[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[B. Parliamentary Inquiries]
[Â§ 15. When in Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12468-12484]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                 B. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
 
Sec. 15. When in Order

    Parliamentary inquiries are generally in order at any time, subject 
to the Chair's discretionary power of recognition. However, a Member 
who has the floor may not be interrupted by a parliamentary inquiry 
without his consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 15.1-15.3, infra, and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a Member does yield for a parliamentary inquiry while he has the 
floor, the time consumed by the inquiry and reply is taken out of his 
time.(15) And there are times when the Chair will not 
entertain an inquiry because of the occasion, as during the reading of 
the President's message on the state of the Union.(16) The 
Chair has also declined to accept parliamentary inquiries when a point 
of no quorum is pending,(17) during a roll 
call,(18) or during a teller (19) or division 
vote,(20) although there are exceptions permitting the 
asking of a parliamentary inquiry at such times as, for example, when 
the roll has been called but no Member has as yet responded to his 
name,(1) or inquiries relating to the conduct of the vote 
itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 15.4, 15.5, infra, and Ch. 29, supra.
16. See Sec. 15.10, infra.
17. See Sec. 15.12, infra.
18. See Sec. 15.13, infra, and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3132.
19. See Sec. 15.17, infra.
20. See Sec. 15.19, infra.
 1. See Sec. 15.16, infra.

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

Interruption of Members in Debate

Sec. 15.1 A Member may not be taken from the floor by a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

    On July 22, 1965,(2) Chairman John J. Rooney, of New 
York, advised Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, that he could not ask 
a parliamentary inquiry while another Member had the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 17931, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8283, amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1965. 
        See also106 Cong. Rec. 11267, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dent: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield 
    for that purpose.
        Mr. Dent: Mr. Chairman, under the rules I demand recognition 
    for a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman [Mr. Ayres, of Ohio] declines to 
    yield.
        The gentleman will proceed.

Sec. 15.2 One Member may not submit a parliamentary inquiry while 
    another Member

[[Page 12469]]

    has the floor without his consent.

    On July 25, 1935,(3) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, during an acrimonious exchange between Mr. Thomas L. 
Blanton, of Texas, and Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, found it 
necessary to remind the Members that a parliamentary inquiry may not 
interrupt a Member without his consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 11864, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: . . . Oh, there is plenty for the gentleman to do 
    if the gentleman would only do it. There is plenty here at home for 
    him to look after, if he would protect our home folks and would 
    attend to his own business, and let foreign governments attend to 
    their own business.
        Mr. Dickstein (from his seat): Why do you not attend to your 
    own business?

        Mr. Blanton: I am attending to mine and am performing a good 
    job.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas will suspend. It is 
    distinctly against the rules for a gentleman in his seat to 
    interrupt a Member who is speaking. . . .
        The rules provide that a Member must rise and address the 
    Chair. . . .
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York cannot take the 
    gentleman from Texas off his feet by a parliamentary inquiry 
    without his consent.

    Similarly on Mar. 13, 1936,(4) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, 
of Tennessee, reiterated the right of a Member to speak without 
interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 3720, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H. 
        Res. 447, entitled investigation of old age pension schemes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Washington that the Chair is now entertaining a point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Montana, and cannot recognize the gentleman 
    from Washington to submit another point of order.
        Mr. [Marion A.] Zioncheck [of Washington]: I rise to a question 
    of personal privilege then.
        The Speaker: The Chair declines to recognize the gentleman for 
    that purpose while the gentleman from Montana has the floor.
        The gentleman from Montana will proceed.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Wisconsin cannot take the 
    gentleman from Montana off the floor by a parliamentary inquiry. If 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin will permit the gentleman from Montana 
    to proceed in order, perhaps this matter can be disposed of in a 
    very few minutes.

Sec. 15.3 A Member recognized by the Chair may be interrupted by a 
    demand that his words be taken down, but he may decline to yield 
    for a par

[[Page 12470]]

    liamentary inquiry about his words.

    Chairman Barney Frank, of Massachusetts, clarified the rights of a 
Member holding the floor in debate when another Member attempted to be 
recognized for a parliamentary inquiry. The proceedings of July 13, 
1989,(5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 135 Cong. Rec. 14633, 14634, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: No, I will not yield. I 
    only have an additional minute.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mrazek: I will not yield.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman used my name.
        The Chairman: The gentleman says that he will not yield.
        Mr. Mrazek: I will not yield, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has stated he will not yield, and 
    the gentleman does not yield for that purpose.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: But I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not yielded to the gentleman 
    from Alaska for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry. The 
    gentleman from New York will proceed.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that I have 
    to have permission from a Member on the floor before I can make a 
    parliamentary inquiry of the Chairman?
        The Chairman: Yes, if that Member has the floor.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: That is a new rule, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: For the information of the Members of the House, 
    the Chair will point out that one Member cannot make a 
    parliamentary inquiry when another Member is speaking without that 
    Member's yielding. When the floor is not occupied, one may make a 
    parliamentary inquiry of the Chair's discretion. The Chair wishes 
    to point that out for the benefit of the gentleman from Alaska.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman refers to 
    another gentleman, is it not true that he can ask the Chair for a 
    point of order or a parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman: No. The Chair will state that at that point, if 
    the gentleman wishes to have the gentleman's words taken down, he 
    does not need the gentleman's permission.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: I would not do that, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has confused two points. A 
    parliamentary inquiry requires the permission of the Member 
    occupying the floor. An objection to his words and a request that 
    they be taken down does not require his permission.

Time Used in Making Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 15.4 Although a Member may not be interrupted by an

[[Page 12471]]

    other for a parliamentary inquiry without his consent, if he does 
    yield for a parliamentary inquiry, the time consumed by the inquiry 
    and reply is taken out of his time.

    On May 26, 1960,(6) Mr. Donald R. Matthews, of Florida, 
declined to yield for a parliamentary inquiry while he had the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 106 Cong. Rec. 11267, 11268, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 110 Cong. 
        Rec. 1998, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 5, 1964 [under 
        consideration was H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963]; 81 
        Cong. Rec. 3283-90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1937 [under 
        consideration was H. Res. 83, involving an investigation of un-
        American activities].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Matthews: Mr. Chairman, the poet, Robert Frost, in his 
    poem, ``Road Not Taken,'' starts out with these lines----
        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Matthews: Will it be taken out of my time?
        The Chairman: It will be taken out of the gentleman's time.
        Mr. Matthews: I regret I cannot yield to my beloved 
    colleague.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. For further discussion of charging time in debate, see Ch. 29, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.5 Where a Member to whom time has been yielded for a portion of 
    general debate yields for a parliamentary inquiry, the time 
    consumed in answering the inquiry comes out of the time for debate.

    On Sept. 25, 1975,(9) Mr. Edward J. Derwinski, of 
Illinois, who was controlling part of the time allotted for general 
debate on a measure under consideration in Committee of the Whole, 
yielded time for debate. The following inquiry then was directed to the 
Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 30196, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Alabama (Mr. Buchanan).
        (Mr. Buchanan asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Buchanan: May I ask whether the making of this 
    parliamentary inquiry is taken out of my time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it will be taken out of 
    the gentleman's time.

Time Used in Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 15.6 Time consumed on a parliamentary inquiry is

[[Page 12472]]

    counted against that of the Member controlling the floor who yields 
    for that purpose.

    On May 5, 1988,(11) during consideration of an amendment 
to the Defense authorization bill, fiscal 1988, the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Armed Services was controlling time on a 
pending amendment. Another Member asked that he yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 134 Cong. Rec. 9935, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] Aucoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) Does the gentleman 
    from Alabama yield for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, if it 
    does not come out of my time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: It does come out of the time of the 
    gentleman from Alabama.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, then I will not yield.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Alabama declines 
    to yield.

Sec. 15.7 The time used by a Member in posing a rhetorical question and 
    waiting for an answer comes out of the time he has been allotted 
    for debate.

    A rhetorical question addressed to those present in the Chamber, 
like a parliamentary inquiry addressed to the Chair, comes out of the 
time of the Member holding the floor. The proceedings of June 27, 
1990,(13) are illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 136 Cong. Rec. 15821, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Traficant [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the House agree that my question be posed to 
    anyone who can answer it, and I have 10 calendar days to receive 
    such an answer.
        The Chairman: (14) That is not a proper question to 
    be made in the Committee of the Whole at this time. The gentleman 
    is still recognized under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Traficant: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    because no one would answer my question that that time not be 
    subtracted from my 10 minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Ohio, in 
    propounding the question it is a procedure that he is entitled to 
    make, and therefore is, in fact, deducted from his time. The 
    gentleman is still recognized in support of his amendment under the 
    rule.

Time Consumed by Parliamentary Inquiry Prior to Recognition

Sec. 15.8 When the Chair entertains a parliamentary in

[[Page 12473]]

    quiry before a Member who has called up a measure in the House has 
    been recognized for debate, the time consumed by the inquiry is not 
    deducted from the time to be allocated to the manager of the 
    measure.

    On Oct. 8, 1986,(15) it was demonstrated that where both 
the majority and minority managers of a conference report are in favor 
of the report, a Member opposed to the report may claim one-third of 
the time. An inquiry concerning the application of Rule XXVIII clause 
2, intervened between the calling up of the report and the beginning of 
debate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 132 Cong. Rec. 29714, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Conference Report on H.R. 2005, Superfund Amendments and 
                        Reauthorization Act of 1986

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the provisions of House Joint Resolution 577, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 2005) to amend title II of the 
    Social Security Act and related provisions of law to make minor 
    improvements and necessary technical changes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) Pursuant to the rule, 
    the conference report is considered as having been read. (For 
    conference report, see proceedings of the House of Friday, October 
    3, 1986.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will be recognized for 1 hour 
    and 45 minutes and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lent) will be 
    recognized for 1 hour and 45 minutes.

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, may I be 
    recognized?
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, is the time that is now being used 
    being taken out of the time that is fixed under the rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has not been recognized 
    yet, so this time is not being taken out of the gentleman's time.
        Mr. Crane: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to whether the 
    majority or minority managers of this conference report are opposed 
    to it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Lent) opposed?
        Mr. [Norman F.] Lent [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
    from New York is supportive of the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Crane) would be entitled to one-third of the time if he opposes.
        Mr. Crane: Mr. Speaker, I do oppose, and under clause 2, rule 
    XXVIII, as leader of the opposition, I will be reserved 1 hour and 
    10 minutes?

[[Page 12474]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois will be 
    entitled to that time.
        Mr. Crane: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Dingell: I understand, under the ruling of the Chair, that 
    the time is apportioned, one-third to the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Crane), or some Member in opposition to the legislation; one-
    third to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lent); and one-third to 
    myself for subsequent apportionment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

Before Approval of Journal

Sec. 15.9 The Speaker has entertained a parliamentary inquiry relating 
    to the order of business before the approval of the Journal.

    On Feb. 28, 1979,(17) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, was about to announce his approval of the Journal when 
the following inquiry intervened:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 3465, 3466, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman from Maryland 
    decides whether, under clause 1, rule I, he would like to ask for a 
    vote on the approval of the Journal, as that rule provides, could 
    the Chair tell us whether or not he will entertain a motion for a 
    call of the House and at what point he might entertain such a 
    motion today?
        Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it is his understanding the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Brademas) intends to move a call of the 
    House.
        Mr. Bauman: So, Mr. Speaker, there will be a call after the 1-
    minute speeches?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair.

                                The Journal

        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.

During Reading of Presidential Message

Sec. 15.10 Parliamentary inquiries are not necessarily entertained 
    during the reading of the President's message on the state of the 
    Union.

    On Jan. 21, 1946,(18) the Chair declined to entertain a 
parliamen

[[Page 12475]]

tary inquiry during the reading of the message of the President on the 
state of the Union and the budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 164, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania] (interrupting the 
    reading of the message): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Clerk read a 
    message from the President of the United States, and the Chair 
    feels that an inquiry at this time should not be 
    entertained.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
20. Parliamentarian's Note: The President's message contained 
        approximately 25,000 words and took about three hours to read. 
        Under the modern practice, the reading of a Presidential 
        message of such length would be done ``scientifically''--in 
        abbreviated form-to shorten the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for Inquiries on Amendments

Sec. 15.11 The Chair does not respond to a parliamentary inquiry 
    concerning the propriety of an amendment until the amendment is 
    offered.

    On June 28, 1967,(1) Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of 
Georgia, declined to pass upon the propriety of an amendment to an 
appropriation bill until the amendment was offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 17754, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10340, authorizing appropriations for the National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph E.] Karth [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Karth: Mr. Chairman, if that figure cannot be further 
    amended, and the gentleman chooses to pursue his amendment, and 
    change the figure on page 2, would it then be a proper amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair does not pass on that until an 
    amendment described by the gentleman from Minnesota is offered.

Inquiries Following Point of No Quorum

Sec. 15.12 The Chair need not recognize a Member to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry while a point of no quorum is pending.

    On July 23, 1942,(2) it was indicated that the Chair 
should decline to hear a parliamentary inquiry when a point of order of 
no quorum is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 88 Cong. Rec. 6540, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, may I ask 
    unanimous consent that we call up a resolution?
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.

[[Page 12476]]

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (3) The Chair doubts the authority of 
    the Chair to recognize the gentleman to propound a parliamentary 
    inquiry when a point of order is made unless the gentleman from 
    Texas withholds it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inquiries During Roll Calls and Votes

Sec. 15.13 The Speaker may in his discretion decline to permit a 
    parliamentary inquiry during a roll call.

    On Sept. 6, 1961,(4) Speaker Pro Tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, refused to recognize for a parliamentary 
inquiry during a roll call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 18256, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9000, the extension of Public Laws 815 and 875 and the 
        National Defense Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter F.] Mack [Jr., of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot recognize the 
    gentleman for a parliamentary inquiry during a rollcall.

Sec. 15.14 A roll call may be interrupted for a parliamentary inquiry 
    under the proper circumstances and at the discretion of the Chair.

    On Oct. 12, 1962,(5) there were repeated instances in 
which the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, permitted 
parliamentary inquiries to interrupt the roll call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 23433, 23434, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 12900, the public works appropriations 
        for fiscal 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (After completion of first call of the roll:)
        Mr. [William H.] Avery [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Kansas 
    rise?
        Mr. Avery: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Avery: What motion is the House presently voting on?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the parliamentary 
    inquiry is very pertinent. The Chair will state in response that 
    the House is voting on a motion which was made by the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] to recede and concur in a Senate 
    amendment, with an amendment.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, my motion was 
    for the previous question.
        The Speaker: The House is voting on a motion made by the 
    gentleman from Missouri to recede and concur in the Senate 
    amendment, with an amendment.
        That is the motion pending at the present time.
        The Clerk will proceed to call the roll of those Members who 
    failed to answer on the first rollcall.

[[Page 12477]]

        (The Clerk resumed calling the roll.)
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida] (interrupting call of the 
    roll): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Cramer: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the parliamentary 
    situation to be that the motion now being voted upon is a motion to 
    recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment, and a 
    vote ``no'' is a vote for $205,000 for the Florida Cross-State 
    Barge Canal planning, and a vote of ``aye'' is against it?
        The Speaker: The Chair has already stated that the 
    parliamentary inquiry is correct in response to the inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Avery]. The Chair is confident that the 
    Members know what they are voting upon.
        (The Clerk resumed calling the roll.)
        Mr. Hardy, Mr. Abbitt, Mr. Gathings, Mr. Ashbrook, Mr. Byrnes 
    of Wisconsin, and Mr. Gary changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
    ``yea.''Mr. Blatnik, Mr. Bow, and Mr. Avery changed their vote from 
    ``yea'' to ``nay.''
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa] (interrupting the rollcall): Mr. 
    Speaker, I demand the regular order.
        The Speaker: The regular order is proceeding.
        Mr. Gross (interrupting the rollcall): Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the well be cleared.
        The Speaker: Members will take their places out of the well. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma] (interrupting the 
    rollcall): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        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.)
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi] (interrupting the 
    rollcall): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, in the event that a quorum is shown 
    not to be present, what procedure is then left to the House?
        The Speaker: The House can wait until a quorum arrives, or a 
    motion to adjourn would be in order.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, is a quorum present?
        The Speaker: The rollcall has not as yet been completed.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a quorum only one 
    motion is in order, and that is to adjourn. I move that the House 
    now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The Chair has not announced the fact that a quorum 
    is not present as yet. At this point that motion is not in order.
        (The Clerk resumed calling the roll.)
        Mr. Edmondson (interrupting the rollcall): Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Edmondson: May a recess be declared in advance of the 
    completion of the vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that [in] the present 
    situation the

[[Page 12478]]

    Chair may not declare a recess with a rollcall in process.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the 
    Chair announce the vote.
        The Speaker: On this vote there were 84 yeas and 120 nays.
        So a quorum is not present.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The leadership had kept the House in 
session on this date, hoping that the two Houses might reach agreement 
on certain outstanding issues and adjourn sine die. The roll call on 
Mr. Cannon's motion was taken very slowly in order that all available 
Members, and hopefully a quorum of the House, might reach the Chamber. 
When the call had proceeded for over 50 minutes the Majority Leader 
asked the Speaker to announce the vote. When it appeared that a quorum 
was not present, the Majority Leader moved to adjourn.

Parliamentary Inquiry During a Roll Call

Sec. 15.15 Although the Chair ordinarily refuses to recognize for a 
    parliamentary inquiry during a roll call vote, the Chair may, in 
    his discretion, entertain an inquiry relating to the conduct of the 
    call.

    On Mar. 14, 1978,(6) a roll call vote was being taken by 
electronic device in the House on the approval of the Journal. Members 
were late in reaching the Chamber to record their votes, and the 
Speaker determined to allow voting stations to remain open a bit longer 
than was customary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 6840, 6841, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) Are there Members in 
    the Chamber who have failed to cast their votes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: 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

[[Page 12479]]

    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.
        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.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: 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. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: 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.

[[Page 12480]]

        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.

Sec. 15.16 Where no Member has as yet responded to his name during the 
    roll call, an interruption of the call for a parliamentary inquiry 
    may be permitted.

    On June 27, 1935,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, allowed a parliamentary inquiry after the Clerk had 
commenced calling the names on a roll call, although no Member had as 
yet responded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 10288, 10289, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8555, the Merchant Marine bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    McFarlane and Mr. O'Malley) there were--ayes 145, noes 131.
        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: 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: For what purpose does the gentleman from Maine 
    rise?
        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 had already begun the calling of the roll 
    and had 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.

Sec. 15.17 The Chair has refused to entertain a parliamentary inquiry 
    during a teller vote.

    On June 28, 1967,(9) Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of 
Georgia, informed Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, of Louisiana, that a 
parliamentary

[[Page 12481]]

inquiry would not be heard during a teller vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 17748, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10340, authorizing appropriations for the National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George P.] Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    tellers.
        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. Waggonner: 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.

Sec. 15.18 The Speaker may entertain a parliamentary inquiry after the 
    yeas and nays are ordered, but debate on the pending question is 
    not in order.

    On Oct. 25, 1967,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, entertained an inquiry after the yeas and nays were 
ordered, but he did not allow Mr. Robert N. Giaimo, of Connecticut, to 
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 29943, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11641, a public works appropriation for fiscal 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kirwan] that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to Senate amendment No. 2 and concur therein with an 
    amendment.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes of Arizona: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, is it the parliamentary situation at 
    the present time in regard to the amendment No. 2 such that it 
    would provide almost $1 billion for construction by the Corps of 
    Engineers, and that we are voting on these funds without the 
    $875,000 for Dickey-Lincoln?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House has before it 
    the motion by the gentleman from Ohio that the House recede from 
    its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2, and 
    concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the sum 
    proposed, insert ``$967,599,000''.
        Mr. Giaimo: In other words, Mr. Speaker, this takes out the 
    $875,000 for Dickey-Lincoln?
        The Speaker: That is not within the prerogative of the Chair to 
    state.
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, can we get an explanation from the 
    committee?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it is too late for that. 
    However, it is the understanding of the Chair that would be the 
    result.

Sec. 15.19 A Member may not interrupt a division vote with a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12482]]

    On Feb. 13, 1946,(11) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
offered a resolution raising a question of privilege of the House to 
correct the Congressional Record after another Member, Charles R. 
Savage, of Washington, had allegedly inserted something unauthorized 
therein. During the division vote demanded by Mr. Smith, Mr. Hugh De 
Lacy, of Washington, attempted to interpose a parliamentary inquiry, 
which Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 1274, 1275, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
        The House proceeded to divide.
        Mr. De Lacy (interrupting the division): Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The House is dividing now. Nothing else is in 
    order now.

Sec. 15.20 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,(12) after the request of Mr. John N. 
Erlenborn, of Illinois, for a division vote, but before the Chair 
called for the Members to rise, Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan, 
interposed a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 24457, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15111, economic opportunity amendments of 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Erlenborn] to the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken and the Chairman announced the Chair was 
    in doubt.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division.
        Mr. William D. Ford: 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,

[[Page 12483]]

    the Chair will state that the amendment may be offered later as a 
    separate amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiry Is Not ``Intervening Business'' Precluding Demand 
    for a Division Vote on a Pending Amendment

Sec. 15.21 A parliamentary inquiry as to the status of the Chair's 
    announcement of the result of a voice vote and the effect of the 
    adoption of an amendment on subsequent amendments which might be 
    offered is not such ``intervening business'' as to prevent a demand 
    for a division vote.

    During consideration of a bill for amendment under the five-minute 
rule in Committee of the Whole on Mar. 21, 1975,(14) some 
confusion was apparent about the status of pending amendments and the 
order of voting. A motion to strike out a paragraph in the section 
which was open for amendment and insert new language had been first 
offered, followed by a ``perfecting amendment'' which could have been 
construed as a substitute or as a perfecting amendment to the 
underlying text. The Chair treated the latter amendment as perfecting 
and it was adopted by a voice vote. The Chair then announced that the 
pending question was on the underlying motion to strike out and insert 
which had been offered by Mrs. Millicent Fenwick, of New Jersey. The 
Chair declared that the ayes had prevailed on a voice vote when a 
parliamentary inquiry intervened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 7950, 7952, 7953, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Fenwick: 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:
            ``(d) Not more than 50 per centum of the aggregate mortgage 
        amounts approved in appropriation Acts may be allocated (1) for 
        use with respect to existing previously occupied dwellings 
        which have not been substantially rehabilitated and (2) for use 
        with respect to new, unsold dwelling units the construction of 
        which commenced prior to the enactment of this Act. Not more 
        than 10 per centum of the aggregate mortgage amounts approved 
        in appropriation Acts may be allocated with respect to dwelling 
        units with appraised values in excess of $38,000.'' . . . 

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

[[Page 12484]]

        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will treat this 
    amendment as a perfecting amendment to the paragraph of the bill 
    and it will be voted on first. . . . 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 15. 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.
        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.
        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 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.

[[Page 12485]]