[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14, Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[B. Non-recorded Votes]
[§ 17. Demand for Tellers]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 11551-11562]
CHAPTER 30
Voting
B. NON-RECORDED VOTES
Sec. 17. Demand for Tellers
Generally
Sec. 17.1 A demand for tellers was in order following the announcement
of a division vote.
On Sept. 20, 1967,(10) the House having resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole in order to further consider a bill
(H.R. 6418) to amend the Public Health Service Act, a perfecting
amendment was proposed by Mr. John Jarman, of Oklahoma, and, following
debate, the question was taken on a division vote. Mr. Richard L.
Ottinger, of New York, who was seeking recognition at the time the
division was announced, demanded tellers following the announcement of
the vote and the Chair's (11) response to his parliamentary
inquiry. The point of order having been raised that the demand for
tellers was untimely, the Chairman overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 26119, 26120, 26130, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Jack Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.2 Tellers could be demanded and ordered following a refusal to
order the yeas and nays, a division vote, an objection to the vote
on the ground of no quorum, and the Chair's announcement that the
bill had passed--providing the Member demanding tellers was on his
feet seeking recognition prior to the announcement.
On June 5, 1940,(12) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York,
called up a bill (H.R. 6381) for the admis
[[Page 11552]]
sion to citizenship of aliens who came into the United States prior to
Feb. 5, 1917, and asked unanimous consent that the bill be considered
in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 86 Cong. Rec. 7623, 7626, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following debate, Mr. Dickstein moved the previous question and it
was ordered. A request for the yeas and nays on final passage having
been refused, a division was demanded by Mr. John J. Cochran, of
Missouri, and there were--ayes 94, noes 87.
Immediately following this vote, Mr. Cochran objected on the ground
that a quorum was not present. In response thereto, the Chair
(13) commenced to count, and the following exchange took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.), Speaker Pro Tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . [After counting.] Two hundred
and twenty-five Members are present, a quorum. The bill is passed.
Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I ask for tellers.
Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's request
comes too late.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not think so.
Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dickstein: Do I understand that after the Speaker announces
the passage of the bill they can go back and ask for tellers?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . yes.
Mr. Dickstein: That is news to me, and I think it is going a
little too far.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr.
Dickstein] is out of order and he will take his seat. The Chair
thinks the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cochran] was endeavoring to
ask for a division [Tellers].
Tellers were then ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Dickstein
and Mr. Cochran to act as tellers.
Parliamentarian's Note: It would appear that Mr. Dickstein
momentarily misinterpreted the ruling of the Speaker Pro Tempore when
he assumed the Chair had permitted a demand for tellers following
announcement of the bill's passage. The Chair's subsequent statement,
i.e., the point that Mr. Cochran was on his feet seeking recognition
prior to the announcement, clarified the ruling, however.
Sec. 17.3 A demand for a teller vote in the Committee of the Whole
having been refused, a second demand for such a vote following a
division vote on the pending question was not in order (an appeal
of the ruling sustained the Chair's decision).
On June 13, 1957,(14) the House resolved itself into the
Committee
[[Page 11553]]
of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 6127) to
provide means of further securing and protecting the civil rights of
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 9018, 9030, 9034, 9035, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. William M. Tuck, of
Virginia, offered an amendment and, following debate, the Chair
(15) put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it. Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of Michigan, was
recognized immediately thereafter, and demanded tellers. This request
having been refused, Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, then rose to
ask for a division.
Following a brief discussion between the Chair and two Members as
to whether a division was permissible, the Chair held that Mr. Keating
was within his rights. Accordingly, the Committee divided; and there
were--ayes 106, noes 114. This prompted the following inquiry and
resultant discussion:
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Would it be in order to have tellers?
The Chairman: Tellers have been refused.
Mr. [Ross] Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, the tellers were refused
after the Chair had ruled and said that the amendment was agreed
to. Then tellers were demanded, and those people who now want
tellers felt that the amendment was agreed to, so they did not rise
to ask for tellers; and I can get the House to agree with me. I
make that point of order and ask the Chair to rule on it.
The Chairman: The Chair will rule that on the demand for
tellers an insufficient number of Members rose to their feet.
Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I disagree with the ruling of the Chair
and ask for a vote on the ruling of the Chair. I say that he had
already ruled on the vote.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman appeal from the ruling of the
Chair?
Mr. Bass of Tennessee: I appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. [William J.] Green [Jr.] of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, a
point of order.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Green of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, it is too late for the
gentleman to appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
The Chairman: The gentleman has appealed from the ruling of the
Chair.
The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the
ayes apparently had it.
Mr. Bass of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I demand a division.
[[Page 11554]]
The Committee divided; and there were--ayes 222, noes 4.
So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the
Committee.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
Mr. Chairman, is it now in order to ask for tellers after the
rising vote?
The Chairman: It is not in order. The question was taken on the
amendment and the question was decided.
Accordingly, the amendment was rejected.
Effect of Competing Demands, Motions, and Objections
Sec. 17.4 When a request was made for tellers and almost simultaneously
a demand for the yeas and nays was made, the demand for the yeas
and nays, being a constitutional right, superseded the request for
tellers.
On Dec. 10, 1963,(16) the House having agreed to the
conference report on a bill (H.R. 8747) making appropriations for
various independent executive offices, those amendments remaining in
disagreement between the two bodies were then considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 23949, 23950, 23952, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among these was Senate amendment No. 92, which provided that
$1,722,000 be used for the sites and planning expenses involved in the
construction of a Veterans' Administration hospital at Bay Pines,
Florida. A motion having been offered that the House insist on its
disagreement to this amendment, Mr. Harold C. Ostertag, of New York,
then offered a preferential motion that the House recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur therein.
Following brief discussion of the preferential motion, the previous
question was ordered, and the following events transpired:
The Speaker: (17) The question is on the
preferential motion offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Ostertag].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Ostertag) there were--ayes 102, noes 102.
Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for
tellers.
Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas
and nays.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, we were standing for a teller vote.
Can we not insist on the teller vote?
The Speaker: The demand for the yeas and nays is a
constitutional right and, therefore, would supersede the request
for tellers.
[[Page 11555]]
The gentleman from Texas has demanded the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Sec. 17.5 A demand for tellers gave way to a timely objection to a
division vote on the ground that a quorum was not present.
On June 18, 1953,(18) Mr. Robert B. Chiperfield, of
Illinois, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 5710) to amend further the
Mutual Security Act of 1951, as amended. The question was taken; and
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, having demanded a division, there were--ayes
122, noes 10. Immediately following the announcement of this result,
Mr. Gross objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not
present. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, then rose and demanded
tellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 99 Cong. Rec. 6840, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker (19) stated that the point of order of Mr.
Gross took precedence over Mr. Halleck's demand for tellers. The Chair
then counted, and, a quorum having been determined, the motion was
agreed to,(20) and the House immediately resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
20. For a comparable instance, see 112 Cong. Rec. 9839, 89th Cong. 2d
Sess., May 4, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.6 An amendment having been defeated on a division vote, it was
not too late to demand tellers even though a motion that the
Committee rise had been made without recognition from the Chair.
On Apr. 16, 1943,(1) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R.
2481) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 89 Cong. Rec. 3473, 3495, 3502, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John Taber, of New
York, offered an amendment designed to reduce certain portions of the
appropriations. Following discussion of the proposal, the Chairman
(2) announced the expiration of the time allotted for
debate, and the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The question recurs on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber]. The question was taken;
and on a division (demanded by Mr. Taber) there were ayes 83 and
noes 111.
The Chairman: The amendment is rejected.
Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
the Committee do now rise.
[[Page 11556]]
Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.
Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order that it is
too late to demand tellers.
Mr. Taber: I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tarver: The Chair had announced the result of the vote, and
a motion had been made that the Committee rise.
Mr. Taber: The gentleman from Georgia had not been recognized
by the Chair.
Mr. Tarver: The Chair had announced the vote.
The Chairman: The gentleman from New York demands tellers.
The gentleman from Georgia makes the point of order that the
request comes too late. The Chair would say in deference to the
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Georgia that there
had not been formal recognition of the gentleman from Georgia.
Accordingly, tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr.
Tarver and Mr. Taber to act as tellers.
Sec. 17.7 Where a Member demanded tellers on an amendment in Committee
of the Whole and then made a point of order that a quorum was not
present, the demand for tellers was held in abeyance pending the
establishment of a quorum; and when the Committee of the Whole
resumed its sitting upon the establishment of a quorum, the pending
question was the ordering of tellers which were demanded
immediately prior to the point of no quorum.
On May 20, 1970,(3) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 17604) to
authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 16244, 16256, 16258, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Otis G. Pike, of New
York, offered an amendment to strike out the $322 million allocated for
the Safeguard ABM system. Mr. Pike's proposal was discussed briefly
after which the Chair (4) put the question, it was taken;
and on a division demanded by Mr. Pike, there were--ayes 11, noes 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Thomas J. Steed (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately thereafter, Mr. Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, demanded
tellers, and pending that, made the point of order that a quorum was
not present. The Chair proceeded to count and finding only 56 Members
present, he directed the Clerk to call the roll. Three hundred fifty-
nine Members having responded to their names, the Committee rose; the
Speaker Pro Tempore (5) re
[[Page 11557]]
sumed the Chair, and the Chairman of the Committee reported the
preceding events in addition to spreading the names of the absentees on
the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee having resumed its sitting, the Chairman stated:
When the point of order of no quorum was made there was pending
a demand for tellers on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Pike).
A sufficient number of Members supported the demand, and tellers
were ordered.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. For a similar instance, see 116 Cong. Rec. 8563, 91st Cong. 2d
Sess., Mar. 23, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.8 A demand for a teller vote in the Committee of the Whole
being displaced by a motion to rise before the demand for tellers
was seconded, the question of ordering tellers was regarded as
pending and was first disposed of when the Committee resumed its
sitting if the motion to rise was agreed to.
On Mar. 9, 1935,(7) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R.
6021) to provide additional home mortgage relief, to amend the Federal
Home Loan Bank Act, the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933, and the National
Housing Act. In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Jesse P.
Wolcott, of Michigan, offered an amendment to increase the amount of
insurance provided by the government on improved property. A brief
discussion ensued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 79 Cong. Rec. 3289, 3312, 3315, 3316, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly thereafter, the Chairman (8) put the question
and the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Emanuel Celler (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott], which the Clerk will again
report.
The Clerk read the Wolcott amendment.
The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the
Committee divided, and there were--ayes 118, noes 89.
Mr. [Franklin W.] Hancock [Jr.] of North Carolina: Mr.
Chairman, I demand tellers.
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that
the Committee do now rise.
Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, if the
Committee determines to rise, the request for tellers will be
considered as pending?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York
that the Committee do now rise.
[[Page 11558]]
Point of No Quorum as Affecting Demand
Sec. 17.9 The right to demand tellers was not prejudiced by the fact
that a point of no quorum and a quorum call intervened following a
division vote on the question on which tellers were requested.
On Sept. 25, 1969,(9) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 12884) to
amend title 13, United States Code, to assure confidentiality of
information furnished in response to inquiries of the Bureau of the
Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 27018, 27042, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Jackson E. Betts, of
Ohio, offered an amendment limiting the categories of information to be
required under penalty of law. When the Chair (10) put the
question, Mr. Betts demanded a division, and there were--ayes 32, noes
22. Mr. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, then raised a point of no
quorum. The Chair's count revealing only 75 Members present, the Clerk
was directed to call the roll; the Committee rose, and the Speaker
(11) resumed the chair. A quorum having responded to the
call, the Chairman so informed the Speaker and spread the names of
absentees on the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. George W. Andrews (Ala.).
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee then resumed its sitting, and the following
discussion ensued:
Mr. Charles H. Wilson [of California]: Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman: The Committee will be in order.
Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from
California rise?
Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, on the Betts amendment I
demand tellers.
Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order that the demand for tellers is out of order. The
time is past for that. The Chair asked for a division vote and the
vote was 32 to 22, and the amendment was agreed to. The Chairman
announced that the amendment was agreed to. Then the chairman of
the full Committee on Post Office and Civil Service made the point
of order that a quorum was not present and there was a call of the
House.
My point of order is that when the chairman of the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service made the point of order that a quorum
was not present, that that cut off the teller vote.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California desire to be
heard on the point of order?
[[Page 11559]]
Mr. Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I just ask for tellers and
I assume I am following the correct procedure in asking for
tellers. There has been no intervening business, and it is my
understanding that----
Mr. Montgomery: There was intervening business. There was a 20-
minute delay.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, may I be
heard on this point of order?
Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: May I be heard on the point of order?
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized on the
point of order.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: There was no intervening business between
the division vote and the point of order being made that a quorum
was not present. We went through the quorum call immediately, and
subsequently the gentleman from California asked for tellers.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that is the way the Chair
recalls the procedure.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Missouri to be heard on the point of order.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the point of order should
not be sustained inasmuch as the record will indicate that the
Chair had announced the division vote, but it had not said that the
amendment was agreed to. The Chair had not made the final decision.
The right of any Member of the House to ask for a teller vote, to
ask for a reconsideration, or to ask for any other privileged
motion had not inured; therefore the request, because the quorum
call could not be interrupted, to ask for tellers is quite in
order.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair again
recognize me for one other observation?
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan
on the point of order.
Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet awaiting the
opportunity to ask for tellers at the time the gentleman from New
York made the point of order that a quorum was not present.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of
order.
The Chair will state that the gentleman from Missouri is
correct in his recollection. The Chair had not said that the
amendment was agreed to, therefore no intervening business had
taken place when the point of order of no quorum was made.
The Chair will read from Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, volume 8, page 646, section 3104:
The right to demand tellers is not prejudiced by the fact
that a point of no quorum has been made against a division of
the question on which tellers are requested.
That precedent was established on December 13, 1817.
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.
Parliamentarian's Note: It should also be noted that where a
[[Page 11560]]
division vote has been followed by a point of no quorum which, in turn,
is followed by agreement to a privileged motion that the Committee
rise, neither of the foregoing constitutes ``intervening business''
which would preclude a demand for tellers on the pending question
immediately following the resumption of business in the Committee.
Sec. 17.10 Where a point of no quorum was made and withdrawn
immediately after a division vote, it was not then too late to
demand a teller vote on the pending proposition.
On Mar. 8, 1946,(12) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R.
5605) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 2061, 2081, 2084, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. John W. Heselton, of
Massachusetts, offered an amendment which was debated, and subsequently
put before the Committee for a vote. The question was taken; and on a
division demanded by Mr. Heselton, there were--ayes 42, noes 28.
Mr. Reid F. Murray, of Wisconsin, then rose to make the point of
order that a quorum was not present. As the Chairman (13)
announced his intent to count, Mr. Murray rose again to withdraw his
point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, then made the following
parliamentary inquiry:
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, is it too late to ask for tellers on
this vote?
The Chairman: No; it is not too late to ask for tellers.
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers.
Sec. 17.11 The demand for tellers on an amendment did not come too late
where the absence of a quorum had prevented the Chair from
announcing the adoption of the amendment by division vote.
On Sept. 24, 1970,(14) the House resolved itself into
the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill
(H.R. 18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws in
order to deal more comprehensively with the problems attendant upon
drug abuse prevention and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 33603, 33628, 33634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Richard H. Poff, of
[[Page 11561]]
Virginia, offered an amendment. An amendment to the Poff amendment
having been rejected, the Chairman (15) put the question on
the Poff amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and on a division demanded by Mr. Robert C.
Eckhardt, of Texas, there were--ayes 35, noes 22. Mr. James C. Corman,
of California, raised the point of order that a quorum was not present.
The Chair then counting only 71 Members, a quorum call was ordered.
A quorum having responded, the Committee rose; the Chairman
reported the results to the Speaker,(16) and the Committee
resumed its sitting. Thereafter, a subsequent demand for tellers was
honored as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: When the point of order was made on the absence
of a quorum, the Chair had just announced the vote by division on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Poff)--35
ayes, 22 noes.
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr.
Poff and Mr. Eckhardt.
The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that
there were--ayes 147, noes 61.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Refusal To Entertain During Count for Quorum
Sec. 17.12 The Chair did not entertain a demand for a teller vote in
the Committee of the Whole pending his count of a quorum.
On Aug. 21, 1950,(17) the Committee of the Whole having
under consideration a bill (H.R. 9313) to amend the Agricultural Act of
1949, Mr. James C. Davis, of Georgia, offered an amendment. A division
vote was taken and, with 49 Members voting, Mr. Davis made the point of
order that a quorum was not present, whereupon the Chair
(18) indicated it would count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 12960, 12961, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Carl T. Durham (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following proceedings then occurred:
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
The Chairman: The gentleman withdraws his point of order that a
quorum is not present?
Mr. Davis of Georgia: I do not withdraw it. A parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Was my point of order that a quorum is
not present in order?
The Chairman: The gentleman can make the point of order that a
quorum is not present. . . .
[[Page 11562]]
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Can the motion for tellers be made after
a quorum is present?
The Chairman: Yes.
Chair's Count for Quorum; Not Verifiable by Tellers
Sec. 17.13 The Chair did not recognize a demand for tellers to verify
its count of a quorum.
On May 20, 1949,(19) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 4591) to
provide pay, allowances, and physical disability retirement for members
of the armed forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 6546, 6556, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During debate, Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, rose to address
the Chair (20) and initiated the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The Chairman: The Chair will count. [After counting.] One
hundred and five Members are present, a quorum.
Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia has demanded tellers.
The gentleman from Wisconsin made the point of order that a quorum
was not present. The Chair counted 105 Members present. At this
time there is no question before the House on which tellers can be
ordered.
The Chairman having so ruled, Mr. Vinson then made the point of
order that a quorum was not present. The Chair counted and found 114
Members in attendance. Accordingly, the Committee proceeded to its
business.