[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[B. Motions to Suspend the Rules]
[Â§ 15. Voting on the Motion]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4000-4007]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 15. Voting on the Motion

    Rule XXVII clause 1 (~14) requires that a motion to 
suspend the rules be adopted by a ``vote of two-thirds of the Members 
voting, a quorum being present.'' (15) As indicated in 
Sec. 12, supra, the motion must first be seconded (if a second is 
demanded and not considered as ordered) by a majority vote before the 
motion may be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1979). Clause 3(b) of Rule XXVII 
        was added on Apr. 9, 1974 (H. Res. 998, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.) to 
        authorize the Speaker to postpone, until the conclusion of 
        debate on all motions to suspend the rules on one legislative 
        day, votes on such motions on which recorded votes or the yeas 
        and nays have been ordered, or the vote objected to under Rule 
        XV clause 4; and to reduce, after the first postponed vote, to 
        five minutes the time for voting (by electronic device) on each 
        other postponed vote on that day. In the 97th Congress, 
        references in Rule XXVII clause 3 to postponement of votes on 
        suspensions were deleted and were transferred to Rule I clause 
        5(b)(1) to be consolidated with all authorities of the Speaker 
        on postponing rollcall votes for up to two legislative days.
15. Two-thirds of those Members present and voting is construed as two-
        thirds of Members present and voting for or against the motion 
        (votes of ``present'' are discounted).
            That requirement is identical to the requirement for 
        adopting a proposed amendment to the Constitution under article 
        V of the U.S. Constitution (see House Rules and Manual 190 
        [1979]) and thus such a proposed amendment may be adopted under 
        a motion to suspend the rules (see Sec. 15.2, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker has voted on a motion to suspend the rules, to ensure 
the adoption of the motion.(16) Although a motion to suspend 
the rules may be used to pass a bill with amendments, or to pass 
measure which would ordinarily be divisible for a separate vote, a 
separate vote is not in order on a motion to suspend the rules, and the 
motion as offered must be voted on in its entirety.(17~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 15.3, 15.4, infra.
17 See Sec. Sec. 15.5, 15.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a motion to suspend the rules and pass a proposition is 
rejected, the same or a similar proposition may be brought up under 
suspension of the rules, or pursuant to a special order from the 
Committee on Rules.(18) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 15.7. 15.8. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4001]]

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

Requirement of Two-thirds for Adoption

Sec. 15.1 A two-thirds vote is required for suspension of the rules 
    (Rule XXVII clause 1), and unanimous consent for the consideration 
    of a bill under suspension does not waive the two-thirds vote 
    requirement for the passage of the bill.

    On June 27, 1972,(19) the Speaker pro tempore stated, in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, that a unanimous-consent order 
making in order a motion to suspend the rules on a day other than a 
regular suspension day, would not alter the requirement of a two-thirds 
vote for the adoption of such a motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 22562, 22563, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that after all other legislative business on 
    Thursday it may be in order to call up for consideration the bill 
    H.R. 14896, the school lunch bill, under suspension of the rules.
        The Speaker: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Miseouri]: . . . Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Henry B. Gonzalez (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Would the Chair confirm that if the unanimous-consent 
    request is granted that the rules for suspension would be in effect 
    and a two-thirds vote would be required to suspend the rules and 
    pass the bill?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the gentleman's unanimous-
    consent request it would require a two-thirds vote to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Chair, I withdraw my reservation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.

Passage of Constitutional Amendments

Sec. 15.2 A proposed amendment to the Constitution may be passed by the 
    House under a motion to suspend the rules, since the motion 
    requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

    On Dec. 5, 1932,(2~) Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 480, 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
repealing the 18th amendment to the Constitution. Two-thirds failed to 
vote in favor thereof and the motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 76 Cong. Rec. 7-13, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 27, 1962, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,

[[Page 4002]]

recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States to abolish nonpayment of a poll 
tax as a bar to voting in federal elections; the House had previously 
agreed to a request authorizing the Speaker to recognize for motions to 
suspend the rules on the fourth Monday of the month. Before Mr. Celler 
was recognized, a demand was made that the Journal be read in full, and 
three quorum calls and two record votes on dispensing with further 
proceedings under the calls interrupted such reading.
    The House adopted the motion and the joint resolution was passed. 
The joint resolution was, pursuant to title I, United States Code, 
section 106b, presented to the Administrator of General Services for 
ratification by the states, and was ratified as the 24th amendment to 
the Constitution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-70, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 96 Cong. Rec. 10427, 10428, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        July 17, 1950, where a motion to suspend the rules and pass 
        S.J. Res. 2, proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
        providing for a method of electing the President and Vice 
        President, was rejected by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The two-thirds vote requirement for both a 
proposed amendment to the Constitution and for a motion to suspend the 
rules is two-thirds of those Members present and voting in the 
affirmative or negative.

Speaker's Vote

Sec. 15.3 The Speaker directed the Clerk to call his name on a roll 
    call vote, and his vote enabled a bill to receive the two-thirds 
    necessary for passage under suspension of the rules.

    On Oct. 2, 1972,(4) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
voted on a motion to suspend the rules where the motion would not have 
passed without his vote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 118 Cong. Rec. 33219, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
            Without the Speaker's vote, the tally was 243 yeas, 122 
        nays; see H. Jour. 1139, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia that the House suspend the rules and 
    pass the bill H.R. 15859, as amended.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.

[[Page 4003]]

        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk 
    will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 244, nays 122, not 
    voting 65, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will call my name.
        The Clerk called the name of Mr. Albert, and he answered 
    ``yea.''
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.

Sec. 15.4 The Speaker voted on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a 
    bill where the vote, as reported to him by the tally clerk, was 
    very close, and subject to reversal if an error appeared in 
    rechecking the tally.

    On Nov. 6, 1967,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, voted on a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 31287, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia that the House suspend the rules and pass the 
    Senate Joint Resolution 33, as amended.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors. The Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 206, nays 102, not 
    voting 124, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will call my name.
        The Clerk called the name of Mr. McCormack and he answered 
    ``yea.''
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the rules were 
    suspended and the Senate joint resolution, as amended, was passed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: At the conclusion of the roll call, the 
tally clerk advised that the vote as recorded was 204 yeas and 102 nays 
but that there was a possible error in that count. To obviate any such 
error and assure that the motion pass by a two-thirds vote, the Speaker 
voted in the affirmative and announced the vote as 205 yeas, 102 nays. 
Upon reviewing the tally, an error was found and the vote, as 
corrected, stood at 204 yeas and 102 nays, which was sufficient for the 
two-thirds vote. Two Members subsequently corrected the vote to show 
that they were present, voting in the affirmative, but were not 
recorded. Thus the final tally, as carried in the Record, showed 206 
yeas, 102 nays.

Separate Vote Not in Order

Sec. 15.5 During consideration of motion to suspend the rules

[[Page 4004]]

    and pass a bill, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on 
    amendments submitted with the text of the bill when sent to the 
    deck.

    On Oct. 7, 1968,(6) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, stated that separate vote could not be demanded on a motion 
to suspend the rules and pass a bill with amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 29800, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George A.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    yield myself such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Goodling: Under a suspension of the rules procedure, are 
    amendments in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; amendments can be included in the 
    motion, but other amendments are not in order.
        Mr. Goodling: If amendments are presented, can a rollcall be 
    had on the amendments?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No rollcall can be had on the 
    amendments; only on those amendments which are submitted with the 
    bill and which are included in the motion.

Sec. 15.6 It is not in order to demand a division of the question on a 
    proposition considered under a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that a division of the 
question could not be demanded on a motion to suspend the rules (and 
pass a resolution providing an order of business):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 7655, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the resolution (H. Res. 302), which I 
    send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the 
        rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House 
        until finally disposed of. . . .

        The Speaker: The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has 
    expired.
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dirksen: I believe there is some confusion as to the exact 
    terminology of the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts, and I ask unanimous consent that the resolution may 
    be again read.

[[Page 4005]]

        The Speaker: Without objection, the Clerk will again read the 
    resolution.

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk again read the resolution.
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dirksen: The resolution contains two substantive proposals. 
    Is it by reason of this fact divisible?
        The Speaker: Not under a suspension of the rules, because the 
    first proposal suspends all the rules.

Effect of Rejection

Sec. 15.7 Rejection of a motion to suspend the rules and agree to a 
    resolution does not preclude the Speaker from exercising his 
    discretionary authority to recognize a Member to offer a similar 
    resolution under suspension of the rules.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(8) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
overruled a point of order against recognition for a motion to suspend 
the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 43271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and agree to the House Resolution (H. 
    Res. 760) to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill S. 921, 
    to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with a Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment thereto and agree to the Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 760

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill S. 921, with the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from 
        the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with an 
        amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the text of the bill H.R. 12129.

    A point of order was made as follows:

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against this 
    resolution because it, in effect, does nothing more than call up a 
    matter that has already been voted on within the last half hour by 
    this House.
        Anyone who says it is not to the contrary has no authority, 
    because no one has read it and we do not know the substance.
        The Speaker: The Chair has read the resolutions, they have been 
    read to the House, and the Chair has authority to recognize for 
    motions to suspend the rules.
        There are substantial differences, and the Chair has recognized 
    the gentleman from West Virginia.

[[Page 4006]]

    The House rejected the motion.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The House had earlier rejected a motion to 
suspend the rules (offered by Mr. Staggers) and agree to a resolution 
to take the same bill with the Senate amendment from the table and 
agree to the Senate amendments with an amendment. The second motion 
offered by Mr. Staggers proposed a different amendment (text of another 
House bill) to the Senate amendment.
    Since the rejection of a motion to suspend the rules does not 
prejudice its being offered again, no motion to reconsider is in order 
on a negative vote on a motion to suspend the rules (see 5 Hinds' 
Precedents Sec. Sec. 5645, 5646; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2781).

Sec. 15.8 The Committee on Rules may report a special rule to make in 
    order the consideration of a joint resolution that had previously 
    been defeated on a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Aug. 24, 1935,(~9) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that the 
rejection of a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill did not 
preclude bringing up the same bill pursuant to a special order from the 
Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 79 Cong. Rec. 14652, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules I present a privileged report from that 
    committee and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 372

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the House shall proceed to the consideration of 
        (S.J. Res. 175), a joint resolution to extend the time within 
        which contracts may be modified or canceled under the 
        provisions of section 5 of the Independent Offices 
        Appropriation Act 1935, and all points of order against said 
        joint resolution are hereby waived.

        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which was 
    considered today under suspension of the rules but failed of 
    passage. It is a matter about which there was some confusion. It is 
    a very simple matter and has nothing to do with ship subsidies. It 
    merely extends the time within which the President can determine 
    whether or not to cancel or modify the contracts. The President has 
    before him this important situation: many of these contracts will 
    expire between October of this year and January of next year. I am 
    authorized to say that the President feels he needs this authority.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Maverick: After a bill has been passed on, can it be 
    brought up again

[[Page 4007]]

    the same day? What about the Puerto Rico bill, which failed? If we 
    can again bring up the bill made in order by this resolution, we 
    can do it with the Puerto Rico bill, or with any other bill that 
    has been defeated once during the day. This bill was defeated a few 
    hours ago.
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry. This is an effort on the part of the 
    gentleman from New York, Chairman of the Rules Committee, to bring 
    this bill up under a special rule.
        The question is up to the House as to whether or not that can 
    be done.
        Mr. Maverick: I did not hear the Chair.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule which is under 
    consideration and is in order.
        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McFarlane: Is it in order for the Chairman of the Rules 
    Committee to bring in a rule on a bill which we defeated this 
    afternoon and then move the previous question before the opponents 
    have an opportunity to be heard?
        The Speaker: It is, under the rules of the House.
        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, all the opponents were heard today.
        The Speaker: It is a question for the House itself to 
    determine.