[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 20. Calls of the House; Quorums]
[C. Objections to Absence of a Quorum; Points of No Quorum]
[Â§ 14. Dilatoriness; Effect of Prior Count]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3682-3695]
 
                               CHAPTER 20
 
                      Calls of the House; Quorums
 
       C. OBJECTIONS TO ABSENCE OF A QUORUM; POINTS OF NO QUORUM
 
Sec. 14. Dilatoriness; Effect of Prior Count

    Rule XVI clause 10,(8) provides that no dilatory motion 
shall be entertained by the Speaker. A1though the question of the 
presence of a quorum is a constitutional one (9) which is 
always in order where the House is conducting business (10) 
and has the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 803 (1979).
 9. Sec. 14.2, infra.
10. Sec. 14.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3683]]

highest priority except for the motion to adjourn,(11) the 
Chair may refuse to entertain it if he determines that the motion was 
made for the purpose of delay (12) and the presence of a 
quorum, as evidenced by an immediately preceding vote or quorum call, 
is apparent to him.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 769 (1979); 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2950, 2988; and 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 680. See 
        also Sec. 8, supra, for discussions of the motion to adjourn as 
        related to a quorum.
12. Sec. 14.9, infra.
13. Sec. Sec. 14.10 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, when presence of a quorum is not apparent or the Chair is 
uncertain, he counts the House.(14) If ``business'' 
(15) has intervened between ascertainment of a quorum and a 
point of no quorum, the Speaker may count the House.(16) 
Where the Speaker ascertains the presence of a quorum by actual count 
following objection to a vote under Rule XV clause 4, or where a demand 
for the yeas and nays is rejected and a division vote is then had on 
the pending question, the division vote is intervening business 
permitting another objection to the lack of a quorum, and the Speaker 
must again count the House. Nonetheless, when convinced that a point of 
no quorum is made for the purpose of obstructing business, the Speaker 
has declined to entertain it even after intervention of 
business.(17) Normally, the Chair declines to hold such a 
point of order dilatory, based upon the constitutional requirement for 
the presence of a quorum.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sec. 14.1, infra.
15. For discussion of proceedings which qualify as ``business,'' see 
        Sec. 10, supra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 14.7, 14.8, infra.
17. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2811.
 1. See Sec. Sec. 14.2, 14.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of dilatoriness is not necessarily determined by the 
length of time since ascertainment of a quorum or the character of the 
intervening business, but by the Speaker's opinion as to whether, under 
the circumstances, the motion is made with intent to delay the business 
of the House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2804.
            See supplements to this edition for discussion of 
        provisions in Rule XV clause 6 adopted by the 93d Congress on 
        Apr. 9, 1974, to the effect that after the presence of a quorum 
        is ascertained, a further point of order that a quorum is not 
        present may not thereafter be made or entertained until 
        additional business 
        intervenes.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In General

Sec. 14.1 A point of no quorum may be held to be dilatory when a quorum 
    has been es

[[Page 3684]]

    tablished and it is apparent to the Chair that a quorum remains on 
    the floor of the House; but where the presence of a quorum is not 
    apparent, or the Chair is uncertain, he will count the House.

    On the legislative day of Oct. 8, 1968,(3) during 
consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 175 to suspend the equal-time 
provision of the Communications Act of 1934 for candidates for 
President and Vice President for the 1968 campaign, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, clarified certain procedures with respect 
to points of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 30212, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 8, 1968 (Calendar 
        Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    gentleman's point of order on the ground that the gentleman's point 
    of order is a dilatory motion, proscribed by the rules, wherein it 
    is clearly set forth that no dilatory motion shall be entertained 
    by the Speaker.
        The Speaker: When it is apparent to the Chair that a quorum is 
    present, the Chair can declare a point of order of no quorum to be 
    dilatory; but when it is apparent to the Chair that a quorum is not 
    present, or the Chair is not certain, the Chair will count. And the 
    Chair will count on this occasion.
        One hundred and fifty-five Members are present, not a quorum.

Chair's Reluctance to Hold Points of No Quorum to Be Dilatory

Sec. 14.2 The Speaker stated that a question as to whether a quorum was 
    present was a constitutional one, and he refused to hold it to be 
    dilatory.

    On May 22, 1946,(4) after debate in the House had been 
interrupted by numerous points of no quorum and calls of the House, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made a statement as to the 
constitutional nature of a point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 5445, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Christian A.] Herter [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Herter: Mr. Speaker, the motion just made is a dilatory 
    motion which should be ruled out under rule XVI.

[[Page 3685]]

        The Speaker: The Chair may say, in reply to the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts, that the question of whether a quorum is present or 
    not is a constitutional one.
        The Chair will count. [After counting.] One hundred and twenty-
    six Members are present, not a quorum.

Sec. 14.3 Since the Constitution defines a quorum of the House and 
    states that it shall be required for the conduct of business, and a 
    point of order that a quorum is not present is the only way a 
    Member has of enforcing this constitutional requirement, the Chair 
    is extremely reluctant to withhold recognition for this purpose.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(5) (during consideration of Senate 
Joint Resolution 175, to suspend for the 1968 campaign the equal-time 
requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 for candidates for 
President and Vice President, Speaker pro tempore Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, responded to a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 114 Cong. Rec. 30097, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: I thank the Speaker for 
    permitting me this additional parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        On occasion the Chair has held that certain motions and points 
    of order amounted to dilatory tactics, and that that was their 
    obvious motivation, and on those occasions the Chair has summarily 
    refused to recognize such obviously dilatory points of order and 
    motions.
        Mr. Speaker, my point of parliamentary inquiry is: would the 
    Chair not feel that under the present situation, with repeated 
    points of order being made that a quorum is not present, 
    immediately followed by the absenting of themselves by certain 
    Members who have come in to answer the quorum, to be a rather 
    obvious dilatory tactic, and one which might obviously lend itself 
    to the assumption on the part of the Chair that a quorum having 
    been established and proven so frequently and repeatedly during the 
    day, would be presumed to be present for the completion of 
    business?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to respond to the 
    parliamentary inquiry posed by the gentleman from Texas.
        It is the understanding of the Chair that no occupant of the 
    Chair has ever in the history of the Congress held that a point of 
    order that a quorum is not present is a dilatory tactic. The 
    reasoning, obviously, is that the Constitution itself requires the 
    presence on the floor of the House of a quorum at all times in the 
    transaction of the business of the House of Representatives.

Sec. 14.4 The Chair has the right under certain circumstances to hold 
    that motions are dilatory, but a point of no quorum is a question 
    of very high privilege.

[[Page 3686]]

    On June 5, 1946,(6) (Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
a statement regarding the Chair's authority to hold that motions are 
dilatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 92 Cong. Rec. 6352, 6353, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: On this roll call 260 Members have answered to 
    their names, a quorum.
        By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were 
    dispensed with.
        The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether these bills to 
    be called on Calendar Wednesday are to be considered in the House 
    as in Committee of the Whole?
        Mr. [Dan R.] McGehee [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order there is not a quorum present.
        The Speaker: There has been no business transacted as yet. The 
    Clerk will call the committees.
        The Clerk: The Committee on Banking and Currency.
        Mr. McGehee: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order there is 
    not a quorum present.
        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Mississippi is purely 
    dilatory. Under section 10, rule XVI of the House, the Chair having 
    just announced that a quorum is present, it is obvious that the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi is a purely 
    dilatory motion and should not under the rules of the House be 
    entertained by the Speaker.
        Mr. McGehee: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it does not lie within 
    the province of any Member of the House to criticize or impugn the 
    motive of any other Member when he makes a point of order in 
    connection with any procedure on the floor of the House. Important 
    legislation is contemplated being taken up and I observe on the 
    floor at present that evidently there is not a quorum present and I 
    therefore make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair, of course, has the right under certain 
    circumstances to hold that motions are dilatory but a point of no 
    quorum is a question of very high privilege. The Chair will not 
    state what he will do at other times. The gentleman makes the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present. The Chair will count. [After 
    counting.] One hundred and thirty-three Members are present; not a 
    quorum.

Sec. 14.5 The Speaker overruled a point of order that a Member making a 
    point of order that a quorum was not present was exercising a 
    dilatory tactic.

    On Jan. 23, 1950,(7) (during consideration of House 
Resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 774, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3687]]

217, which provided for consideration of H.R. 331, to extend statehood 
to Alaska, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled on a point of order of 
dilatoriness.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also, for example, 92 Cong. Rec. 6352-56, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 5, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman's point of order is dilatory.
        The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Illinois.
        The Chair will count. [After counting.] Two hundred and twenty-
    four Members are present, a quorum.

Sec. 14.6 Insistence by a Member on the presence of a quorum on the 
    floor, evidenced by repeated points of no quorum, was held not to 
    be dilatory where a quorum was in fact not present; and the Speaker 
    refused to find that such points of order were designed to 
    deliberately delay public business.

    On July 23, 1942,(9) (during consideration of House 
Resolution 528 and H.R. 7416, which provided for absentee voting by 
members of the armed forces, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, rejected a 
point of dilatoriness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 6543, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that there is no quorum present. If we are to 
    discuss this matter I think a quorum should be present.

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman from Mississippi has clearly 
    evidenced the fact that he is filibustering, and that his only 
    object in pursuing the tactics he is pursuing is to delay the 
    passage of the Ramsay bill, to which he objects. It surely must be 
    apparent to the Speaker that these quorum calls are for the sole 
    purpose of delay. Therefore the action of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi is dilatory and out of order.
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi rose.
        The Speaker: The Chair trusts that he will never be called upon 
    to make a ruling that a Member is deliberately delaying public 
    business. There is a quorum in town. I think the gentleman from 
    Mississippi, for the moment, at least, is within his rights in 
    asking that a quorum be present.
        The Chair will count. [After counting.] Evidently there is no 
    quorum present.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    a call of the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.

Points of No Quorum After Intervening Business

Sec. 14.7 The point of order that a quorum was not present was held not 
    to be dilatory; The

[[Page 3688]]

    Speaker noted that business had intervened in that unanimous-
    consent requests had been granted following the last quorum call, 
    and that Members were entitled to have a quorum present to have 
    business transacted in the regular way.

    On Apr. 24, 1956,(10) while Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, 
spoke under a special-order agreement, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
refused to hold dilatory a point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 102 Cong. Rec. 6889, 6891, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Davis [of Georgia]: The gentleman is making a 
    great speech and I think it should be heard by the entire 
    membership. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    a call of the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.
        The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to 
    answer to their names: . . .
        The Speaker: Two hundred and ninety-two Members have answered 
    to their names, a quorum.
        By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were 
    dispensed with.
        Mr. [John W.] Heselton [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I may be permitted to have 2 days to file 
    minority views with respect to H.R. 8901, the District of Columbia 
    transit bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Vinson: Mr. Speaker, as I said just before the quorum call, 
    I refer specifically to the decision of the Supreme Court of May 
    17, 1954. . . .
        Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Williams of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the point of order.
        Mr. Vinson: Will the gentleman not withhold that? I have only 
    about 5 minutes.
        Mr. Williams of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Vinson: Mr. Speaker, I deny with all the power of my being 
    the naive presumption that the Constitution of the United States is 
    nothing more than what the Supreme Court says it is. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    gentleman is making a very sound statement here and I make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Speaker: The point of order that a quorum is not present is 
    not debatable.
        Mr. Yates: Since the last point of order on a quorum there has 
    been no further transaction of business, and it is obvious that the 
    points of order being made are dilatory.

[[Page 3689]]

        The Speaker: There were various unanimous-consent requests 
    granted since the last call of the House. The Chair has been up 
    against this question of whether there was a filibuster or whether 
    there was not a great many times. This occupant of the Chair is 
    very liberal with Members who want a quorum present or to have 
    business transacted in the regular way. The Chair is not going to 
    hold that this point of order is dilatory.

Sec. 14.8 Precedents of the House which indicate that the Chair has 
    held a point of no quorum to be dilatory when it immediately 
    follows a call of the House which discloses the presence of a 
    quorum are not applicable to the situation where there is 
    ``intervening business'' between the establishment of the quorum 
    and the making of the point of no quorum; the correction of a roll 
    call, by unanimous consent, is such ``business'' as will prevent 
    the Chair from holding the point of order to be dilatory on its 
    face.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(11) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, ruled on a question of dilatoriness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 30224, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Calendar day of Oct. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio makes the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker. There has been no intervening business since the rollcall 
    on the resolution which indicated a quorum.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman is in error, since we have had a correction of a 
    rollcall.
        The gentleman from Ohio makes the point of order that a quorum 
    is not present. Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move a call 
    of the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.

When Points of No Quorum Not Entertained

Sec. 14.9 Repeated points of no quorum may be held to be dilatory in 
    the Committee of the Whole if, after the Chair has once counted and 
    found a quorum present, it appears to him that further points of 
    order are without foundation.

    On Dec. 30, 1932,(12) during consideration of H.R. 
13872, the Department of Agriculture appropriation bill, Chairman 
Andrew J. Montague, of Virginia, held that a point of no quorum was 
dilatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 76 Cong. Rec. 1123, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leonidas C.] Dyer [of Missouri)]: Mr. Chairman, I make the

[[Page 3690]]

    point of order there is not a quorum present.
        The Chairman: The Chair will count. [After counting.] One 
    hundred and five are present, a quorum.

        Mr. [Miles C.] Allgood [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to return to page 52, line 23, for the purpose of 
    offering an important amendment.
        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Allgood: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that there 
    is not a quorum present.
        Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, that 
    point of order is dilatory, because the Chair has just counted and 
    found a quorum present.
        The Chairman: The Chair has counted a quorum and will not 
    entertain the point of order raised by the gentleman from Alabama.
        Mr. Allgood: But the Members who were in the Chamber when the 
    Chair counted a quorum have returned to the cloakroom.
        The Chairman: The Chair believes a quorum is still present. The 
    Clerk will read.

Sec. 14.10 The Speaker may decline to entertain a point of no quorum 
    after the House has voted to resolve itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole and while the Speaker is in the process of leaving the 
    chair.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(13) the House was proceeding with the 
call of committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule. The House having 
voted to consider a bill, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
refused to entertain a point of order that a quorum was not present 
made after his announcement that the House had resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole but before he had vacated the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 3455, 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House consider the bill 
    (H.R. 1668) to amend paragraph (1) of section 4 of the Interstate 
    Commerce Act, as amended February 28, 1920 (U.S.C., title 49, sec. 
    4)?
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 278, nays 97, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 54, as follows: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill.
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order there is not a quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair feels compelled to overrule the point of 
    order, as the recent vote discloses a quorum is present.

Sec. 14.11 The Speaker held as dilatory a point of no quorum made 
    immediately after a yea and nay vote which disclosed a quorum

[[Page 3691]]

    present where the only event intervening between announcement of 
    the vote and the point of no quorum was the receipt of a message.

    On July 21, 1947,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled on a point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 9523, 9524, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn. . . .
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 85, nays 299, not 
    voting 46, as follows: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gamble] is 
    recognized.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I notice there is a message here from 
    the President. Do we not receive them when they come in?
        The Speaker: The Chair was about to suspend for a moment to 
    receive a message.
        [A message in writing from the President of the United States 
    was announced and received.]
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order there is not 
    a quorum present.

        The Speaker: The gentleman's point of order is dilatory. That 
    is obvious to all Members.

Sec. 14.12 After stating that, ``. . . he [the Speaker] has yet to hold 
    a motion to be dilatory, and will not until it becomes obvious to 
    everybody that dilatory tactics are being indulged in and that a 
    filibuster is being conducted,'' the Speaker declined to recognize 
    a point of no quorum immediately after a vote by yeas and nays 
    which disclosed that 362 Members were present.

    On July 25, 1949,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
refused to recognize a point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 10095, 10096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida moves that the House do 
    now adjourn.
        The Chair desires to make a statement. Since the present 
    Speaker has occupied the chair he has yet to hold a motion to be 
    dilatory, and will not until it becomes obvious to everybody that 
    dilatory tactics are being indulged in and that a filibuster is 
    being conducted.
        The question is on the motion to adjourn.
        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Clerk called the roll; and there were--yeas 110, nays 252, 
    not voting 70, as follows: . . .

[[Page 3692]]

        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The roll call just disclosed that there were 362 
    Members present, quite a substantial quorum.

Sec. 14.13 The Speaker, being satisfied that a quorum was present and 
    that a point of no quorum was made for dilatory purposes, declined 
    to entertain it and allowed debate to proceed without taking time 
    to count the House.

    On June 3, 1960,(1) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
refused to entertain a point of no quorum where more than the number 
necessary to make a quorum had just responded on a yea and nay vote on 
a motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 11829, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to adjourn.
        Mr. [John James] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, on that 
    I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 77, nays 195, not 
    voting 159. . . .
        So the motion to adjourn was rejected. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: Under previous order of the House, the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Holifield] is recognized for 60 minutes.
        Mr. [Carroll D.] Kearns [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Chet] Holifield: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Kearns: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that there 
    is no quorum present.
        The Speaker: The roll was called only 1 minute ago and a quorum 
    was present. A quorum is present.
        The gentleman from California.

Sec. 14.14 After he counted a quorum and a quorum failed to vote on an 
    amendment immediately thereafter, the Speaker in reply to a point 
    of order ruled that a quorum remained present at the time of the 
    division vote and the Chair was not responsible if all Members did 
    not vote.

    On Apr. 2, 1943,(2) after a vote held during 
consideration of H.R. 2087, the War Security Act, Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, rejected a point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 89 Cong. Rec. 2886, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count. [After counting.] Two 
    hundred and nineteen Members are present, a quorum.

[[Page 3693]]

        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the House 
    divided, and there were--ayes 62, noes 112.
        Mr. [Harry] Sauthoff [of Wisconsin]: 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.

Sec. 14.15 Where the House ordered the doors of the Chamber locked 
    until establishment of a quorum and disposition of pending 
    business, the Chair indicated that after a quorum was present in 
    the Chamber further points of no quorum would be dilatory until the 
    business was completed and the doors opened.

    On the legislative day of Oct. 8, 1968,(3) during 
consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 175, to suspend the equal-time 
requirement of the Communications Act of 1934, for candidates for 
President and Vice President, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made a statement as to assuming the presence of a quorum 
when the doors were locked to prevent exit of Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 30213, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968 (Calendar 
        Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Let me repeat the language of the motion of 
    the gentleman from Washington:

            That a motion be made for the majority here that those who 
        are not present be sent for wherever they are found and 
        returned here on the condition that they shall not be allowed 
        to leave the Chamber until such time as the pending business 
        before this Chamber on this legislative day shall have been 
        completed.

        Mr. Speaker, I respectfully argue that in the language used by 
    the gentleman from Washington in the motion that he made, he says 
    very specifically and very categorically that those who are not 
    here are the ones who must be kept in the Chamber.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    regular order.
        The Speaker: The regular order is that the gentleman is making 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: And I am indicating, Mr. Speaker, in my 
    parliamentary inquiry, that the doors to the Chamber shall not be 
    closed to those Members who were here at the time of the call for 
    the quorum.
        The Speaker: The Chair, in response to the parliamentary 
    inquiry of

[[Page 3694]]

    the distinguished minority leader, feels, in construing the motion, 
    that a part of the construction is the happenings of the last 10 or 
    12 or more hours and the intent and purpose of the gentleman from 
    Washington in making the motion.
        It seems to the Chair, in response to the parliamentary 
    inquiry--and the Chair makes such a response--that the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Adams] meant that any 
    Member who answered the last quorum call cannot leave the Chamber 
    until the pending business has been disposed of; and the doors will 
    be kept closed.
        The Chair might observe in relation to any future points of 
    order that a quorum is not present that apparently a quorum is 
    present because the last one disclosed 222 Members and the Chair is 
    justified in assuming that the 222 Members are still here. The 
    doors will remain locked until the present business is disposed of.

Sec. 14.16 The Speaker has refused to entertain a point of no quorum 
    where a quorum had just been established by a call of the House and 
    where no further business had been transacted.

    On Jan. 22, 1971,(4) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
refused to entertain a point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 131, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to read the Journal of the proceedings of 
    yesterday.
        Mr. [Donald W.] Riegle [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Charles H. Wilson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move a 
    call of the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.
        The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to 
    answer to their names: . . .
        The Speaker: On this rollcall 373 Members have answered to 
    their names, a quorum.
        By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were 
    dispensed with.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will proceed with the reading of the 
    Journal.
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: A quorum has just been established. There has been 
    no business transacted.
        The Clerk will proceed with the reading of the Journal.

Sec. 14.17 Where a quorum has been established on a call of the House 
    and the Chair then lays a message before the House, a further point 
    of no quorum is not entertained before the message is read by the 
    Clerk or other business is transacted.

    On Apr. 21, 1971,(5) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
ruled

[[Page 3695]]

on the timeliness of a point of no quorum raised after a message was 
received but before it was read.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 117 Cong. Rec. 11095, 11096, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. See supplements to this edition for discussion of provisions in 
        Rule XV clause 6 added by the 93d Congress on Apr. 9, 1974, to 
        the effect that a point of no quorum may not be made or 
        entertained during the reception of any message from the 
        President or the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    a call of the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.
        The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to 
    answer to their names:. . . .
        The Speaker: On this rollcall 334 Members have answered to 
    their names, a quorum.
        By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were 
    dispensed with.  . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair lays before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States:

        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that a quorum 
    is not present.
        The Speaker: A rollcall just disclosed the presence of a 
    quorum.
        Mr. Jacobs: I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present, Mr. Speaker, obviously not.
        The Speaker: The Chair advises the gentleman that a quorum has 
    just been established and no business has transpired.
        Mr. Jacobs: At the moment I make a point of order that a quorum 
    is not present.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's point of order is out of 
    order.                          -------------------