[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[F. Rising of the Committee of the Whole]
[Â§ 26. Resumption of Business After Committee Resumes Sitting]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3481-3486]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                F. RISING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 26. Resumption of Business After Committee Resumes Sitting

Continuation of Debate When Committee Resumes Business After Rising

Sec. 26.1 Where the period of time for debate has been fixed on an 
    amendment in the Committee of the Whole and the Committee rises 
    before the time expires, debate continues when the Committee 
    resumes its deliberations.

    On June 16, 1948,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6401, the Selective Service Act of 1948, under 
Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota. Time for debate had been 
fixed on an amendment by the Committee, but a motion to rise was 
offered before the time had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the fact that two or three Members who have time are not here, I 
    move that the Committee do now rise. . . .
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Chairman, under the arrangement entered 
    into limiting debate on this amendment, will the Members who were 
    scheduled to be recognized be recognized when the Committee resumes 
    its deliberations?
        The Chairman: They will be recognized, if the Committee should 
    vote to rise, when the Committee meets again.
        Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3482]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Andrews of New York: My understanding is that all those 
    gentlemen whose names are on the list will be recognized 
    immediately tomorrow.
        The Chairman: The statement of the gentleman from New York is 
    correct.

Resumption of Consideration After House Refusal to Strike Enacting 
    Clause

Sec. 26.2 When a recommendation of the Committee of the Whole that the 
    enacting clause of a bill be stricken is rejected by the House, the 
    House, without motion, resolves itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole for further consideration of the bill.

    On May 18, 1960,(16) during consideration of H.R. 5, the 
Foreign Investment Incentive Tax Act of 1960, the House without motion 
resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for further 
consideration of the bill after rejecting a Committee recommendation to 
strike out the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 106 Cong. Rec. 10577-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also, for example, 
        113 Cong. Rec. 8611, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 6, 1967 (H.R. 
        2512, revision of copyright laws); 111 Cong. Rec. 25418, 89th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1965 (H.R. 4644, providing home rule 
        for the District of Columbia); and 108 Cong. Rec. 22363, 87th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1962 (S. 1123, amending the Fair Labor 
        Standards Act), for other illustrations of this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gross moves that the Committee now rise and report the 
        bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
        clause be stricken out. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) . . . The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Gross) there were--ayes 101, noes 93.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Boggs and Mr. Gross.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 107, noes 101.
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Natcher, 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. 5) to amend the 
    Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage private investment 
    abroad and thereby promote American industry and reduce Government 
    expenditures for foreign economic assistance, had di

[[Page 3483]]

    rected him to report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Speaker: (18) The question is, Shall the 
    enacting clause be stricken out?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boggs: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken and there were--yeas 160, nays 232, not 
    voting 40. . . .
        So the enacting clause was not stricken out. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Committee resumed its sitting.
        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. 5.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose, there was pending the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Boggs] to 
    the Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
    gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Boggs] had consumed 5 minutes in 
    support of the amendment.

Resumption of Proceedings on Teller Vote

Sec. 26.3 Where a demand for tellers on a vote in the Committee of the 
    Whole is displaced by a motion to rise before the demand for 
    tellers is seconded, the question on ordering tellers is regarded 
    as pending and is first disposed of when the Committee resumes its 
    session.

    On Mar. 9, 1935,(19) a demand for tellers had been 
displaced by a motion to rise during consideration of H.R. 6021. 
Chairman Emanuel Celler, of New York, stated that the question on 
ordering tellers would be regarded as pending and disposed of first 
after resumption of business in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 79 Cong. Rec. 3315, 3316, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 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.

[[Page 3484]]

Sec. 26.4 Under the former practice, it was held that where a point of 
    no quorum was made in the Committee of the Whole and the roll was 
    called while a demand for a teller vote on an amendment was 
    pending, the question of ordering tellers was put immediately after 
    the Committee resumed its sitting.

    On May 10, 1946,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering amendments to H.R. 6335, the Department of the Interior 
appropriation, 1947, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, presiding. A 
point of no quorum was made and the roll was called while a demand for 
a teller vote on an amendment was pending. The question on ordering 
tellers was put immediately after the Committee obtained a quorum and 
resumed its sitting. The Chairman indicated that the demand for tellers 
was not precluded by a prior division vote agreeing to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 4840, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment to the 
    amendment.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Rooney) there were--ayes 41, noes 29.
        Mr. [Jed] Johnson of Oklahoma:
        Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count. [After counting.] Eighty-
    seven Members are present, not a quorum.
        The Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk called the roll. . . .
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Cooper, 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. 6335, and finding itself without 
    a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 313 Members 
    responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the 
    names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.
        The Speaker: (1) The Committee will resume its 
    sitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. 
    Robertson].
        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 
    amend

[[Page 3485]]

    ment 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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Clause 2 of Rule XXIII was amended in the 
96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979) to permit the Committee to 
continue its business following the appearance of a quorum so that the 
Speaker need not take the chair to receive the Committee's report of 
absentees. Prior to the adoption of this change in the rules, the 
Committee of the Whole followed the procedure indicated above. Under 
the new rule, the Committee would still rise if a quorum of the 
Committee failed to appear. Rule XXIII clause 2(a), House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 863 (1979). The subject of quorums is discussed more fully 
in Ch. 20, infra

Sec. 26.5 Where the Committee of the Whole has ordered tellers on an 
    amendment and then rises, the order for tellers is pending and can 
    be vacated and the vote taken de novo only by unanimous consent 
    when the Committee again resumes consideration of the matter.

    On July 2, 1947,(2) the Committee of the Whole resumed 
consideration from the previous day of amendments to H.R. 4002, the War 
Department civil functions appropriations bill, 1948. Chairman Earl C. 
Michener, of Michigan, stated that on the previous day the Committee of 
the Whole had ordered tellers on an amendment and then had risen. The 
Chairman ruled that the order for tellers could be vacated and the vote 
taken de novo only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 8136, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . 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

[[Page 3486]]

    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.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that be 
    done.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi asks unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings on the vote on the Rankin amendment 
    when the Committee was last in session be vacated and that the vote 
    be taken de novo. Is there objection?
        Mr. [Albert J.] Engel of Michigan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will again report the amendment.
