead the House also adopted what has 
    been termed a ``savings clause,'' which reads as follows:

            Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided 
        by a margin within which the votes cast by the Delegates and 
        the Resident Commissioner have been decisive, the Committee of 
        the Whole shall automatically rise and the Speaker shall put 
        that question de novo without intervening debate or other 
        business. Upon the announcement of the vote on that question, 
        the Committee of the Whole shall resume its sitting without 
        intervening motion.
    [House Rule XXIII clause 2(d).]

        What this rule means is that when a recorded vote in the 
    Committee of the Whole is decided by a margin within which the 
    Delegates' votes were decisive--e.g., a five-vote margin or less if 
    all the Delegates vote on an issue--that issue is automatically 
    (16) referred out of the Committee of the Whole to the 
    full House for a de novo vote without any intervening 
    debate.(17) And the territorial Delegates are prohibited 
    from participating in this de novo vote. Once that second vote is 
    cast and the results are announced, the Committee of the Whole 
    resumes its deliberations on that piece of legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. During the floor debates over these rule changes House Majority 
        Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) engaged in an exchange with 
        Rep. Robert Walker (R-Pa.) over the procedure for initiating 
        this de novo vote. The two Members agreed that the rule is to 
        be given its plain meaning, that a de novo vote is automatic, 
        and that no Member needs to move for such a re- vote. [139 
        Cong. Rec. H46 (daily ed.), Jan. 5, 1993. See also, Transcript 
        of Feb. 9, 1993. Preliminary Injunction Hearing 31-32 
        (hereinafter, ``Transcript'').]
17. Neither the defendants nor anyone else was able to forecast 
        precisely what would happen under the ``sav-ings clause'' with 
        respect to the differing quorum requirements in the Committee 
        of the Whole and the full House. [See Transcript at 36-37.] It 
        is unclear, for example, what will occur, procedurally, when 
        the Committee of the Whole is convened with more than the 100 
        Members required for a quorum, but less than the 218 Members 
        needed for a quorum on the House floor. The Committee of the 
        Whole could not automatically rise for a de novo vote under 
        those circumstances; presumably the business of the House would 
        be delayed while additional members were located and summoned 
        to the floor of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In other words, when the votes of the Delegates do not affect 
    the result in the Committee of the Whole, they are counted as part 
    of the Committee's, and hence the House's, final decision; but when 
    their votes make a difference

[[Page 11893]]

    in the result in the Committee of the Whole, their votes are not 
    cast or counted in the second, decisive vote in the House 
    itself.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. As Congressman Walker (R-Pa.) phrased it, Congress has told the 
        Delegates: ``when your vote counts, it doesn't count, but when 
        it doesn't count, it counts.'' [139 Cong. Rec. H70 (daily ed.), 
        103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Thus, the central question facing the Court is whether this 
    ``savings clause'' preserves the constitutionality of the rule 
    change adopted by the House. On that issue, the defendants argue 
    that the ``savings clause'' is just that: it protects the 
    constitutionality of the provision allowing Delegates to vote in 
    the Committee of the Whole if there otherwise were any doubt about 
    constitutionality. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that 
    the ``savings clause'' does not save the legality of the basic rule 
    change.
        Plaintiffs offer four specific arguments to support their claim 
    that the ``savings clause'' does not adequately void the effects of 
    the Delegates' votes in the Committee of the Whole, and that the 
    principal rule change is therefore unconstitutional despite the 
    presence of that clause. The Court now considers each of these four 
    arguments in turn.

                            A. Unrecorded Votes

        By its very terms, the ``savings clause'' applies only to 
    ``recorded'' votes; under [House Rule XXIII clause 2(d)], only such 
    votes are required to be repeated in the House itself. The 
    plaintiffs argue strenuously that this limitation represents a 
    significant loophole because approximately half of the Committee of 
    the Whole votes in the 102d Congress were unrecorded.
        In the view of the Court, this factor does not drain the 
    ``savings clause'' of its force.
        Under the House rules, a vote in the Committee of the Whole 
    must be recorded ``on request supported by at least twenty-five 
    Members.'' [Rule XXIII clause 2(b).] Thus, the standard for forcing 
    a recorded vote in the Committee of the Whole is so minimal that 
    restricting the ``savings clause'' to recorded votes only is not 
    significant. It may even be that the new importance attached to the 
    act of recording a Committee of the Whole vote under current House 
    procedures (i.e., triggering the ``savings clause'') would sharply 
    increase the number of recorded votes. In any event, because of the 
    very minor effort required to produce a recorded vote, the Court is 
    not persuaded that a substantial number, if any, of Committee of 
    the Whole votes under the new rules will go unrecorded where there 
    is any doubt as to whether the Delegates' votes will be decisive.

                      B. The ``Horse Trading'' Problem

        The plaintiffs further argue that, under these rules, the 
    Delegates will exercise legislative power in ways which cannot be 
    detected by the ``savings clause.'' Specifically, they contend that 
    the rules will allow territorial Delegates to trade their votes 
    with full Members of the House. The following example is cited to 
    illustrate this point. The Delegate from Guam might make separate 
    trades with twelve Members, securing a dozen votes against an 
    amendment limiting funding for the

[[Page 11894]]

    U.S. naval presence on the island. If, as a consequence of these 
    maneuvers, the amendment is defeated in the Committee of the Whole 
    by more than five votes, it will not be reviewable by a new vote in 
    the House. By this means, it is said, the Guam Delegate will have 
    affected the outcome of legislation by securing those twelve extra 
    votes in a manner that is not reviewable under the ``savings 
    clause.''

        The critical flaw in this theory, however, is that it assumes 
    that Members of Congress with full votes both in the Committee and 
    in the House will engage in trades with territorial Delegates when 
    the vote these Members receive in the trade is meaningless. 
    Returning to the example cited above, assume that the next vote is 
    an amendment to close an Army base in the district of one of the 
    Members. Assume further that a Member was assured of the Guam 
    Delegate's vote against this amendment in return for a vote against 
    the reduction in naval spending and activity in Guam.
        However, if the Army base amendment is defeated by one vote 
    (the Guam Delegate's), it is subject to de novo review in the 
    House. The Delegate's vote then becomes meaningless because the 
    fate of the Army base will be decided in the House itself only by 
    full Members. On the other hand, if the amendment is defeated in 
    the Committee of the Whole by over five votes, the Guam Delegate's 
    vote will similarly be meaningless. The bottom line is that a 
    Delegate's vote can never make the difference between winning and 
    losing.
        The plaintiffs have failed to provide the Court with any 
    credible basis on which it may be assumed that a Member of the 
    House of Representatives would trade with a Delegate for a vote 
    that could never be decisive.(19) The affidavits 
    submitted by the plaintiffs describe the legislative horse trading 
    process, and the Court recognizes that such practices may be a 
    daily fact of life on Capitol Hill. However, the Court will not 
    assume that Members will trade something for 
    nothing.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Despite their very thorough preparation and research of these 
        issues, counsel for the plaintiffs could not provide a 
        persuasive explanation for this flaw in their ``horse trading'' 
        argument. The record is devoid of an adequate basis upon which 
        the Court could conclude that Members of the House of 
        Representatives would defy common sense and trade their votes 
        for the meaningless votes of the Delegates.
            The plaintiffs did argue that a Member might trade for a 
        Delegate's vote to buy precious time during the legislative 
        process since a Delegate's vote could force a de novo vote. 
        This time could be an ``opportunity to secure other supporters, 
        to make other trades.'' [See Transcript at 9-10.]
            Since the ``savings clause'' requires a de novo vote 
        without intervening debate or other business, presumably little 
        time will pass before the second vote. Moreover, even if the 
        delay is more substantial, vesting Delegates with the power to 
        prolong the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole is hardly 
        the equivalent of granting them legislative power.
20. By their mere presence in the Congress, Delegates are able to 
        engage in other types of trades which could potentially affect 
        the outcome of legislation. For example, the Resident 
        Commissioner from Puerto Rico could offer to make campaign 
        appearances on behalf of a Member with a large Puerto Rican 
        constituency in exchange for that Member's vote on a particular 
        bill. The non-decisive vote in the Committee of the Whole is 
        more akin to this type of bargaining chip already possessed by 
        the Delegates. In other words, the vote that the House has 
        given the Delegates only adds another arrow to the Delegates' 
        quiver. It does not empower them with a completely new and 
        potent weapon that may be equated with legislative power.

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

[[Page 11895]]

        Although the plaintiffs correctly note that votes are the 
    ``currency of the House'' (1) for trading purposes, the 
    fact is that under the January 1993 rules change the votes in the 
    wallets of the Delegates are only counterfeit bills. They can never 
    have a final effect on legislation in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Preliminary 
        Injunction at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         C. Drafting of Amendments

        The plaintiffs further claim that because the Delegates are now 
    empowered to vote in the Committee of the Whole, they will exert 
    more influence over the drafting of amendments which are to be 
    considered by that Committee. This claim is based on the theory 
    that other legislators will consult with Delegates during the 
    drafting of amendments in order to enlist their support.
        This argument suffers from two difficulties. First, as with the 
    horse trading scenario, the plaintiffs necessarily assume that a 
    Member will move to amend legislation to appease a Delegate whose 
    vote could ultimately not make the difference between defeat or 
    passage of that amendment.
        Second, if this type of influence qualifies as exercising 
    legislative power, then the Delegates, by their mere presence in 
    the House, and certainly by their votes in standing committees, 
    already have legislative power. In the standing committees the 
    Delegates have a vote, and presumably they contribute to the 
    ultimate shape of the bills reported out of the committee.
        Delegates also have at their disposal several other methods of 
    influencing the text of various legislation and amendments. For 
    example, they can speak on behalf of a bill during debates, lobby 
    the Members, or offer an endorsement to a Member in exchange for 
    certain changes in a proposed amendment. But none of these has ever 
    been held to constitute the exercise of legislative power.

                        D. Precedent-Setting Effect

        Even if none of these defects existed, there is the underlying 
    problem--as plaintiffs see it--that to permit Delegates to 
    participate at all in the Committee of the Whole is a violation of 
    the constitutional scheme. According to plaintiffs, if the House 
    majority may permit Delegates--who are not Members--to participate 
    in the deliberations of the Committee of the Whole, there would 
    logically be nothing to preclude that same majority also from 
    allowing such non-Members as the Clerk of the House, Members of the 
    Canadian Parliament, or the general public,

[[Page 11896]]

    to participate. Even more, if the composition of the Committee of 
    the Whole does not matter constitutionally, as defendants are said 
    to claim, the House could presumably bar women or black legislators 
    from participating in its deliberations, provided only that they 
    retain their full votes in the House itself.
        That argument is not well taken, on several levels. First of 
    all, as it has made clear in this Opinion, the Court does not share 
    defendants' view that the Committee of the Whole is a purely 
    advisory body without the ability to exercise conclusive 
    legislative authority. Although there is always the prospect that 
    the House will reverse actions taken by the Committee of the Whole, 
    the procedures for achieving this result are cumbersome and 
    difficult to utilize. For that reason the House is not at liberty 
    to take whatever action it pleases with respect to the composition 
    or proceedings of the Committee of the Whole.
        That leaves the question whether, for example, the House could 
    decide that women or black Members will not be permitted to vote in 
    the Committee of the Whole, as long as an automatic re-vote will be 
    held when their votes might have been decisive (e.g., the number of 
    women Members exceeds the margin of victory in the Committee of the 
    Whole).

        Such unequal treatment of women or blacks, which the government 
    would be unable to claim is either ``substantially related to an 
    important government interest,'' (2) or narrowly 
    tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest,(3) 
    would clearly run afoul of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has 
    made it clear that in establishing the rules of its proceedings, 
    the House is limited by the restrictions contained in the 
    Constitution. [United States v Ballin, supra, 114 U.S. 5.] 
    Therefore, any rules adopted by the House regarding the procedures 
    in the Committee of the Whole must comply with the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Craig v Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976) (establishing the 
        standard to be applied to equal protection claims based on 
        gender discrimination).
 3. City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985) 
        (standard to be applied to equal protection claims based on 
        race discrimination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That completely answers in the negative the question whether 
    the House has the authority to exclude any individuals who are 
    Members of the House from voting in the Committee of the Whole. As 
    for the House's ability to include additional individuals in the 
    Committee's proceedings, as it has done with respect to the 
    Delegates, that poses a range of questions that the Court need not 
    decide here.
        Suffice it to say that the presence of the territorial 
    Delegates in the House of Representatives is expressly provided for 
    in statutes; and these statutes were enacted pursuant to explicit 
    delegations of power contained in the Constitution authorizing 
    Congress to pass laws respecting the territories and the District 
    of Columbia.
        The federal laws creating the office of territorial Delegates 
    are the tickets of admission to the proceedings of the House of 
    Representatives. According to Hinds, a ``territory or district must 
    be organized by law before the House will admit a representative 
    Delegate.''

[[Page 11897]]

    [Deschler's Precedents Ch. 7, Sec. 3, p. 35, note 11, supra (citing 
    1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 405-412).] In crafting the House 
    rules that are challenged here, the House is merely establishing 
    the functions these Delegates will play in the legislative process 
    short of exercising legislative power. As for others, e.g., Members 
    of the Canadian parliament or Democratic governors, they clearly 
    could not, on such a basis, or any basis, be given a vote in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        In sum, it is the conclusion of the Court that, while the new 
    rules of the House of Representatives may have the symbolic effect 
    of granting the Delegates a higher status and greater prestige in 
    the House and in the Delegates' home districts, it has no effect, 
    or only at most an unproven, remote, and speculative effect, as far 
    as voting or the exercise of legislative power is concerned. 
    Accordingly, the rule is not unconstitutional as the delegation of 
    an improper exercise of legislative power.

                             VIII. Bicameralism

        Plaintiffs challenge the recent changes in the House rules on 
    the further basis that the Constitution explicitly confers on 
    Congress, not on the House acting alone, the authority to regulate 
    the District of Columbia and the territories.(4) They 
    rely for this challenge primarily upon the con-gressional 
    precedents. However these precedents are at best equivocal rather 
    than to provide firm support for plaintiff's position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The Constitution states that ``Congress shall have power . . . to 
        exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over 
        the District of Columbia. [art. I, Sec. 8.]
            With regard to the territories, ``Congress shall have the 
        power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting'' 
        these entities. [art. IV, Sec. 3.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In 1884 and in 1932, efforts to allow Delegates to vote in 
    standing committees through simple changes in the House rules were 
    abandoned because of concern that the House lacked the 
    constitutional authority to take such action.(5) 
    Similarly, when the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico was 
    given the right to vote in standing committees, this change was 
    accomplished by a statute--an amendment

[[Page 11898]]

    to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. [See 84 Stat. 1140, 
    1162 (1970).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. In 1884 the Speaker of the House questioned the House's authority 
        to allow Delegates to vote in the committees on which they 
        served. Speaker Carlisle refused to allow consideration of this 
        proposal stating that ``[i]t is contrary to the law; and, in 
        the opinion of the Chair, the House could not, by a simple 
        resolution, change the law upon the subject.'' [Statement of 
        Speaker John G. Carlisle, 15 Cong. Rec. 1334, Feb. 23, 1884.]
            In 1932 the Subcommittee on Rules of the House Committee on 
        Indian Affairs examined the question of allowing Delegates to 
        vote in standing committees. The subcommittee concluded that 
        the House lacked the authority to make this change because 
        ``nowhere in the Constitution or in the statutes can the 
        intention be found to clothe delegates with legislative 
        power.'' [75 Cong. Rec. 2163, 2164, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
        18, 1932.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On the other hand, the House has on numerous occasions given 
    Delegates significant power in standing committees by simple rules 
    changes. Although the law creating the position of Delegate from 
    the Northwest Territory only provided that the Delegate have ``a 
    seat in Congress, with a right of debating, but not voting . . .'' 
    [1 Stat. 50, 52 (1789),] (6) William Henry Harrison, 
    then the Delegate in question, was given the chairmanship of a 
    House standing committee by a unilateral House resolution passed in 
    1799. [See Goebel, supra, at 44.] (7) In his compilation 
    of the history of the House, Asher C. Hinds noted that ``in earlier 
    prac- tice Delegates appear to have voted in committees.'' [2 
    Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1300-1301.] (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. In this respect, the 1789 statute is similar to those creating the 
        positions of other Delegates. [See, e.g., 2 USC Sec. 25a(a) 
        (1988).]
 7. It is noteworthy that many of the Framers of the Constitution were 
        Members of this early Congress.
 8. As noted above, see Part III, supra, in reaching this conclusion, 
        Hinds relied heavily on an 1841 congressional report which 
        noted that: ``With the single exception of voting the delegate 
        enjoys every other privilege and exercises every other right of 
        a Representative. He can act as a member of a standing or 
        special committee and vote on the business before said 
        committees, and he may thus exercise an important influence on 
        those initiatory proceedings by which business is prepared for 
        the action of the House.'' [H. Rept. No. 10, 27th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., 4, 5 (1841).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The more recent practice is even more illuminating. Thus, 
    while, to be sure, the measure giving the Resident Commissioner 
    from Puerto Rico the right to vote in standing committees was 
    accomplished in 1970 by statute, that same law also provided that 
    the rules changes made by the statute were effected ``with full 
    recognition of the power of the House of Representatives to enact 
    or change any rule. . . .'' [See 84 Stat. 1141 (1970).] A year 
    later, the House amended Rule XII to grant to the Delegate from the 
    District of Columbia powers in the standing committees equivalent 
    to those of the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico (i.e., it 
    provided the right to vote in such standing committees). [See 117 
    Cong. Rec. 132, Jan. 22, 1971.] And in 1973 the House once again 
    amended Rule XII making the language of the rule generic to all 
    Delegates, thus authorizing all territorial Delegates to vote in 
    standing committees. [See 119 Cong. Rec. 18, Jan. 3, 1973.] All of 
    these changes were accomplished through amendment of the House's 
    rules rather than through the enactment of legislation.
        The bicameralism argument is further undermined by the text of 
    some of the statutes creating the office of Delegate. The statute 
    establishing the positions of Delegates from Guam and the Virgin 
    Islands expressly provides that ``the right to vote in committee 
    shall be as provided by the rules of the House of 
    Representatives.'' [48 USC Sec. 1715 (1988).] The law which created 
    the office of Delegate from American Samoa granted that individual 
    ``whatever

[[Page 11899]]

    privileges and immunities that are, or hereinafter may be, granted 
    to the non-voting Delegate from . . . Guam.'' [48 USC Sec. 1735 
    (1988).] Contrary to the plaintiffs' claims, the House was acting 
    in accordance with these precedents when it unilaterally acted to 
    define the parameters of the Delegates' roles in its proceedings.
        Other factors support the conclusion that the method chosen by 
    the House for defining the role of the Delegates is not invalid.
        First, the Supreme Court held in United States v Ballin, supra 
    [144 U.S. 5], that ``the Constitution empowers each house to 
    determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore 
    constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.'' As this 
    Court discusses in sections VI and VII, supra, the rule changes 
    adopted by the House on January 5, 1993 do not vest the Delegates 
    with legislative power.
        These modifications of the Delegates' role in House proceedings 
    do not have ``the purpose and effect of altering legal rights, 
    duties and relations of persons . . . outside the legislative 
    branch.'' [See Chadha, supra 462 U.S. at 952], (emphasis added). 
    The Delegates do not have the ability to utilize their new voting 
    rights to affect the outcome of legislation. The ``savings clause'' 
    saps these votes of any real impact on the outcome of the House's 
    deliberations. It follows that the House's action was not a 
    legislative act subject to Chadha's strictures of bicameralism and 
    presentment.
        Second, although the precedents are not uniform, the history of 
    the House of Representatives supports the conclusion that the House 
    may act unilaterally to fix the role Delegates are to play in the 
    operation of this chamber. From the Congresses of the 18th century 
    to the present, the House has, without resorting to statute, 
    increased and modified the functions encompassed by the Office of 
    Delegate. There is no basis for concluding that when the House 
    decided on January 5, 1993 to increase marginally the role of the 
    Delegates, the Congress had to enact a statute to accomplish this 
    House objective.
        Plaintiffs' argument based on bicameralism and the failure of 
    the House to proceed by statute (rather than by rule) is therefore 
    rejected.

                               IX. Conclusion

        The nub of the case before the Court is this. If the only 
    action of the House of Representatives had been to grant to the 
    Delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, and 
    American Samoa, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico the 
    authority to vote in the Committee of the Whole, its action would 
    have been plainly unconstitutional. In view of the central place 
    occupied by the Committee of the Whole in the legislative process, 
    such a grant of authority would have improperly given to these 
    territorial officials legislative power--a power which under 
    Article I of the Constitution is reserved to Members of Congress 
    elected by the people of the several States. The Delegates are 
    clearly not in that category. It also would have improperly diluted 
    the voting power of the legislative representatives of the States 
    as well as of the citizens who elected them.

        But the House also did something else. In addition to amending 
    Rule XII

[[Page 11900]]

    which grants to the Delegates the authority to vote in the 
    Committee of the Whole, it modified Rule XXIII which, in effect, 
    took away what had been given by Rule XII.(9) Under Rule 
    XXIII, whenever the votes of the Delegates are decisive to the 
    outcome of any balloting in the Committee of the Whole, there is an 
    automatic and immediate second ballot in the House itself, and in 
    that ballot the Delegates are prohibited from participating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Interestingly, Rule XII was initially proposed in December 1992, 
        while Rule XXIII surfaced a month later. Some Member or Members 
        must have had doubts about the validity of Rule XII, and they 
        were sufficiently astute to add Rule XXIII to the proposed rule 
        change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On the basis of this record, the Court concludes that, while 
    the action the House took on January 5, 1993 undoubtedly gave the 
    Delegates greater stature and prestige both in Congress and in 
    their home districts, it did not enhance their right to vote on 
    legislation. In a democratic system, the right to vote is genuine 
    and effective only when, under the governing rules, there is a 
    chance, large or small, that, sooner or later, the vote will affect 
    the ultimate result. The votes of the Delegates in the Committee of 
    the Whole cannot achieve that; by virtue of Rule XXIII they are 
    meaningless. It follows that the House action had no effect on 
    legislative power, and that it did not violate Article I or any 
    other provision of the Constitution.
        The Court holds that the rules adopted by the House of 
    Representatives, considered in the aggregate, are valid, and 
    judgment will accordingly be entered for the defendants.

                                   ORDER

        Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary 
    injunction, defendants' motion to dismiss, the memoranda submitted 
    in support thereof and in opposition thereto, the hearing held by 
    the Court on these motions; the briefs filed by the amici curiae; 
    the request by the parties to join the application for a 
    preliminary injunction with final consideration of this action on 
    the merits; and the entire record herein; it is this 8th day of 
    March, 1993, in accordance with an Opinion issued contemporaneously 
    herewith
        Ordered that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction be 
    and it is hereby denied; and it is further
        Ordered that judgment be and it is hereby entered for 
    defendants.

    An appeal from this ruling was taken to the United States Court of 
Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Slightly different arguments 
were made on appeal, but on Jan. 25, 1994, the three-judge court held 
that changes in the rules did not violate the constitutional 
requirement that the House ``be composed of members'' and affirmed the 
decision of the court below. Portions of the decision (10) 
(excluding the arguments and decision on the questions of the 
jurisdiction of the court and the standing of the parties) follow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Civil Action No. 93-5109; 14 F3d 623.

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

[[Page 11901]]

                   Robert H. Michel, et al., Appellants,

                                   v

                  Donnald K. Anderson, et al., Appellees.

       United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

                           Argued Oct. 22, 1993.

                        Decided Jan. 25, 1994. . . .

        Before: Silberman and Randolph, Circuit Judges, Frank M. 
    Coffin,(11) Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of 
    Appeals for the First Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 294(d) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Silberman.
        Silberman, Circuit Judge:
        A number of congressmen and individual voters appeal from the 
    judgment of the district court rejecting their challenge to a House 
    rule granting delegates from the territories and the District of 
    Columbia the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole. We hold 
    that the provision does not violate Article I of the Constitution 
    and therefore affirm.

                                     I.

        Between 1900 and 1974, Congress created the offices of five 
    delegates to the House of Representatives, representing Puerto 
    Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the District of 
    Columbia. The rules of the House--at least between 1900 and 1970--
    permitted the delegates to debate, but did not allow them to vote 
    in any setting. In 1970, those rules were changed, and the delegate 
    from Puerto Rico was given the additional right to vote in standing 
    committees.(12) On January 5, 1993, the House granted 
    all five delegates the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole, 
    a committee composed of all members of the House through which all 
    public bills affecting revenue and spending proceed, and which 
    shapes, to a very great extent, the final form of bills that pass 
    the House. The new [House Rule XII clause 2], provides that: . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. By statute and practice, the privileges of the other Delegates are 
        tied to those enjoyed by the Puerto Rican Resident 
        Commissioner. See infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Robert H. Michel, the House Minority Leader, and 11 other 
    members of the House, filed suit against the Clerk of the House and 
    the territorial delegates, seeking a declaration that the House 
    rules were unconstitutional, and an injunction preventing the 
    delegates from attempting to vote in the Committee of the Whole and 
    the Clerk from tallying such votes.(13) The complaint 
    was subsequently amended to add three private voter plaintiffs: one 
    represented by appellant Congressman Michel from Illinois, one by 
    appellant Congressman Castle from Delaware, and one by appellant 
    Congressman Thomas from Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For the sake of convenience, we will occasionally refer to the 
        appellees as ``the House.'' This is not, however, intended to 
        imply that a suit naming the House itself as a defendant would 
        be proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The district court denied the appellants' application for a 
    preliminary injunction and dismissed the case. After disposing of a 
    number of juris-dictional

[[Page 11902]]

    issues, the court determined that ``for most practical purposes'' 
    the ``Committee of the Whole is the House of Representatives,'' and 
    that accordingly a rule that would permit delegates to vote in that 
    committee without qualification, would ``invest them with 
    legislative power in violation of Article I of the Constitution.'' 
    [Michel v Anderson, 817 F Supp 126, 141 (D.D.C. 1993).] The court 
    concluded that the rules are constitutional, however, because the 
    ``revote'' provision left Rule XII with ``no effect, or only at 
    most an unproven, remote, and speculative effect, as far as voting 
    or the exercise of legislative power is concerned.'' [817 F Supp 
    145.] This appeal followed.(14) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The parties here include a number of amici curiae in support of 
        appellee Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Delegate from the District 
        of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    III.

        Turning to the merits, we first consider whether the rule is 
    contrary to the legislation which created the delegates. The 
    parties agree that the office of a delegate representing a 
    territory (or the District of Columbia) could not be created other 
    than through legislation, which, of course, requires the 
    concurrence of the Senate and normally the President. The offices 
    of each of the five delegates were created by statute [see 48 USC 
    Sec. 891 (1988) (Puerto Rico); 48 USC Sec. 1711 (1988) (Guam and 
    the Virgin Islands); 48 USC Sec. 1731 (1988) (American Samoa); 2 
    USC Sec. 25a (1988) (District of Columbia)], and the delegates are 
    paid, and their offices staffed, out of the public treasury. [See, 
    e.g., 48 USC Sec. Sec. 1715, 1735 (1988).] If, as appellants claim, 
    these offices were created on the condition that the delegates 
    would not be permitted to vote in the Committee of the Whole, then 
    that condition would trump any authority of the House to change its 
    rules unilaterally to grant that power. A statute, enacted into law 
    by bicameral passage and presidential approval (or upon an override 
    of a presidential veto), cannot be amended by one chamber 
    unilaterally. [INS v Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 952 (1983).] For this 
    reason, appellees concede that if the statutes creating the 
    delegate offices specifically provided that the delegates would not 
    vote in the Committee of the Whole, the House's rule providing that 
    vote would be invalid.
        Appellants' argument that the legislation precludes the rule is 
    not insubstantial but, at bottom, it is dependent on one remark by 
    then-Congressman Foley during the debate over the extension to the 
    Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico of the right to vote in 
    standing committees. With the exception of the statute creating the 
    office of the delegate from the District of Columbia, the acts 
    creating the other delegates all tie explicitly those delegates' 
    privileges to those of the Resident Commissioner for Puerto Rico. 
    The legislation creating the delegates from Guam and the Virgin 
    Islands specifies that they ``shall be entitled to whatever 
    privileges and immunities are, or hereinafter may be, granted to 
    the Resident Commissioner for Puerto Rico: Provided That the right 
    to vote in committee shall be as provided by the Rules of the House 
    of Representatives.'' [48 USC Sec. 1715 (1988).] The delegate from 
    American Samoa, in turn, is granted ``whatever privileges and im

[[Page 11903]]

    munities that are, or hereinafter may be, granted to the nonvoting 
    Delegate from the Territory of Guam.'' [48 USC Sec. 1735 (1988).]
        Although the statute creating the Office of the Delegate from 
    the District of Columbia in 1970 did not specifically refer to the 
    powers of the Puerto Rican delegate and provided that the delegate 
    shall have a seat ``with the right of debate, but not of voting'' 
    [see 84 Stat. 848 (1970), codified at 2 USC Sec. 25a (1988)], it is 
    not argued that the District's delegate was intended any less or 
    more authority than that granted the other delegates, so it is 
    undisputed that Congress also authorized the District delegate to 
    vote ``in committee.''
        The key question, then, is the scope of the powers to be 
    exercised in the House by the Resident Commissioner from Puerto 
    Rico. The office of Resident Commissioner was established by an Act 
    of Congress in 1900 [see 31 Stat. 86 (Apr. 12, 1900)], but the Act 
    is entirely silent as to the Commissioner's function and 
    privileges. [See 48 USC Sec. 891 (1988).] Those privileges were 
    clarified somewhat when Congress enacted the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1970. That Act, passed by both Chambers and 
    signed into law by the President, adopted, inter alia, certain 
    rules for the two Houses. One such provision specified that the 
    Commissioner ``shall be elected to serve on standing committees in 
    the same manner as Members of the House and shall possess in such 
    committees the same powers and privileges as the other Members.'' 
    [84 Stat. 1161.] Thus, the rule enacted by statute provided that 
    the commissioner would vote in the standing committees. Appellants 
    argue that under the principle of inclusio unius est exclusio 
    alterius the commissioner was not authorized to vote in the 
    Committee of the Whole. The question is more complicated, however, 
    because of section 101 of the Act, which specifies:

            The following sections of this title are enacted by the 
        Congress--
            (2) insofar as applicable to the House of Representatives, 
        as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
        Representatives, subject to and with full recognition of the 
        power of the House of Representatives to enact or change any 
        rule of the House at any time in its exercise of its 
        constitutional right to determine the rules of its proceedings.
    [84 Stat. 1143 (1970).]

        While it is fair to conclude that in 1970 Congress did not 
    contemplate that the delegates would vote in the Committee of the 
    Whole, section 101 of the Act, on its face, appears to delegate to 
    the House the power to alter that situation by rule. Appellants 
    claim that could not be so, however, because the Congress, in 1970, 
    did not believe it would be constitutional for the House to 
    provide, by rule, that the delegate should vote in the Committee of 
    the Whole. They rely on legislative history. Apparently in response 
    to a prearranged question from Congressman Sisk, who, troubled by 
    the constitutionality of the provision granting the commissioner 
    (and by statutory implication now, the other delegates) the vote in 
    the standing committees, asked whether section 129 could be 
    construed to grant such a vote in the Committee of the Whole as 
    well, then-Congressman Foley responded:

            Now it is very clear . . . that a constitutional amendment 
        would be

[[Page 11904]]

        required to give the Resident Commissioner a vote in the 
        Committee of the Whole or the full House. . . . The point is 
        that the constitutional issue does not touch preliminary 
        advisory votes which is what standing committees votes are, but 
        only the votes which are cast in the Committee of the Whole or 
        the full House. These votes can be cast only by Members of 
        Congress.

        If it could be said that the whole House meant section 101 to 
    be limited by that constitutional restriction, appellants would 
    have a compelling argument. But we do not see how we can ascribe 
    Congressman Foley's views to the whole House. Nothing in the 
    legislation reflects that understanding. As we have recently noted, 
    we have an obligation to construe statutes to avoid serious 
    constitutional questions [see Association of Am. Physicians & 
    Surgeons, Inc. v Clinton, 997 F2d 898, 910 (D.C. Cir. 1993)], but 
    we think appellants' claimed interpretation relies too heavily on 
    the remarks of only one congressman (fated, albeit, to be the 
    Speaker) to defeat the plain language of section 101. Moreover, 
    since appellants' claimed construction of the statute depends on 
    the 1970 Congress entertaining the same view of the Constitution 
    appellants assert in this case, by relying on that proposition we 
    would come very close to endorsing that view of the Constitution--
    which undermines the purpose of the rule of statutory construction. 
    We have, therefore, no alternative but to pass on to the 
    constitutional issue.

                                    IV.

        The question before us is shaped by the parties' arguments and, 
    even more, their concessions. The appellants do not challenge the 
    constitutionality of the practice of permitting delegates to vote 
    on standing committees, although, recognizing the difficulty in 
    drawing a constitutional line between the Committee of the Whole 
    and the standing committees, they do not concede the 
    constitutionality of the prior House rule permitting delegates to 
    vote in the latter. The appellees, for their part, forthrightly 
    concede that the House could not permit persons other than the 
    traditional territorial delegates to perform the role currently 
    played by the delegates. It would, thus, not be open to the House 
    to authorize by rule, say, the mayors of the 100 largest cities to 
    serve and vote on House committees. Nor could the House, appellees 
    agree, deprive any member of the right to vote in the Committee of 
    the Whole (or in a standing committee). Finally, despite the 
    House's reliance on the revote mechanism to reduce the impact of 
    the rule permitting delegates to vote in the Committee of the 
    Whole, appellees concede that it would be unconstitutional to 
    permit anyone but members of the House to vote in the full House 
    under any circumstances. In other words, delegates could not be 
    authorized to vote in proceedings of the full House subject to a 
    revote. So the issue is narrowed to the question: May the House 
    authorize territorial delegates to vote in the House's committees, 
    particularly the Committee of the Whole?
        The district court, it will be recalled, thought the House rule 
    would have violated Article I if it had not been qualified by the 
    revote provision, because it would have ``invested the delegates 
    with legislative power.'' Appellants reiterate that proposition, 
    but claim that since the qualification is not

[[Page 11905]]

    complete--some voting power is passed to the delegates 
    notwithstanding the revote provision--Rule XII violates Article I. 
    As amici point out, however, and appellants ultimately concede, 
    Article I, Sec. 1, grants the legislative powers to the Congress, 
    which in turn consists of the Senate and House of Representatives. 
    No one congressman or senator exercises Article I ``legislative 
    power.'' Therefore, it is not meaningful to claim that the 
    delegates are improperly exercising Article I legislative 
    authority. The crucial constitutional language implicated by 
    appellants' claim (which appellants point out) is, instead, Article 
    I, Sec. 2: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of 
    Members. . . .'' That language precludes the House from bestowing 
    the characteristics of membership on someone other than those 
    ``chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.''
        But what are the aspects of membership other than the ability 
    to contribute to a quorum of members under Article I, Sec. 5, to 
    vote in the full House, and to be recorded as one of the Yeas or 
    Nays if one-fifth of the members so desire? The Constitution, it 
    must be said, is silent on what other characteristics of membership 
    are reserved to members. Although it seems obvious that the Framers 
    contemplated the creation of legislative committees--the 
    Constitutional Convention itself [see Max Farrand, The Records of 
    the Federal Convention of 1787, Supplement, ed. James H. Hutson 
    370, 371 (1987) (index) (listing the numerous committees used by 
    convention during drafting of the Constitution)], as well as the 
    Continental Congress [see Jennings B. Sanders, Evolution of 
    Executive Departments of the Continental Congress: 1774-1789, at 4, 
    6-8, 41-43 (1935)], utilized committees frequently--the 
    Constitution does not mention such committees.
        Accordingly, appellees look to the practice of the early 
    congresses relating to territorial delegates as an interpretative 
    aid. Although the actions of the early congresses are not a perfect 
    indicator of the Framers' intent, those actions provide some 
    indication of the views held by the Framers, given the propinquity 
    of the congresses and the framing and the presence of a number of 
    Framers in those congresses. [Cf. Marsh v Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 
    788-791 (1983).] The first territorial delegate, representing the 
    Northwest Territories, was created by statute during the first 
    Congress. [See 1 Stat. 50, 52 (1789).] William Henry Harrison, who 
    occupied that office, was granted considerable privileges in 
    Congress, including the power of making motions [see 6 Annals of 
    Cong. 197, 198 (1799)], and of serving as chairman of a committee. 
    [See 6 Annals of Cong. 527 (1800).] ``Harrison's Committee on 
    Public Lands not only procured the passage of the Land Act of 1800, 
    but also served as a clearing house for all petitions and special 
    measures relating to lands in the Northwest.'' [Dorothy Burne 
    Goebel, William Henry Harrison: A Political Biography 46 (1974).]

        The practice of permitting delegates to serve on and to chair 
    standing committees continued into the nineteenth century. [See 2 
    Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1299 (1907).] Those delegates may even have 
    been granted the right to vote in the standing committees. 
    According to a report on the qualifications of David Levy to serve 
    as Dele

[[Page 11906]]

    gate from Florida, prepared by the House Committee on Elections in 
    1841,

            [w]ith the single exception of voting, the Delegate enjoys 
        every other privilege and exercises every other right of a 
        Representative. He can act as a member of a standing or special 
        committee and vote on the business before said committees, and 
        he may thus exercise an important influence on those initiatory 
        proceedings by which business is prepared for the action of the 
        House.
    [H. Rept. No. 10, 27th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1841).] This report, 
    although indicative of the House's practice around 1840, admittedly 
    provides no direct documentary proof that delegates were permitted 
    to vote in the standing committees in the first congresses as well. 
    Be that as it may, the territorial delegates were certainly 
    accorded a unique status by the first congresses. At the earliest 
    times, Congress viewed the territorial delegates as occupying a 
    unique middle position between that of a full representative and 
    that of a private citizen who presumably could not serve on or 
    chair House committees.

        The territorial delegates, representing those persons in 
    geographical areas not admitted as states, then, always have been 
    perceived as would-be congressmen who could be authorized to take 
    part in the internal affairs of the House without being thought to 
    encroach on the privileges of membership.
        Appellants, not disputing the main line of appellees' 
    historical presentation, but without conceding the legitimacy of 
    the practice, assert that the rule in question is a qualitatively 
    different matter. Whatever the legitimacy of permitting delegates' 
    participation--even full participation--in the work of standing 
    committees, the Committee of the Whole is so close to the full 
    House that permitting the delegates to vote there is functionally 
    equivalent to granting them membership in the House.
        Appellants claim, for instance, that provisions removed by the 
    committee cannot be resurrected on the floor of the House, and that 
    by longstanding practice, enforced by rules of procedure attached 
    to successive bills, the House cannot amend bills that reach the 
    floor but rather must vote up or down on the bills in 
    toto.(15) As appellees point out, appellants' 
    description of the power of the committee is somewhat exaggerated, 
    but, in any event, appellants' argument, even if true, proves too 
    much. Any number of procedures sharply limit the range of options 
    among which the House can choose when bills reach the floor. The 
    House rules could give any standing committee, as it does 
    conference committees, the authority to put bills to the House 
    floor without the possibility of

[[Page 11907]]

    amendment. Indeed, under the ``fast track'' legislation [see 19 USC 
    Sec. 2903 (1988 and Supplement 1991)], a procedural device passed 
    by each House as an exercise of rulemaking power, the President may 
    submit various treaties to the two Houses for ratification on a 
    take-it-or-leave-it basis. That device surely does not make the 
    President the functional equivalent of the full House. In any 
    event, whatever authority the Committee of the Whole exercises, it 
    does so only at the sufferance of the full House which can alter 
    the Committee of the Whole's function at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Appellants concede that Members may introduce in the full House a 
        motion to recommit a bill to the standing committees for 
        amendment, but understandably argue that the existence of this 
        time-consuming and cumbersome procedure does little in practice 
        to cure the influence of the Committee of the Whole's 
        proceedings on final bills. Alternatively, appellant 
        congressmen argue that they should not be compelled to surmount 
        such difficult hurdles in order to enforce their right not to 
        have their vote diluted by the Delegates' participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Nevertheless, it would blink reality to deny the close 
    operational connection between the Committee of the Whole and the 
    full House. The House itself recognized how perilously close the 
    rule change came to granting delegates a vote in the House. That is 
    why the House sought to ameliorate the impact of the change through 
    the revote provision. That has led the parties to dispute 
    vigorously the degree to which, notwithstanding the revote 
    provision, the granting of a vote to the delegates in the Committee 
    causes a change in the dynamics of the behavior of the House. 
    Appellees are put in the awkward position of claiming that the 
    revote provision causes the grant of voting authority to the 
    delegates to be only symbolic. It is not necessary to explore and 
    analyze all the scenarios about which the parties 
    conjecture.(16)

[[Page 11908]]

    Suffice it to say that we think that insofar as the rule change 
    bestowed additional authority on the delegates, that additional 
    authority is largely symbolic and is not significantly greater than 
    that which they enjoyed serving and voting on the standing 
    committees. Since we do not believe that the ancient practice of 
    delegates serving on standing committees of the House can be 
    successfully challenged as bestowing ``membership'' on the 
    delegates, we do not think this minor addition to the office of 
    delegates has constitutional significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Under one such scenario advanced by appellants, the five delegates 
        would each agree to trade their votes on a certain bill with 
        three members in exchange for the members' support of the 
        delegates' pet bill. That pet bill, then, might pass by a 
        margin of 15 votes--too great a number to trigger the revote 
        mechanism but nevertheless a margin that might not have existed 
        were it not for the ability of the delegates to trade their 
        newly granted votes in the Committee. The implicit underlying 
        assumption is that a member would be willing to trade his vote 
        for a delegate's at par, even though in a close vote 
        (presumably the only vote where such a trade would matter) the 
        delegate's own vote could not have a decisive effect because of 
        the revote mechanism. Of course, the membership of delegates on 
        standing committees already endowed them with considerable 
        vote-trading possibilities.
            Appellants raise as a second scenario the possibility that 
        by casting a decisive vote, a delegate could ``force'' a 
        revote, and that the ``power'' to force a second vote might 
        itself be sufficient to alter the result. Appellants point to a 
        number of instances (unrelated to delegate voting) in which two 
        successive votes were taken on a bill, with the result of the 
        second differing from that of the first. The power to force a 
        second vote is not, however, all that different from the power 
        to resubmit a bill for consideration by the House, a power that 
        the delegates historically have enjoyed.
            Finally, appellants point out that House Rule XXIII only 
        provides for a revote on recorded votes, and that the delegates 
        might cast decisive votes when such votes are unrecorded. While 
        this is theoretically true, it is unclear how often, if ever, 
        an unrecorded vote on a controversial matter would be decisive, 
        given that it takes only 25 members to force a recorded vote. 
        [See Rule XXIII clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual (1993).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             *  *  *  *  *

        Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed.
        So ordered.

Repeal of Delegate Voting Rights

Sec. 59.3 In the 104th Congress, when control of the House of 
    Representatives passed to a Republican majority for the first time 
    in 40 years, the rules adopted in the 103d Congress, permitting the 
    Delegates to vote in Committee of the Whole, were repealed.

    On Jan. 4, 1995, House Resolution 6 (17) was adopted 
after prolonged debate. As part of the package of amendments proposed 
by the new majority, there were amendments to Rules XII (18) 
and XXIII (19) which repealed the provisions adopted in the 
prior Congress permitting the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner 
to participate on recorded votes taken in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union as well as the right to be appointed as 
Chairman of a Committee of the Whole. The pertinent amendments were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 740 (1995).
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 861a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 212 simply repealed the two provisions adopted in the 103d 
Congress:

        Sec. 212. (a) In rule XII, strike clause 2 and the designation 
    of the remaining clause.
        (b) In clause 1 of rule XXIII, strike ``, Resident 
    Commissioner, or Delegate''.
        (c) In clause 2 of rule XXIII, strike paragraph (d).

    The changes in the rules adopted in the 103d Congress are also 
shown in the following analysis. The rules for the 103d Congress 
follow, the portions struck out by Section 212 are set aside in bold 
brackets:

                                 Rule XII.

                    resident commissioner and delegates.

        [1.] The Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto 
    Rico

[[Page 11909]]

    and each Delegate to the House shall be elected to serve on 
    standing committees in the same manner as Members of the House and 
    shall possess in such committees the same powers and privileges as 
    the other Members.
        [2. In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union, the Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto 
    Rico and each Delegate to the House shall possess the same powers 
    and privileges as Members of the House.] (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 740 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Rule XXIII.

                     of committees of the whole house.

        1. (a) In all cases, in forming a Committee of the Whole House, 
    the Speaker shall leave his chair after appointing a Member[, 
    Resident Commissioner, or Delegate] as Chairman to preside, who 
    shall, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in the 
    galleries or lobby, have power to cause the same to be cleared.
        2. (a) . . .
        [(d) Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided 
    by a margin within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the 
    Resident Commissioner have been decisive, the Committee of the 
    Whole shall automatically rise and the Speaker shall put that 
    question de novo without intervening debate or other business. Upon 
    the announcement of the vote on that question, the Committee of the 
    Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening motion.] 
    (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 864b (1993).


[[Page 11911]]


 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                       DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS
 
                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS





Absent Member, see Duty of Members to vote; Announcements regarding 
    votes
``Absentee'' voting, see Duty of Members to vote
Abstention, see Duty of Members to vote
Adjournment
    affirmative vote not subject to objection for lack of quorum, 
        Sec. 11.3
    agreed to by division vote, a demand for tellers having been 
        rejected, Sec. 13.1
    legislative day, as related to, ``tomorrow'' as next legislative 
        day, Sec. 54.1
    negative vote objected to for lack of a quorum precipitates call of 
        the House, Sec. Sec. 11.4, 11.5
    quorum not required, effect on objections to division vote, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.4
    vote by yeas and nays required for August recess in odd-numbered 
        years, Sec. Sec. 1.3, 1.4
Amendments (see also Division of the question; Postponement of votes; 
    Senate amendments; Separate votes)
    ``accepted'' by managers, Chair must still put question, Sec. 2.4
    constitutional, two-thirds vote required to send to states, 
        Sec. 5.2
    identical amendments to two propositions, Chair must put question 
        separately for each, Sec. 2.5
    votes on postponed amendments taken in order of consideration, 
        Sec. 55.11
Amendments between the Houses, see Senate amendments
Announcements regarding votes (see also Changing votes)
    absent colleague, regarding, entertained only by unanimous consent, 
        Sec. 41.6
    absent Members intention not to be announced, Sec. Sec. 41.5, 41.7, 
        41.8
    announcement of result must precede, Sec. 41.2
    entertained only by unanimous consent, Sec.  41.6
    historical practice, Sec. 41.3
    intention had Member been present announced by unanimous consent, 
        Sec. Sec. 41.1, 41.3
    not allowed before announcement of result, Sec. 41.2
    policy regarding, historical changes in, Sec. 41 introduction
    veto override, as related to, Member announced his intention had he 
        been present, explained his absence, and entered his name on 
        the pairs list, Sec. 41.4
Appropriation bills, general
    passage requires yeas and nays, Sec. 23 introduction
Automatic recorded vote, see Recorded votes
Budget resolutions
    adoption requires yeas and nays, Sec. 23 introduction
    divisible between budget resolution as set out in the Budget Act 
        and sense of Congress provisions set out in same concurrent 
        resolution in certain circumstances, Sec. 42.5
Changing or correcting votes (see also Electronic votes)
    administrative errors
        corrected prior to announcement by unanimous consent when 
            detected by a Member and reported to the Chair in cases of 
            absent Member recorded as voting, Sec. Sec. 37.1-37.4

[[Page 11912]]

        deceased Member, incorrectly listed by GPO, corrected by 
            unanimous consent, Sec. 38.4
        Speaker announced correction in count identified by Clerk, 
            Sec. 38.5
        Speaker has asked and received unanimous consent to make a 
            correction when incorrect copy sent to printer, Sec. 38.6
    announcement of results
    change may be made before, Sec. Sec. 37.5, 39.2
        precludes Member from changing vote, even by unanimous consent, 
            Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.2
    announcements, but not changes, regarding votes cast under 
        misapprehension and misinformation, in order, Sec. Sec. 39.5, 
        40.2
    Chair does not pass on explanation, Sec. 38.1
    confusion as reason for, Sec. 39.7
    correcting Congressional Record after announcement of vote, by 
        unanimous consent, not considered changing vote, 
        Sec. Sec. 38.1, 40.4
    inquiries regarding how Member recorded in order prior to 
        announcement, Sec. 39.1
    pairs, as related to, votes must be changed to present for purposes 
        of pairing before announcement of result, Sec. 39.4
    procedures for, Sec. 40.1-40.7
    recorded in Congressional Record, Sec. 39.6
        recorded vote, as related to
        changes after announcement may be made if vote not conducted by 
            electronic system, Sec. 40.3
        Member may change by stating correction before announcement, 
            Sec. Sec. 40.1, 40.6
    tellers with clerks, as related to
        confusion as to results does not allow changes or 
            recapitulation, Sec. 40.5
        Member may change after announcement only by unanimous consent, 
            Sec. 40.7
    unanimous-consent requests to make changes not in order
        allowing absent Members to vote on following day, Sec. 36.5
        when signal bells alleged to fail, Sec. 36.6
    written change request in order from Member unable to use voice, 
        Sec. 38.3
Clustering votes (see also Postponement of votes; Reduced voting time)
    amendments, when several postponed, question occurs in the order of 
        original consideration, Sec. 55.11
    Committee of the Whole, during consideration of measure in, 
        Sec. Sec. 54.10-54.12
    House rules regarding, evolution of, Sec. Sec. 53.1-53.5
    special order providing for, Sec. Sec. 54.10, 54.11
Committee of the Whole, Chairman of
    appointment as, not effecting right to vote or object to unanimous-
        consent requests, Sec. 3.12
    count of quorum not subject to verification by tellers, Sec. 17.13
    demands for type of vote, Chair's statement of, as controlling, 
        Sec. 2.2
    division vote, as related to
        may order before entertaining demand for recorded vote, 
            Sec. 9.2
        practice of Chair explained, Sec. 15.7
        vote as decisive in division, Sec. Sec. 15.2-15.6

[[Page 11913]]

        vote as not decisive in division, Sec. 15.8
    postponement of votes, see Postponement of votes
    question, Chair's statement of, as controlling, Sec. 2.1
    quorum, Chair's count not subject to verification by tellers, 
        Sec. 17.13
    recorded vote, as related to
        count of those demanding, Chair's, not subject to appeal, 
            Sec. 33.5
        responsible for insuring all in Chamber after time has expired 
            are allowed to vote, Sec. 35.3
        take vote by division before entertaining request for recorded 
            vote, Sec. 9.2
    reduced voting time, see Reduced voting time
    teller vote, as related to
        appointment of tellers, Chair's practice regarding, Sec. 19.1-
            19.4, 22.5
        count of those demanding, Chair's, not subject to appeal, 
            Sec. 22.1
        parliamentary inquiries during, Chair has refused to entertain, 
            Sec. 20.1
        recount, Chair may redirect on own authority, Sec. 22.3, 22.4
        ties, Chair as making or breaking, Sec. Sec. 21.3-21.5
        timing of Chair's vote, Sec. 21.2
        vote as decisive, Sec. 21.3
        vote as not decisive, Sec. 21.6
        vote without passing through tellers, Sec. 21.1
    voice votes, as related to
        announcement of results by Chair not subject to review, 
            Sec. 7.2
    voting practice explained, Sec. 15.7
Committee of the Whole, history of, Sec. 59
Committee of the Whole, votes in
    Delegates, voting by, Sec. 59
    division vote, demand for, once made on pending question, no 
        further demand in order, Sec. 11.9
    history of electronic votes, Sec. 31 introduction
    objection to vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present
        compared to point of no quorum in Committee of the Whole, 
            Sec. Sec. 11.11, 11.16
        recorded vote not automatic in Committee of the Whole vote, 
            Sec. Sec. 11.11, 11.16
    postponement authority
        granted by special orders, Sec. Sec. 53.3, 53.4
        special orders providing for Chair's, Sec. Sec. 54.10, 54.11
    recorded votes, historical development, Sec. 30 introduction
    recorded vote used in Committee of the Whole, where yea and nay 
        vote not permitted, Sec. 30.1
    reduced voting time,
        generally, Sec. 57.6
        Committee of the Whole may not reduce for House, Sec. 58.6
    Resident Commissioner, voting by the, Sec. 59
    rise and report, motion to, with a recommendation that the enacting 
        clause be stricken out, not divisible, Sec. 47.1
    rise, motion to, once passed, leaves demand for vote as pending 
        business when Committee resumes sitting, Sec. 17.8
    rise, motion to, takes precedence over demand for vote, 
        Sec. Sec. 8.1, 17.8, 18.4, 18.6, 33.14, 33.15
    teller votes

[[Page 11914]]

        historically, Sec. 16 introduction
        once tellers ordered, rising of Committee notwithstanding, 
            unanimous consent required to vacate the order for tellers, 
            Sec. 18.5
        rise, motion to, in order, appointment of tellers 
            notwithstanding, Sec. 18.4, 18.6
    yeas and nays, not permitted, Sec. 30.2
Committee meetings
    permission of committees to sit during session does not excuse 
        Member from duty to vote, Sec. 3.11
Committee voting
    as governed by House rules, Sec. 1 introduction
    Delegates, Sec. 59 introduction
    proxies, use of, Sec. 3.14
    record of, recorded in committee report, Sec. 1 introduction
    Resident Commissioner, Sec. 59 introduction
Constitutional amendments
    amending ratification deadline in resolutions proposing 
        constitutional amendments, vote required, Sec. 1.5
    two-thirds of those present and voting required to forward to the 
        states, Sec. 5.2
Constitutionally-mandated votes, see Required types of votes on certain 
    questions
Correction
    administrative errors
        corrected prior to announcement by unanimous consent when 
            detected by a Member and reported to the Chair in cases of 
            absent Member recorded as voting, Sec. Sec. 37.1-37.4
        deceased Member, incorrectly listed by GPO, corrected by 
            unanimous consent, Sec. 38.4
        Speaker announced correction in count identified by Clerk, 
            Sec. 38.5
        Speaker has asked and received unanimous consent to make a 
            correction when incorrect copy sent to printer, Sec. 38.6
    correcting Congressional Record after announcement of vote, by 
        unanimous consent, not considered changing vote, 
        Sec. Sec. 38.1, 40.4
    procedures for, Sec. Sec. 40.1-40.7
Corrections Calendar
    established with three-fifths passage requirement, Sec. 5.4
    first used in House, Sec. 5.5
Delegate voting
    authorized by rule in the 103d Congress, Sec. 59.1
    Committee deliberations, Sec. 59 introduction
    Committee of the Whole, Sec. 59 constitutionality
        affirmed by courts, Sec. 59.2
        debated in the House, Sec. 59.1
    repealed by rule in the 104th Congress, Sec. 59.3
Demanding votes
    announcement of result
        not affecting Member seeking recognition before, Sec. 9.5
        precludes demands for other votes, Sec. 9.4
    Chair's statement as controlling, Sec. 2.1 division of the 
        question, see Division of the question
    division vote
        generally, Sec. 9
        tellers, once refused precludes demand for division, Sec. 9.10
    intervening business, demand in order as long as none takes place, 
        Sec. Sec. 24.6, 24.7, 33.16

[[Page 11915]]

    once made and refused, may not be made on same question, 
        Sec. Sec. 17.3, 25.1-25.3, 33.6-33.12
    parliamentary inquiry not constituting intervening business for 
        purposes of demand, Sec. Sec. 9.7, 9.8
    precedence of
        adjourn, simple motion, takes precedence over demand for yeas 
            and nays, Sec. 24.5
        preferential motion to be resolved before demand considered, 
            Sec. 8.1
        quorum, objection based on lack of, for preceding vote takes 
            precedence over demand for another type of vote, Sec. 11.6, 
            33.13
        quorum, once established, leaves demand, made prior to 
            objection for lack of quorum or point of no quorum, viable, 
            Sec. 17.12
        rise, motion to, once passed, leaves demand as pending business 
            when Committee resumes sitting, Sec. 17.8
        rise, motion to, takes precedence over demand, Sec. Sec. 8.1, 
            17.8, 18.4, 18.6, 33.14, 33.15
        yeas and nays over division, Sec. 14.1
        yeas and nays over recorded vote, Sec. 2.2
        yeas and nays over tellers, Sec. 24.1
    recognition, diligence as to
        announcement of result not affecting demand where Member 
            seeking recognition prior to announcement, Sec. Sec. 9.5, 
            17.2, 24.2, 24.3, 33.18
        dispute over whether Member seeking recognition prior to 
            announcement resolved in favor of the Member, Sec. 9.6
    recorded vote
        Chair's statement of demand for yeas and nays valid despite 
            Member's demand for recorded vote, Sec. 2.2
        engrossment and third reading question, once put, precludes 
            demand for a recorded vote, Sec. 33.17
        once taken in House precludes demand for yeas and nays, Sec. 33 
            introduction
        yea and nay demand having been refused or withdrawn, demand for 
            recorded vote in order, Sec. Sec. 33.2-33.4
        yea and nay vote, once taken, precludes demand for recorded 
            vote, Sec. 33 introduction
    Speaker's discretion to order without demand, Sec. 9.1
    teller vote
        division vote not in order following refusal to order tellers, 
            Sec. 9.10
        ordering does not preclude demand for yeas and nays, so long as 
            count has not yet begun, Sec. 24.4
        teller vote with clerks, once taken, not precluding yeas and 
            nays, historically, Sec. 30.3
        yea and nay demand, made simultaneously takes precedence, 
            Sec. 17.4
        yea and nay, once refused, not precluding demand for tellers, 
            Sec. 18.2
    withdrawal
        announcement of support or lack thereof for demand precludes, 
            Sec. 24.8
        conditions, may not have, Sec. 33.23
        unanimous consent affecting, Sec. 33.24
    yea and nay vote
        adjourn, simple motion to, takes precedence over demand for yea 
            and nay vote, Sec. 24.5
        Chair's statement of demand for yeas and nays valid despite 
            Member's demand for recorded vote, Sec. 2.2
        once taken, precludes demand for recorded vote, Sec. 33 
            introduction

[[Page 11916]]

        ordering of tellers does not preclude, so long as count has not 
            begun, Sec. 24.4
        yea and nay demand not precluded by teller vote with clerks, 
            historically, Sec. 30.3
Division of the question
    affecting several persons
        confirming several nominations, divisible, Sec. 49.2
        directing Speaker to certify report containing names of three 
            per- sons refusing to testify indivisible, Sec. 49.1
        election contest resolution providing one individual not 
            entitled to seat and another entitled, divisible, Sec. 49.5
        limitation amendment prohibiting payment to several 
            individuals, divisible, Sec. 49.4
        separate resolving clauses certify- ing two individuals' 
            contemptuous conduct, divisible, Sec. 49.3
    amending of divided question, Sec. Sec. 42.14, 44.1
    amendments, affecting divisibility
        en bloc not preventing division, Sec. 43.5, 43.6
        en bloc subject to separate votes by unanimous consent, 
            Sec. 43.4
        limitation amendment prohibiting payment to several 
            individuals, divisible, Sec. 49.4
        motion to strike, having been defeated, does not preclude 
            demand for division of the same portion, Sec. 43.1
        motion to strike out and inserting, divided by special order, 
            Sec. 48.1
        substitutes to amendments, not divisible, notwithstanding 
            divisibility of underlying amendment, Sec. 43.3
    budget resolutions
        divisible between budget resolution as set out in Budget Act 
            and sense of Congress provisions contained in same 
            concurrent resolution, Sec. 42.5
    concur, motion to
        allowed by special rule, Sec. 48.1
        not divisible, Sec. 44.2
    conferees, motion to instruct, to agree to Senate amendment with 
        further amendment, not divisible, Sec. 45.1
    conference committee, motion to recommit with instructions, not 
        divisible, Sec. 45.2
    debating divided questions, Sec. Sec. 42.14, 44.1
    demand
        any member may make, Sec. 42.10
        in order at any time before the question is put, 
            Sec. Sec. 42.4, 42.10, 42.12, 42.13
        withdrawn by Member making demand before the question is put, 
            Sec. 42.11
    electing officers of the House by resolution, prior to adoption of 
        rules, divisible, Sec. 49.6
    engrossment and third reading, indivisible, Sec. 42.8
    order of voting when question divided, Sec. Sec. 42.14, 42.15, 
        43.2, 48.1
    previous question on more than one matter, motion to order, not 
        divisible, Sec. 46.1
    recede and concur in Senate amendments, motion to
        divisible, Sec. 52.1
        order of voting, the question comes first on receding, 
            Sec. 52.5
        order of voting, while motion to adhere pending, the question 
            comes first on the motion to recede, Sec. 52.6

[[Page 11917]]

        precedence once divided, a motion to concur with an amendment 
            takes
        precedence over the divided motion to concur, Sec. 52.7
        precedence once divided, the House takes up the motion to 
            recede and then the motion to concur, an intervening motion 
            to concur with an amendment, having been rejected, 
            Sec. Sec. 52.2, 52.8
        precedence once divided, the motion to recede having been 
            agreed to, and a motion to concur with an amendment and a 
            motion to concur having been rejected the House, on a new 
            motion, voted to insist on disagreement, Sec. 52.3
        procedure once divided, the motion to recede having been 
            rejected, a motion to insist on disagreement would be in 
            order, Sec. 52.9
        procedure once divided, the proponent of the motion, not the 
            Member demanding the division of the question, controls the 
            floor, Sec. 52.11
        procedure, once divided, time for debate, Sec. 52.12
        with an amendment, divisible only between receding and then 
            concurring with an amendment, Sec. 52.4
        with an amendment, pending when preferential motion to recede 
            and concur offered and divided, becomes inoperative if 
            House refuses to recede, Sec. 52.10
    recommit with instructions, motion to, indivisible, but amendment 
        contained in successful motion to recommit with instructions 
        when reported back to House forthwith may be divided, Sec. 45.3
    requirements for divisibility
        prefatory language not affecting divisibility, Sec. 42.6
        special order affecting, Sec. 42.9
        striking unrelated parts of text divisible, Sec. 42.7
        substantially equivalent questions not divisible, Sec. 42.2
        substantive proposition, more than one, Sec. 42.1, 42.3
    rise and report, motion to, with a recommendation that the enacting 
        clause be stricken out, not divisible, Sec. 47.1
    rules regarding, Sec. 42 introduction
        Senate amendments (see also recede and concur, motion to; 
            concur, motion to)
        instruct conferees, motion to, agree to Senate amendment with a 
            further amendment, not divisible, Sec. 45.1
        not divisible, Sec. 44.2
        reported from Committee of the Whole, with recommendation to 
            concur with an amendment striking out and inserting new 
            text, not divisible, Sec. 51.1
    special order establishing divisibility, Sec. 42.9
    suspend the rules, motion to, demand for division of the question 
        not in order under, Sec. 50.1
Division votes
    adjourn, motion to
        affirmative vote not subject to objection for lack of quorum, 
            Sec. 11.3
        negative vote objected to for lack of a quorum precipitates 
            call of the House, Sec. Sec. 11.4, 11.5
    announcement of result
        generally, Sec. 8 introduction
        affect on establishing presence of quorum, Sec. 12.2
        challenging, Sec. 8 introduction
    challenging result, see Sec. 8 introduction

[[Page 11918]]

    Committee of the Whole, Chairman of
        may order before entertaining demand for a recorded vote, 
            Sec. 9.2
        practice in division votes explained, Sec. Sec. 15.7, 15.8
    count of those rising to vote
        demand for recorded vote not to interrupt, Sec. 10.4
        demand for the yeas and nays not to interrupt, Sec. 10.3
        parliamentary inquiry not to interrupt, Sec. 10.1
        quorum, not binding as evidence of lack of, Sec. 11.2
    demand for
        generally, Sec. 9
        absolute majority (on reorganization plan) can be determined by 
            voice, division, or record vote, Sec. 8.2
        comes too late after Chair has declared amendment not agreed 
            to, Sec. 9.11
        once made on pending question in Committee of the Whole, no 
            further demand in order, Sec. 11.9
        parliamentary inquiry not intervening business for purposes of 
            demand, Sec. Sec. 9.7, 9.8
        preceding announcement of result of voice vote, in order, 
            Sec. 9.4
        preferential motion resolved before demand entertained, 
            Sec. 8.1
        refusal to order tellers, once announced, precludes demand, 
            Sec. 9.10
        seeking recognition prior to announcement of result of voice 
            vote, Member may make, Sec. 9.5
        Speaker may order absent a demand, Sec. 9.1
        voice vote, announcement of result precludes, Sec. 9.9
    form prescribed by Rule I, Sec. 8 introduction
    objection to vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present
        adjournment agreed to by division vote, not subject to 
            objection, a quorum not being required for purposes of 
            adjournment, Sec. 11.3
        does not lie in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 11.16
        intervening parliamentary inquiry does not preclude making the 
            objection, Sec. 11.12
        intervening rejection of demand for the yeas and nays does not 
            preclude making the objection, Sec. 11.13
        motion to reconsider laid on the table, precludes making 
            objection, Sec. 11.15
        precipitates a call of the House and a yea and nay vote under 
            Rule XV clause 4, in the House, Sec. 11.10
        recorded vote not automatic in Committee of the Whole vote, 
            Sec. Sec. 11.11, 11.16
        takes precedence over demand for tellers, Sec. 11.6
        withdrawal of same objection to voice vote does not preclude, 
            Sec. 11.1
    parliamentary inquiry
        in order before Chair asks those in favor to rise, Sec. 10.2
        not to interrupt count of those rising, Sec. 10.1
    preceded by voice vote, always, Sec. 8 introduction
    precedence
        demand for yeas and nays in the House takes precedence, 
            Sec. 14.1
        objection for lack of a quorum on division vote takes 
            precedence over demand for tellers, Sec. 11.6
        rise, motion to, from Committee of the Whole takes precedence, 
            Sec. 8.1
    quorum

[[Page 11919]]

        call of the House and yea and nay vote precipitated by 
            objection to lack of, may be postponed by previous 
            unanimous-consent agreement, Sec. 11.14
        determining presence of, Chair counts Members present but not 
            voting, Sec. Sec. 12.1, 12.2
        once established, result of subsequent division vote not 
            binding as evidence of lack of quorum, Sec. Sec. 11.2, 12.2
        point of no quorum as compared to objection for lack of a 
            quorum in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 11.16
        point of no quorum following a negative division vote on motion 
            to adjourn precipitates call of the House, Sec. Sec. 11.4, 
            11.5
        point of no quorum in order only when pending question put to 
            vote, Sec. 11.7
        point of no quorum limited by Rule XV clause 6(e), Sec. 11.7
        point of no quorum, not coupled with an objection, makes 
            division vote indecisive, Sec. 11.7
        point of no quorum, practice before and after 1977 rules change 
            compared, Sec. Sec. 11.7, 11.8
    recorded vote, as related to
        count not to be interrupted by demand for, Sec. Sec. 10.4, 
            33.19
        division vote not required to precede demand for recorded vote, 
            Sec. 9.3
        withdrawal of objection for lack of quorum on voice vote does 
            not preclude same objection to division vote, Sec. 11.1
    Senate division results not announced, Sec. 14.4
    Speaker
        form for putting question, see form prescribed by Rule I
        may order without waiting for demand, Sec. 9.1
    teller votes, as related to
        adjournment by division vote after rejection of demand for 
            tellers, Sec. 13.1
        announcement of refusal to order teller vote and failure of 
            pending question precluded demand for division vote, 
            Sec. 9.10
        demand for tellers after Chair's affirmative tie-breaking vote 
            on division, Sec. 15.3
        demand after Chair's negative tie-breaking vote on division, 
            Sec. 15.5
        demand in order regardless of intervening parliamentary 
            inquiry, Sec. 13.3
        demand in order regardless of intervening point of no quorum 
            and call of the House, Sec. 13.4
        demand in order regardless of intervening point of no quorum 
            and withdrawal of such point, Sec. 13.5
        objection for lack of quorum takes precedence over demand for 
            tellers, Sec. Sec. 11.6, 17.5, 18.3
        once refused, not in order after division vote on same 
            question, Sec. Sec. 13.2, 17.3
        point of no quorum on preceding division vote not affecting 
            demand for tellers, Sec. Sec. 13.6-13.8, 17.9, 17.10
    tie votes
        Chair's affirmative vote may break, Sec. 15.2
        Chair's negative vote may break, Sec. 15.4
        Chair's vote creating tie, Sec. 15.6
        demand for tellers after Chair's affirmative vote to break tie, 
            Sec. 15.3
        demand for tellers after Chair's negative vote to break tie, 
            Sec. 15.5

[[Page 11920]]

        Speaker may break, Sec. 15.1
        Speaker Pro Tempore's abstention as creating tie, Sec. 15.7
    uncertainty, see announcement of result
    voice vote, as related to
        demand for division in order before announcement of result, 
            Sec. 9.4
        demand for division in order if Member seeking recognition 
            before announcement, Sec. Sec. 9.5, 9.9
        demand for division must be preceded by voice vote, Sec. 8 
            introduction
        demand for division not too late following rejection of demand 
            for tellers, but preceding announcement of voice vote 
            result, Sec. 9.4
        uncertainty in result of voice vote as reason to order division 
            vote, Sec. 8 introduction
    yeas and nays, as related to
        automatically ordered vote, in House, on objection for lack of 
            a quorum, may be postponed by previous unanimous-consent 
            agreement, Sec. 11.14
        demand for yeas and nays not in order while Chair counting, 
            Sec. Sec. 10.3, 25.4
        demand for yeas and nays on preferential motion after tied 
            division vote, Sec. 14.2
        demand for yeas and nays rejected one-fifth of those present, 
            rather than those voting on the previous division, not 
            seconding, Sec. 14.3
        precedence of demand for yeas and nays over demand for a 
            division, Sec. 14.1
        Senate demand for yeas and nays comes too late after request 
            that Chair announce the results of a division, Sec. 14.4
Duty of Members to vote
    absent Members intention not to be announced, Sec. Sec. 41.5, 41.7, 
        41.8
    ``absentee'' voting, Sec. Sec. 3.15, 3.16
    abstention, Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.2, 3.4-3.7
    affected by personal or pecuniary interest, Sec. 3.1-3.2
    affected by personal or pecuniary interest as a class rather than 
        as individuals, Sec. 3.9
    constitutional right to vote, Sec. 3 introduction
    ethics investigation, subject of, Sec. 3.10
    excused Senator by voice vote, Sec. 3.13
    excusing Member from duty for medical reasons, only done by the 
        House, Sec. 3.3
    felony conviction or plea of guilty, Member should refrain, Sec. 3 
        introduction
    ``ghost'' voting, Sec. Sec. 3.15, 3.16
    Member alone can cast, Sec. Sec. 3.15, 3.16
    Member as judge of own duty, Sec. Sec. 3.1, 3.2
    pecuniary interest, as affecting, Sec. Sec. 3.1, 3.2, 3.9
    permission for committee to sit during House session not excusing, 
        Sec. 3.11
    personal interest, as affecting, Sec. Sec. 3.1, 3.2, 3.9
    proxy, not permitted, Sec. 3.14
    rules governing, Sec. 3 introduction
    Senators, duty to vote, Sec. 3.13
    withdrawal for pecuniary interest before announcement of result, 
        Sec. 3.8
Election
    officers of the House
        divisibility of resolution electing before adoption of the 
            rules, Sec. 49.6
        elected viva voce under Rule II, Sec. 7 introduction
    President under 12th amendment
        requires voting by state, Sec. 1.1

[[Page 11921]]

    Speaker by viva voce vote, Sec. 7 introduction
Electronic votes
    absent Member, where recorded, correction in order, Sec. 32.3
    changing electronic votes, Sec. 31.4
    correcting
        based on card submitted in well, rather than electronic system, 
            Sec. 32.5
        conclusive explanation required, Sec. 32.4
        quorum calls, changes not in order, Sec. 32.1
        Record and Journal, requests not entertained, Sec. 32.2
        requests not in order, Sec. 31.16
        requests to change incorrect announced vote changes 
            entertained, Sec. 31.16
        under stand-by procedures, Sec. 31.17
    disputed vote, vacated, Sec. 31.18
    history, Sec. 31 introduction
    inoperable system, Sec. Sec. 31.7-31.15
        Member recognized for unanimous-consent to withdraw demand when 
            system fails during vote, Sec. 33.22
    procedure, Sec. Sec. 31.1, 31.2, 31.4
    recapitulation not allowed, Sec. 31.6, 31.7
    result cannot be corrected after announcement, even by unanimous 
        consent, Sec. 6.2
    Speaker's discretion to use standby procedures, Sec. 31.8
    standby procedures, Sec. 31.8
    time allotted for Members to cast votes
        fifteen-minute minimum, Sec. 35.1
        generally, Sec. 31.5, Sec. 35 introduction
    verification of vote, Member's responsibility, Sec. 31.3
Ethics (see also Duty of Member to vote)
    investigation based on duty to vote except in cases of personal or 
        pecuniary interest in pending question, Sec. 3.10
    reprimand based on allowing votes to be cast on Member's behalf, 
        Sec. 3.16
    voting when convicted of crime or after plea of guilty, Sec. 3
        introduction, Sec. 3.17
Form of question, see Question
``Ghost'' voting, see Duty of Member to vote
House rules-mandated votes, see Required types of votes on certain 
    questions
Informal vote, Member not allowed to ask for show of support, Sec. 2.3
Interruption of vote
    division vote
        demand for different type of vote not to interrupt count, 
            Sec. Sec. 10.3, 10.4, 25.4, 33.19
        parliamentary inquiry not to interrupt count, Sec. 10.1
    recorded vote
        demand for not in order while Chair counting for division, 
            Sec. Sec. 10.4, 33.19
    teller vote
        parliamentary inquiry not to interrupt count, Sec. 20.1
        rise, motion to, from Committee of the Whole in order, 
            appointment of tellers notwithstanding, Sec. Sec. 18.4, 
            18.6
    yeas and nays
        demand for not to interrupt count on division vote, Sec. 10.3
        parliamentary inquiry may interrupt, Sec. 27.1
        unanimous-consent request not to interrupt, Sec. 27.2
Journal, vote on Speaker's approval
    adjourn, motion to, used to precipitate roll call at beginning of 
        the day when vote on Journal postponed, Sec. 54.5

[[Page 11922]]

    history of postponement authority as related to, Sec. 54.6
    ordering the yeas on previous question on approval of the Journal, 
        Sec. 26.1
Legislative day, Sec. 54.1
Legislatively-mandated votes, see Required types of votes on certain 
    questions
Majority
    defined, Sec. 1 introduction
    presence of determined by voice, division or ``yea and nay'' vote, 
        Sec. 8.2
Mandatory votes, see Required types of votes on certain questions
Non-recorded votes, see Voice votes; Division votes; Teller votes
Order of voting
    divided questions, Sec. Sec. 42.14, 42.15, 43.2, 48.1 postponed 
        votes
        several amendments, question occurs in order of original 
            consideration, Sec. 55.11
        suspension motions, new motions may be considered before 
            postponed suspension motions, Sec. 55.2
    separate votes in the House, see Separate votes in the House
Pairs
    affecting qualification ``as being opposed'' to a proposition, 
        Sec. 4.9
    ``against,'' Sec. 4.1
    announcement of pairings, Sec. Sec. 4.3, 4.5
    announcement of results
        changing vote to ``present'' must precede announcement, 
            Sec. 39.4
        listing pairs after, Sec. 4.4
        withdrawal of vote for purposes of pairing must be made before, 
            Sec. 4.11
    arrives in time to vote, paired Member, Sec. 4.2
    breaking, Sec. 4.2
    ``broken,'' Sec. 4 introduction, Sec. 4.2
    change of vote because of, Sec. Sec. 4.5, 4.9, 4.10
    correcting the record by unanimous consent
        adding pairs, Sec. 4.16
        changing types of pairs, Sec. Sec. 4.17, 4.18
        deleting pairs, Sec. Sec. 4.8, 4.14, 4.15
    defined, Sec. 4 introduction
    deletion of, Sec. Sec. 4.8, 4.14, 4.15
    ``for,'' Sec. 4.1
    ``general,'' Sec. 4 introduction
    indicating positions, Sec. 4.1
    ``live,'' Sec. 4 introduction
    parliamentary inquiries regarding
        Speaker does not take cognizance of pairs, Sec. 4.6
        Speaker may indicate whether Clerk read Member's name as being 
            paired, Sec. 4.6
    proscription against, Sec. 4.7
    recorded vote, as related to, Sec. 4.3
    rules regarding, Sec. 4 introduction
    ``simple,'' Sec. 4 introduction
    standing instruction regarding, Sec. 4.7
    teller vote with clerks, as related to, Sec. 4.3
    two-thirds votes for passage, pairs on questions that require, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.12, 4.13
    types, Sec. 4 introduction
    until further notice, Sec. 4.8
    veto override votes, Sec. Sec. 4.12, 4.13
    withdrawal of vote in order to pair, Sec. Sec. 4.5, 4.9-4.13
Pecuniary interest, see Duty of Member to vote
Personal interest, see Duty of Member to vote
Postponement of votes (see also Reduced voting time)
    amendments

[[Page 11923]]

        second degree, once postponed, necessarily postpones first 
            degree, Sec. Sec. 55.8-55.10
        several postponed, the questions occur in the order of original 
            consideration, Sec. 55.11
    Committee of the Whole, special orders providing for, during 
        consideration in, Sec. Sec. 54.10-54.12
    flexibility in Speaker's authority
        changing announced time, Sec. 54.3
        until a time to be determined, Sec. 54.4
    House rules regarding, evolution of, Sec. Sec. 53.1-53.5
    Journal, vote on Speaker's announcement of approval thereof
        adjourn, motion to, used to precipitate roll call at beginning 
            of the day when vote on Journal postponed, Sec. 54.5
        history of postponement authority as related to, Sec. 54.6
    legislative day, as related to, ``tomorrow'' as next legislative 
        day, Sec. 54.1
    procedure during postponed proceedings
        amendments, for which a demand for recorded votes has been 
            made, procedure when postponed, Sec. 55.7
        demands for particular types of votes, once refused, cannot be 
            renewed, postponement of proceedings notwithstanding, 
            Sec. Sec. 55.5, 55.6
        objection to vote for lack of quorum, when cause of postponed 
            proceedings, question put de novo, Sec. 56.7
        precedence of questions, new motions to suspend the rules can 
            take precedence over votes on postponed suspension motions, 
            Sec. 55.2
        precedence of questions, questions of privilege may interrupt 
            postponed consideration of motions to suspend the rules, 
            Sec. 55.1
        request for recorded votes, where postponed, may be withdrawn 
            by unanimous consent, Sec. 55.4
        request for recorded votes, where postponed, must be supported 
            before the vote is taken, Sec. 55.3
    quorum rule, as related to
        automatic vote precipitated by absence of a quorum, prevents 
            Speaker from using postponement authority, even by 
            unanimous consent, no business being in order in the 
            announced absence of a quorum, Sec. 56.1
        objection to vote on grounds of no quorum and postponement of 
            further proceedings prevents demand for the yeas and nays 
            until taken up again as unfinished business, 
            Sec. Sec. 56.4, 56.5
        objection to vote on grounds of no quorum takes precedence over 
            point of no quorum, allowing Speaker to postpone vote and 
            mooting point of no quorum, Sec. 56.3
        point of no quorum considered withdrawn where vote is 
            postponed, Sec. 56.2
    special orders providing for, in Committee of the Whole
        Chair granted authority on ``issue clusters,'' Sec. 54.11
        Chair granted authority to postpone, cluster, and reduce voting 
            time, Sec. 54.10
        postponement of request as compared to postponement of vote, 
            Sec. 54.12

[[Page 11924]]

    suspension of the rules, Speaker may announce intention to postpone 
        proceedings on demands for roll call votes at any time, 
        Sec. 54.2
    time to which votes postponed
        changing announced time, Sec. 54.3
        until a time to be determined, Sec. 54.4
    unanimous consent
        agreement to postpone votes on scheduled bills does not apply 
            to votes on procedural matters, such as special orders, 
            Sec. 54.9
        House postponed all roll call votes for five days by, Sec. 54.7
        House postponed yea and nay vote on final passage, to following 
            day, Sec. 54.8
Preamble
    resolutions with, voting procedures, Sec. Sec. 2.6-2.8
President
    election by House under 12th amendment requires roll to be called 
        by state, Sec. 1.1
Presidential Reorganization Plan, resolution disapproving
    may be adopted by voice vote, division vote, ``yea and nay'' vote, 
        Sec. 8.2
    requires majority of authorized membership voting in affirmative, 
        Sec. 8.2
Presiding Officer (see also Committee of the Whole; Speaker Pro 
    Tempore; Speaker's authority)
    obligation to be impartial, Sec. 1 introduction
Proxy
    in committee, use of has been determined by committee at times, 
        Sec. 3.14
    in House not allowed, Sec. 3.14
    no longer permitted in committees, Sec. 3.14
Question, putting the
    Chair's statement of question as controlling, Sec. 2.1
    Chair's statement of type of vote, as controlling, Sec. 2.2
    form, Sec. 2 introduction
    must be put on amendment ``accepted'' by manager, Sec. 2.4
    on preambles and resolutions, Sec. Sec. 2.6-2.8
    only put by Chair, Sec. 2.3
    separately on identical amendments to two separate propositions, 
        Sec. 2.5
Quorum
    absence of
        prevents announcement of result, Sec. 17.11
    adjourn, quorum not required to, Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.4
    Chair's count to determine
        Chair's count not subject to verification, Sec. 17.13
        demands not in order during count to determine, Sec. 17.12
        number of Members rising on division vote not binding as 
            evidence on question of quorum, Sec. 11.2
        results of preceding or subsequent vote not binding, Chair 
            counts Members present but not voting, Sec. Sec. 11.2, 
            12.1, 12.2
        Speaker has voted to establish, on automatic recorded vote in 
            the House, Sec. 29.6
    objection for lack of
        adjournment vote not subject to, Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.4
        motion to reconsider laid on the table, precludes making 
            objection, Sec. 11.15
        objection to vote on grounds of no quorum and postponement of 
            further proceedings prevents further action until 
            proceedings resume, Sec. Sec. 56.4, 56.5

[[Page 11925]]

        parliamentary inquiry does not preclude making the objection, 
            Sec. 11.12
        precedence over demands for votes, Sec. 11.6
        question to be put de novo when postponed proceedings resume, 
            Sec. 56.7
        rejection of demand for the yeas and nays does not preclude 
            making the objection on previous vote, Sec. 11.13
        will not lie in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 11.16
        withdrawal of, does not preclude making anew on another vote on 
            same question, Sec. 11.1
    point of order, quorum not present
        as compared to objection for lack of a quorum in Committee of 
            the Whole, Sec. 11.16
        business cannot proceed in the announced absence of a quorum, 
            Sec. 56.1
        demands in order, once point resolved, Sec. Sec. 13.4, 18.3
        does not preclude requesting another vote on same matter, 
            Sec. Sec. 13.6-13.8, 17.9
        lies only when pending question put to vote, Sec. 11.7
        limited by Rule XV clause 6(e), Sec. 11.7
        makes preceding vote indecisive, Sec. 11.7
        practice before and after 1977 rules change compared, 
            Sec. Sec. 11.7, 11.8
        precipitates a call of the House and a yea and nay vote under 
            Rule XV clause 4, in the House, Sec. 11.10
        recorded vote not automatic in Committee of the Whole, 
            Sec. Sec. 11.11, 11.16
        Speaker puts the question de novo in the House, Sec. 11.7
        withdrawal does not preclude requesting another vote on same 
            matter, Sec. 17.10
        withdrawn where vote is postponed, Sec. 56.2
    postponement
        call of the House and yea and nay vote precipitated by 
            objection to lack of, may be postponed by previous 
            unanimous-consent agreement, Sec. 11.14
        question put de novo when proceedings resume, Sec. 56.7
    precedence
        objection takes precedence over demands for votes, 
            Sec. Sec. 11.6, 17.5, 18.3
        objection to vote on grounds of no quorum takes precedence over 
            point of no quorum, allowing Speaker to postpone vote and 
            mooting point of no quorum, Sec. 56.3
        once quorum established, demand remains pending, the point of 
            order having been resolved, Sec. Sec. 17.7, 18.3
Recapitulation
    changing votes
        not possible after announcement of roll call vote, on 
            recapitulation, Sec. 28.7
        possible before announcement and after recapitulation, 
            Sec. 28.6
    closeness of vote as reason for, Sec. Sec. 28.4, 28.5
    defined, Sec. 28 introduction
    effect of, different result on recapitulation, Sec. 28.9
    electronic system, not available under Sec. 28 introduction, 
        Sec. Sec. 31.6, 31.7
    Members responsible for own conduct on recapitulation, 
        Sec. Sec. 28.3, 38.2
    procedure, Sec. 28.8
    request not in order while roll call still in progress, Sec. 28.2
    Senate recapitulation, Sec. 28.10
    Speaker's discretion, Sec. 28.1

[[Page 11926]]

    teller votes not subject to, Sec. 22.2
Recess
    vote by yeas and nays required for August recess in odd-numbered 
        years, Sec. Sec. 1.3, 1.4
Recognition, as to demand for votes
    announcement of result not affecting demand where Member seeking 
        recognition prior to announcement, Sec. Sec. 9.5, 17.2, 24.2, 
        24.3, 33.18
    dispute over whether Member seeking recognition prior to 
        announcement resolved in favor of the Member, Sec. 9.6
Recorded votes (see also Changing votes; Electronic votes)
    announcement of result
        not made until all Members present in Chamber before time 
            expires have been allowed to vote, Sec. 35.2
        precludes Member from casting a vote, Sec. 35.4
    automatic, precipitated by absence of a quorum when question is 
        put, prevents Speaker from using postponement authority, even 
        by unanimous consent, no business being in order in the 
        announced absence of a quorum, Sec. 56.1
    Chair's responsibility to ascertain whether any Members in the 
        Chamber wish to vote after time has expired before announcement 
        of result, Sec. 35.3
    changes after announcement may be made if vote not conducted by 
        electronic system, Sec. 40.3
    count of those rising to support, Chair's, not subject to appeal, 
        Sec. 33.5
    demand for
        Chair's statement of demand for yeas and nays controlling, 
            regardless of Member's request for recorded vote, Sec. 2.2
        division vote not required to precede, Sec. 9.3
        engrossment and third reading, question on, once put precludes 
            demand for recorded vote, Sec. 33.17
        entertained after unanimous-consent request to vacate earlier 
            action of passage, Sec. 33.18
        intervening business, demand in order after, if Member seeking 
            recognition prior to, Sec. 33.18
        intervening business, demand in order before, takes place, 
            Sec. 33.16
        once made, may not be renewed on the same question, 
            Sec. Sec. 33.6-33.12
        preceded by voice vote, Sec. 7.1
        single-step as different from historical form, Sec. 33.1
        withdrawal of, allowed before Chair announced result of count 
            to support demand, Sec. 33.21
        withdrawal of, allowed before Chair begins to count for 
            support, Sec. 33.20
        withdrawal of, cannot be made conditional, Sec. 33.23
        yeas and nays, as different from, Sec. 33 introduction
        yeas and nays, demand for denied, demand for recorded vote in 
            order, Sec. 33.3
        yeas and nays, if withdrawn permits demand for recorded vote, 
            Sec. Sec. 33.2, 33.4
        yeas and nays, once taken preclude demand, Sec. 33 introduction
    determining presence of a majority, Sec. 8.2
    division vote, as related to
        count not to be interrupted by demand for recorded vote, 
            Sec. 10.4
        demand not in order while Chair counting for a division vote, 
            Sec. 33.19

[[Page 11927]]

        not required before demand, Sec. 9.3
    historical development
        generally, Sec. 30 introduction
        procedures, old form, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 34.1
    ordering, one-fifth of a quorum, Sec. 30 introduction, Sec. 33 
        introduction, Sec. 34.2
    preceded by voice vote always, Sec. 7.1
    precedence
        as compared to motion to rise, Sec. Sec. 33.14, 33.15
        as compared to point of no quorum, Sec. 3.13
    procedure, Sec. 34.2
    tellers with clerks, as historical predecessor, Sec. 30 
        introduction
    vote, comes too late after announcement of result, Sec. 35.5
    yea and nay votes, as related to
        Chair's statement of demand for yeas and nays controlling 
            despite Member's request for recorded vote, Sec. 2.2
        demand for, as different from, Sec. 33 introduction
        demand for, if denied, does not preclude demand for recorded 
            vote, Sec. 33.3
        demand for, if withdrawn, does not preclude demand for recorded 
            vote, Sec. 33.2
        demand for, not precluded by taking of a recorded vote, 
            historically, Sec. 30.3
        once taken, precludes demand for recorded vote, Sec. 33 
            introduction
        recorded vote used in Committee of the Whole, where yea and nay 
            vote not permitted, Sec. 30.1
Reduced voting time (see also Postponement of votes)
    Chairman's authority, discretionary, Sec. 57.6
    clusters, several postponed, only first vote in first cluster gets 
        15 minutes, all others get five, Sec. 57.3
    Committee of the Whole, Chairman's authority in the, Sec. 57.6
    Committee of the Whole may not reduce voting time for House, 
        Sec. 58.6
    historical development, Sec. 57.2
    House, Speaker's authority in the, Sec. Sec. 57.1-57.5
    Speaker's authority discretionary--may rescind announced intention, 
        Sec. 57.1
    unanimous consent
        decrease first postponed vote to five minutes where it occurred 
            immediately following passage of another measure, Sec. 57.4
        reduce five-minute votes to two-minute votes, Sec. 57.5
Required types of votes on certain questions
    appropriations, general--yeas and nays, Sec. 23 introduction
    August recess in odd-numbered years--yeas and nays, Sec. Sec. 1.3, 
        1.4
    authorities
        Constitution, Sec. 1 introduction, Sec. 23 introduction
    House rule, Sec. 1 introduction, Sec. 23 introduction
    statute, Sec. 23 introduction
    budget resolution or conference report thereon, adoption by yeas 
        and nays, Sec. 23 introduction
    constitutional amendments
        amending ratification deadline in a resolution for a proposed 
            amendment already submitted to the states, majority vote 
            required, Sec. 1.5
    submitting to the states, two-thirds present and voting required, 
        Sec. Sec. 1.5, 5.2

[[Page 11928]]

    federal income tax rate increases--yeas and nays, three-fifths, 
        Sec. 5.6, Sec. 23 introduction
    Presidential reorganization plans require majority of authorized 
        membership voting in affirmative, may be passed by voice, 
        division, or yea and nay vote, Sec. 8.2
    reconsideration of veto--yeas and nays, two-thirds, Sec. 23 
        introduction, Sec. 23.2
    Senate amendments--not required, Sec. 1.2
    veto override--yeas and nays, two-thirds, Sec. 23 introduction, 
        Sec. 23.2
Resident Commissioner voting
    authorized by rule in the 103d Congress, Sec. 59.1
    committee deliberations, Sec. 59 introduction
    Committee of the Whole, Sec. 59 constitutionality
        affirmed by courts, Sec. 59.2
        debated in the House, Sec. 59.1
    repealed by rule in the 104th Congress, Sec. 59.3
Resolutions
    preamble, resolutions with, voting procedures, Sec. Sec. 2.6-2.8
Roll call vote, see Recorded vote; ``Viva voce'' vote; Yea and nay vote
Senate amendments
    conference proceedings on
    conferees, motion to instruct, to agree to Senate amendment with 
        further amendment, not divisible, Sec. 45.1
        conference committee, motion to recommit with instructions, not 
            divisible, Sec. 45.2
    motion to concur, division of the question
        allowed by special rule, Sec. 48.1
        not divisible, Sec. 44.2
    motion to recede and concur, division of the question
        divisible, Sec. 52.1
        order of voting, the question comes first on receding, 
            Sec. 52.5
        order of voting, while motion to adhere pending, the question 
            comes first on the motion to recede, Sec. 52.6
        precedence once divided, a motion to concur with an amendment 
            takes precedence over the divided motion to concur, 
            Sec. 52.7
        precedence once divided, the House takes up the motion to 
            recede and then the motion to concur, an intervening motion 
            to concur with an amendment, having been rejected, 
            Sec. Sec. 52.2, 52.8
        precedence once divided, the motion to recede having been 
            agreed to, and a motion to concur with an amendment and a 
            motion to concur having been rejected the House, on a new 
            motion, voted to insist on disagreement, Sec. 52.3
        procedure once divided, the motion to recede having been 
            rejected, a motion to insist on disagreement would be in 
            order, Sec. 52.9
        procedure once divided, the proponent of the motion, not the 
            Member demanding the division of the question, controls the 
            floor, Sec. 52.11
        procedure, once divided, time for debate, Sec. 52.12
        with an amendment, divisible only between receding and then 
            concurring with an amendment, Sec. 52.4
        with an amendment, pending when preferential motion to recede 
            and concur offered and divided, becomes inoperative if 
            House votes to recede, Sec. 52.10

[[Page 11929]]

    voting in the House, no vote required if no one objects to 
        unanimous-consent request to concur in, Sec. 1.2
Separate votes in the House, order of voting
    separate demands do not effect order, Sec. 58.2
    special rule providing ``King of the Mountain'' procedure allows 
        separate vote only on the amendment considered as adopted, 
        Sec. 58.5
    special rule setting order of consideration in Committee of the 
        Whole, affects consideration in the House, Sec. 58.4
    taken in the order in which they appear in the bill, Sec. 58.1
    unanimous consent allows changes in order, Sec. 58.3
Speaker Pro Tempore
    abstention creating tie, Sec. 15.7
    voting practice explained, Sec. 15.7
Speaker's authority
    clarify parliamentary situation and allow Members to change votes, 
        Sec. 39.3
    count of those supporting demand, Sec. Sec. 26.4-26.10
    counting self for quorum, Sec. 29.6
    discretion to choose voting method, Sec. 1 introduction
    division vote, may order without demand, Sec. 9.1
    electronic system failure, to direct clerks to call the roll, 
        Sec. 34.3
    postpone votes
        generally, see Postponement of votes changing announced time, 
            Sec. 54.3
        until a time to be determined, Sec. 54.4
    reduce voting time
        generally, see Reduced voting time
        authority discretionary, may rescind announcement, Sec. 57.1
    statement of demand for yeas and nays controlling despite Member's 
        request for recorded vote, Sec. 2.2
    tie votes, Sec. Sec. 15.1, 29.3, 29.4
    voting
        as decisive, Sec. Sec. 29.3, 29.4
        as non-decisive, Sec. 29.5
        procedure, Sec. 29 introduction, Sec. Sec. 29.1, 29.2
States, roll call by
    to elect President under 12th amendment, Sec. 1.1
    to establish quorum on opening day, Sec. 1 introduction
Stating the question, see Question
Statutory mandates for votes, see Required votes
Straw poll, see Support, show of
Super majority (see also Required votes; Two-thirds vote)
    constitutionality of debated, Sec. 5.3
    Corrections Calendar, see Corrections Calendar
    defined, Sec. 1 introduction
    income tax rate increase requires, Sec. Sec. 5.6, 5.7
    requirement waived by special order, Sec. 5.8
    three-fifths, used in House
        for Corrections Calendar measure, Sec. 5.5
        for federal income tax rate increase, Sec. Sec. 5.6, 5.7
Support, show of, Member not allowed to ask for, Sec. 2.3
Suspension of the rules
    motions, new, take precedence over postponed proceedings on motions 
        to suspend, Sec. 55.2
    question not divisible, Sec. 50.1
    questions of privilege may interrupt postponed proceedings on 
        suspensions motions, Sec. 55.1

[[Page 11930]]

    requires a two-thirds vote, Sec. 5.2
    suspension of the rules, Speaker may announce intention to postpone 
        proceedings on demands for roll call votes at any time, 
        Sec. 54.2
Tax
    federal income tax rate increase requires three-fifths vote, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.6, 5.7, Sec. 23 introduction
    super-majority requirement, constitutionality debated, Sec. 5.3
Teller votes
    announcement of results
        does not preclude demand if Member making demand seeking 
            recognition before announcement, Sec. 17.2
    appointment of tellers
        Chair may appoint new tellers on recount, Sec. 22.5
        Chair's discretion, Sec. 19.1
        opposite sides of the question, Members from, usually, 
            Sec. 19.2
        point of order against tellers on same side of question led 
            Chair to replace a teller, Sec. 19.3
        point of order comes too late once count has begun, Sec. 19.4
    Chair, see also tie votes
        appoint new tellers for recount, Sec. 22.5
        appointment of tellers within discretion of, Sec. 19.1
        count of those rising to order by Chair not subject to appeal, 
            Sec. 22.1
        direct recount on own authority if tellers in doubt, 
            Sec. Sec. 22.3, 22.4
        vote any time prior to announcement of the vote, Sec. 21.2
        vote even if not decisive, Sec. 21.6
        vote to break tie prior to announcement of the vote, Sec. 21.3
        vote without passing through tellers, Sec. 21.1
    Committee of the Whole
        once tellers ordered, rising of Committee notwithstanding, 
            unanimous consent required to vacate the order for tellers, 
            Sec. 18.5
        rise, motion to, in order, appointment of tellers 
            notwithstanding, Sec. 18.4, 18.6
    demand for
        count to determine presence of a quorum, not to be made during, 
            Sec. 17.12
        division vote announcement preceding, Sec. 17.1
        not too late following motion that the Committee rise, where 
            Member making motion not recognized by Chair, Sec. 17.6
        once made, may not be renewed on same question, an intervening 
            division vote notwithstanding, Sec. 17.3
        point of no quorum and establishment of quorum, leave demand as 
            pending, Sec. 17.7
        point of no quorum on a division vote preceding, 
            Sec. Sec. 17.9, 17.10
        rising of Committee leaves demand as pending once sitting 
            resumes, Sec. 17.8
        seeking recognition before announcement of result, Member, may 
            still make, Sec. 17.2
        yeas and nays, demand for, refused, prior to, Sec. 18.2
        yeas and nays, simultaneous demand supersedes, Sec. 17.4
    disclosure of results
        Members' positions not to be disclosed in debate, Sec. 16.5
        party division may be disclosed in debate, Sec. 16.5
        press not precluded from disclosing, Sec. 16.6

[[Page 11931]]

    division votes, as related to
        adjournment, agreed to by division vote, demand for tellers 
            having been rejected, Sec. 13.1
        announcement of division vote, preceding demand for tellers, 
            Sec. 17.1
        division vote, following refused demand for tellers, does not 
            make second demand for tellers in order, Sec. 17.3
        objection to division vote on grounds that quorum is not 
            present takes precedence over a demand for tellers, 
            Sec. Sec. 17.5, 18.3
        parliamentary inquiry following division does not preclude 
            demand for tellers, Sec. 13.3
        point of no quorum and call of the House following division 
            vote, does not preclude demand for tellers, Sec. 13.4
        point of no quorum and withdrawal of such point following 
            division does not preclude demand for tellers, Sec. 13.5
        point of no quorum on preceding division does not preclude, 
            Sec. Sec. 13.6-13.8, 17.9, 17.10
        tellers having been refused and the pending question having 
            been rejected, a demand for division vote comes too late, 
            Sec. 9.10
    historically, Sec. 16 introduction
    obsolete procedure, Sec. 16 introduction
    ordered by, Sec. 16 introduction, Sec. 18.1
    parliamentary inquiries, Chair has declined to entertain during the 
        count by the tellers, Sec. 20.1
    point of order allowed during count if concerning the conduct of 
        the vote, Sec. 20.1
    precedence, as compared to
        demand for yeas and nays, Sec. 17.4
        motion to rise from Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 17.8, 
            18.4, 18.6
        objection to division vote on grounds that quorum is not 
            present, Sec. 11.6
    procedural questions, used to decide, Sec. 16.1
    procedure, see also appointment of tellers, Sec. 16 introduction
    quorum
        absence of quorum prevented Chair from announcing adoption, 
            allowing demand for tellers, Sec. 17.11
        Chair's count of, not subject to verification by tellers, 
            Sec. 17.13
        demand not in order during Chair's count to determine presence 
            of a quorum, Sec. 17.12
        point of no quorum, following demand, leaves demand pending 
            once quorum has been established, Sec. Sec. 17.7, 18.3
        point of no quorum made and withdrawn on division vote not 
            affecting right to demand tellers, Sec. 17.10
        quorum call following a division vote not affecting right to 
            demand tellers, Sec. Sec. 17.9, 18.3
        recapitulation, teller vote not subject to, Sec. 22.2
    recount
        Chair has discretion to order, when tellers in doubt, 
            Sec. Sec. 22.3, 22.4
        Chair may appoint new tellers for, Sec. 22.5
        Chair's count of those rising to order tellers not subject to 
            challenge, Sec. 22.1
        Members entitled to vote on recount even if not voting on first 
            count, Sec. 22.6
    substantive questions, used to decide, Sec. 16.2
    tellers, see appointment of tellers

[[Page 11932]]

    tie votes
        as defeating the question, Sec. 16.3
        Chair may cast vote to make or break tie prior to his 
            announcement of the vote, Sec. Sec. 21.3-21.5
    time limits on debate, time for teller vote counts against, 
        Sec. 16.4
    yea and nay vote, as related to
        demand for the yeas and nays not in order while the Chair is 
            counting for support of a demand for tellers, Sec. 25.5
        demand for yeas and nays takes precedence over simultaneous 
            demand for tellers, Sec. 17.4
        disposition of demand for tellers does not make second demand 
            for yeas and nays in order, Sec. Sec. 25.1, 25.2
        ordering of tellers does not preclude demand for yeas and nays 
            so long as count has not begun, Sec. 24.4
        tellers ordered where demand for yeas and nays refused, 
            Sec. 18.2
Tellers with clerks, as historical predecessor to recorded votes, 
    Sec. 30 introduction
Three-fifths vote
    constitutionality of debated, Sec. 5.3
    Corrections Calendar
        measures called up on, subject to, Sec. 5.4
        procedure first used, Sec. 5.5
    defined, Sec. 1 introduction
    income tax rate increase requires, Sec. 5.6
    requirement waived by special order, Sec. 5.8
    used in House
        for Corrections Calendar measure, Sec. 5.5
        for federal income tax rate increase, Sec. 5.7
Tie votes
    Chair may cast vote to make or break tie prior to his announcement 
        of the vote, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 15.4, 15.6, 21.3-21.5
    demands following, Sec. 15.3, 15.5
    measure lost, Sec. 5 introduction, Sec. 16.3
    Speaker Pro Tempore, abstention of, as creating tie, Sec. 15.7
    Speaker's decisive vote, Sec. Sec. 5.1, 15.1, 29.3, 29.4
    Speaker's responsibility, Sec. 5 introduction
Timeliness of demands, see Demanding votes
Two-thirds vote
    generally, Sec. 5.2
    constitutional amendments
        amending ratification deadlines in resolution proposing 
            constitutional amendments already submitted to the states, 
            two-thirds vote not required, Sec. 1.5
        submitting to the states-two-thirds present and voting, 
            Sec. 5.2
    defined, Sec. 1 introduction
    pairs, as related to, Sec. Sec. 4.12, 4.13
    reconsideration of vetoed measure, Sec. 5.2
    suspending the rules, Sec. 5.2
    veto override, Sec. 5.2
Unanimous consent
    generally, Sec. 1 introduction
    obviating need for vote, Sec. 1.2
Veto
    announcement regarding intention to vote on override had Member 
        been present, Sec. 41.4
    override requires two-thirds vote, Sec. 5.2
Viva voce vote
    distinguished from voice vote, Sec. 7 introduction
    prescribed by Rule II, Sec. 7 introduction
    to elect Speaker, Sec. 7 introduction
Voice votes
    announcement of result
    Chair's not subject to review, Sec. 7.2

[[Page 11933]]

    Member not agreeing with Chair's, Sec. 7 introduction
        not preempting demand for division, teller, or recorded vote if 
            Member seeking recognition before announcement, 
            Sec. Sec. 9.5, 9.6
    challenging result, see announcement of result; result in doubt
    count by Chair, see announcement of result
    definition of, Sec. 7 introduction
    determining presence of a majority, Sec. 8.2
    form prescribed by Rule I, Sec. 7 introduction
    prelude to other type of vote, Sec. 7 introduction
    recorded vote, as related to
        failure to put before recorded vote, Sec. 7.1
        required prior to demand for recorded vote, Sec. 7.1
    result in doubt
        by Member, Sec. 7 introduction
        by Speaker, Sec. 7 introduction
    uncertain result
        Speaker may take division vote, Sec. 8 introduction
    yea and nay vote, as related to
        required prior to demand for yeas and nays, Sec. 7.1
Votes (see also Required votes)
    future, type to be determined by House, not Speaker, Sec. 26.3
    not generally required if no objection made to unanimous-consent 
        request, Sec. 1.2
    Speaker's discretion as to type, Sec. 1 introduction
Voting by division, see Division vote
Voting by teller, see Teller votes
Voting by tellers with clerks, see Recorded votes
Voting by voice, see Voice votes
Voting by yeas and nays, see Yeas and nays
Voting, time consumed by, where debate is fixed by clock, voting time 
    deducted from time available, Sec. 16.4
Voting ``viva voce,'' see Viva voce vote
Withdrawal of vote, see Duty of Members to vote; Pairs
Yeas and nays
    announcement of result
        Speaker has postponed to clarify parliamentary situation and 
            allow Members to change their votes, Sec. 39.3
        votes may not be cast after, Member's presence in Chamber 
            notwithstanding, Sec. 36.4
    appropriations, general, passage of requires, Sec. 23 introduction
    budget resolution or conference report adoption requires, Sec. 23 
        introduction
    Committee of the Whole, not permitted in, Sec. 30.2
    confusion regarding parliamentary situation clarified by Chair 
        before announcement of results to allow Members to change their 
        votes, Sec. 39.3
    considered as ordered, Rule XV, cl. 7, Sec. 23 introduction
    Constitution requires, for passage over President's veto, Sec. 23.2
    demand for (see also ordering)
        Chair's counting of those rising on division vote, not to be 
            interrupted by, Sec. 10.3
        Chair's counting of those rising to support a demand for 
            tellers, not to be interrupted by, Sec. 25.5
        intervening business precludes, Sec. Sec. 24.6, 24.7
        once made, not in order again on same question, disposition of 
            demand for tellers, notwithstanding, Sec. Sec. 25.1, 25.2

[[Page 11934]]

        one-fifth of those present must support, Sec. 23.1
        recorded vote on the same question does not preclude, Sec. 30.3
        second demand on same question not in order, Sec. 25.3
        seeking recognition prior to announcement, Member may make, 
            Chair's recognition of a Member offering a unanimous-
            consent request notwithstanding, Sec. 24.2
        seeking recognition prior to announcement, Member may make, 
            intervention of objection for lack of a quorum and Chair's 
            count notwithstanding, Sec. 24.3
        Speaker's count of those supporting demand, Sec. Sec. 26.4-
            26.10
        Speaker's inclusion of self in count resulted in failure of 
            second for yeas and nays, Sec. 14.3
        tellers, ordering of, does not preclude demand, so long as 
            count has not begun, Sec. 24.4
        withdrawal, not allowed once ordered, but unanimous consent to 
            vacate and take de novo allowed, Sec. 33.24
        withdrawal of, not possible after yeas and nays ordered by one-
            fifth of those present, Sec. 24.8
    division vote, as related to
        demand for yeas and nays not in order while Chair counting, 
            Sec. 10.3
        demand for yeas and nays on preferential motion after tied 
            division vote, Sec. 14.2
        precedence of demand for yeas and nays over demand for a 
            division, Sec. 14.1
        Senate demand for yeas and nays comes too late after request 
            that Chair announce the results of a division, Sec. 14.4
        yeas and nays automatically ordered, in House, on objection for 
            lack of a quorum on division vote, may be postponed by 
            previous unanimous-consent agreement, Sec. 11.14
    electronic voting system, as related to, Sec. 23 introduction
        when fails, Chair may direct clerks to call the role, Sec. 34.3
    federal income tax rate increases, Sec. 23 introduction
    ordering
        considered as ordered on certain questions, Sec. 23 
            introduction
        on dispensing further proceedings under a quorum call, 
            Sec. 26.2
        on previous question on approval of the Journal, Sec. 26.1
        one-fifth of those present, Sec. 23.1
        one-fifth of those present, different from one-fifth of those 
            voting on immediately preceding division vote, Sec. 14.3
        Speaker's count of those supporting demand, Sec. Sec. 26.4-
            26.10
        without request, Sec. 7.1
    preceded by voice vote always, Sec. 7.1
    precedence
        as compared to simple motion to adjourn, Sec. 24.5
        over demand for division in the House, Sec. 14.1
        over demand for recorded vote, Sec. 2.2
        over demand for tellers, Sec. 24.1
    publishing Members votes required, Sec. 23 introduction
    reconsideration of veto, Sec. 23 introduction
    recorded vote, as related to
        Chair's statement of demand for yeas and nays controlling 
            despite Member's request for recorded vote, Sec. 2.2
        demand for as different from, Sec. 33 introduction
        demand for, if denied, does not preclude demand for recorded 
            vote, Sec. 33.3
        demand for, if withdrawn, does not preclude demand for recorded 
            vote, Sec. 33.2

[[Page 11935]]

        demand for not precluded by taking of a recorded vote, 
            historically, Sec. 30.3
        once taken, precludes demand for recorded vote, Sec. 33 
            introduction
        recorded vote used in Committee of the Whole, where yea and nay 
            vote not permitted, Sec. 30.1
    required on certain questions
        appropriations, general, Sec. 23 introduction
        budget resolution or conference report adoption, Sec. 23 
            introduction
        by Constitution, Sec. 23 introduction
        by House rule, Sec. 23 introduction
        by statute, Sec. 23 introduction
        closing a conference meeting, Sec. 23 introduction
        federal income tax rate increases, Sec. 23 introduction
        reconsideration of veto, Sec. 23 introduction
        veto override, Sec. 23 introduction, Sec. 23.2
    roll call
        parliamentary inquiry may interrupt, Sec. 27.1
        unanimous-consent request may not interrupt, Sec. 27.2
    Speaker voting
        as decisive, Sec. Sec. 29.3, 29.4
        as nondecisive, Sec. 29.5
        procedure, Sec. 29 introduction
        quorum, Speaker's vote establishing, Sec. 29.6
        under Clerk's call of the roll, Sec. 29.1
        under electronic system, Sec. 29.2
    teller vote, as related to
        demand for the yeas and nays not in order while the Chair is 
            counting for support of a demand for tellers, Sec. 25.5
        demand for the yeas and nays takes precedence over a demand for 
            tellers, Sec. 17.4
        disposition of demand for tellers does not make second demand 
            for yeas and nays in order, Sec. Sec. 25.1, 25.2
        ordering of tellers does not preclude demand for yeas and nays 
            so long as count has not begun, Sec. 24.4
        tellers ordered where demand for yeas and nays refused, 
            Sec. 18.2
    veto override requires, Sec. 23.2
    vote
        comes too late once result has been announced, Members presence 
            in the Chamber notwithstanding, Sec. Sec. 36.1-36.3
    when required, see required on certain questions