[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 3. Duty To Vote]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11447-11466]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 3. Duty To Vote

    In the First Congress, a rule was adopted which specified that ``no 
Member shall vote on any question in the event of which he is 
immediately and particularly interested; or in any case where he was 
not present when the question was put.'' (18) Another rule, 
adopted on the same day, Apr. 7, 1789, provided that ``every Member who 
shall be in the House when a question is put shall vote on the one side 
or the other, unless the House for special reasons shall excuse 
him;''.(19) Finally, on Apr. 13, 1789, the House

[[Page 11448]]

mandated ``that no Member absent himself from the service of the House, 
unless he have leave or be sick and unable to attend;''.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See House Journal, First Cong. 1st Sess., p. 9, for adoption of 
        ``old rule 29,'' on Apr. 7, 1789.
19. First Cong. 1st Sess., Rule 31.
20. First Cong. 1st Sess., Journal p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 104th Congress, the corresponding clauses of Rule VIII 
address the same concepts. Clause 3, although implicitly a part of the 
accepted norms of House behavior, was not adopted until ``ghost 
voting'' problems surfaced in the House following the utilization of 
the electronic voting system.(1) The rule reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1 127 Cong. Rec. 98-113, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 
        1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Rule VIII. Duties of the Members.
        Clause 1. Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the 
    House during its sittings, unless excused or necessarily prevented; 
    and shall vote on each question put, unless he has a direct 
    personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question. . . .
        Clause 3. (a) A Member may not authorize any other individual 
    to cast his vote or record his presence in the House or Committee 
    of the Whole.
        (b) No individual other than a Member may cast a vote or record 
    a Member's presence in the House or Committee of the Whole.
        (c) A Member may not cast a vote for any other Member or record 
    another Member's presence in the House or Committee of the Whole.

    In the 94th Congress, the House adopted a new provision to the Code 
of Official Conduct. Rule XLIII clause 10,(2) states that a 
Member of the House who pleads guilty to, or is convicted of, a crime 
for which the sentence could be two or more years imprisonment should 
refrain from voting in the House or its committees, including the 
Committee of the Whole, until judicial or executive proceedings 
reinstate the Member's presumption of innocence or until he is 
reelected to the House after his conviction.(3) The power of 
the House to deprive a Member of the right to vote on any question is 
certainly doubtful.(4) Clause 10 is not mandatory, but 
``directory.'' (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 839 (1995).
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 10340, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 16, 1975.
 4. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5952; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3072.
 5. See Sec. 3.2, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal or Pecuniary Interest, Member's Determination

Sec. 3.1 Observance of the requirement of Rule VIII, clause 1 that each 
    Member shall vote unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary 
    interest in the question, is the responsibility of the individual 
    Member. And the

[[Page 11449]]

    Speaker has indicated that he would not rule on a point of order 
    challenging the personal or pecuniary interest of Members in a 
    pending question, but would defer to the judgment of each Member as 
    to the directness of their interest.

    On June 27, 1972,(6) the House entertained consideration 
of a resolution (H. Res. 1021) providing for the consideration of a 
bill (H.R. 15390) to extend the then-temporary level of the public debt 
limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 22548, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the resolution's consideration, Mr. Durward G. 
Hall, of Missouri, sought to elicit an indication from the Speaker 
(7) as to whether the Chair intended to direct the Members 
with respect to assessing their own pecuniary interest in voting on the 
measure, as the following exchange (8) reveals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 22554, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to rule 
    VIII,(9) pertinent to the duties of Members, clause 657, 
    which involves personal interest, stating in part: ``Unless he has 
    a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such 
    question.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, leading up to the parliamentary 
    inquiry, section 659 says:

            It is a principle of ``immemorial observance'' that a 
        Member should withdraw when a question concerning himself 
        arises . . .

        Now, Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is, in view of the 
    Reorganization Act of 1970, and even prior to that, the 
    establishment of the Standing Committee on the Conduct and 
    Standards of Ethics of Members, inasmuch as it has become common 
    knowledge as the result of reportorial objective enterprise that 
    there are over 190 Members, including the gentleman from Missouri, 
    that have pecuniary interest in banks and monetary exchange, would 
    it be the intention of the Speaker to see that rule VIII applies in 
    the vote on the previous question?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    precedents under the rule to which the gentleman makes reference 
    are clear that the Speaker has usually held that the Member himself 
    should determine the question. It is a question for the conscience 
    of the Member.
        Mr. Hall: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Unless a point of order were made based on this rule 
    it would not be the intention of the Chair to direct the Members 
    that they should as a matter of conscience assess their own

[[Page 11450]]

    pecuniary interest in voting on such a matter?
        The Speaker: The Chair would leave the matter of conscience to 
    each Member's own judgment.

Point of Order Raised Against Vote

Sec. 3.2 Where a Member had voted on a motion to permit the reading in 
    debate of a court transcript on which a pending resolution for his 
    expulsion was in part based, the Chair overruled a point of order 
    that such Member was prohibited because of his personal interest in 
    the question from voting thereon, since the more recent precedents 
    within the last 100 years indicate that it is the responsibility of 
    each Member, and not of the Speaker, to determine whether he has a 
    direct personal or pecuniary interest so as to prevent him from 
    voting under Rule VIII.

        On Mar. 1, 1979,(10) Mr. Newt Gingrich, of Georgia, 
    rose to a question of privilege. The pertinent proceedings relating 
    to Rule VIII are shown below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746, 3747, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the 
    privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 142) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 142

            Resolved, That Charles C. Diggs, Jr., a Representative from 
        the Thirteenth District of Michigan, is hereby expelled from 
        the House of Representatives.

                        motion offered by mr. wright

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wright moves to refer House Resolution 142 to the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Wright) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich). . . .

        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Virginia (Mr. Butler). . . .
        Mr. [M. Caldwell] Butler [of Virginia]: . . . I will tell you, 
    however, that I have read the testimony of Charles Diggs under oath 
    before the court and in my opinion he affirmatively stated and 
    admitted sufficient acts to constitute grounds for his expulsion 
    today. Here again, I would prefer it to be determined with the 
    recommendation of the appropriate committee and under more regular 
    procedures await that process; but when the gentleman from Michigan 
    insists on continued participation, then I have no choice but to 
    share the facts I have now.

[[Page 11451]]

        Bear in mind, I have not read the entire record. I make no 
    representation about that. I only deal with what the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Diggs) had to say on the charges against him. There 
    are 29. My time is limited. I will only deal with samples, but I 
    represent that these are fair samples.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, the Member in the well 
    is going to attempt to read from a transcript in a trial. 
    Ordinarily, I would have no objection to that if this body had 
    constituted itself as a body to try Mr. Diggs. It has not done so. 
    I have strenuous objections to reading any portion of that 
    transcript when this body is not so constituted to receive that 
    information.
        Number two. Mr. Speaker, in doing so, if he is permitted to do 
    so, is not the Member usurping authority of the Committee on 
    Standards of Official Conduct?
        I strenuously object to the reading of any portion of this 
    transcript.
        The Speaker: The gentleman objects to the reading?
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker; any portion 
    of the transcript, whether it is printed in the Record or not, I do 
    not care. I object to its being read before this body as presently 
    constituted.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Virginia can continue to 
    debate, but he cannot continue to read without the permission of 
    the House.
        Mr. Butler: Mr. Speaker, may I have the permission of the House 
    to read from the transcript?
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I object to granting 
    permission for the reading of the transcript.
        The Speaker: The question is: Shall the gentleman from Virginia 
    be permitted to read the document? The question is on that matter.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland demands the yeas and 
    nays.
        Those in favor of taking this by the yeas and nays will arise.
        In the opinion of the Chair, a sufficient number have arisen. 
    The yeas and nays will be ordered. . . .
        The Members will proceed to vote. Those in favor will vote 
    ``aye,'' those opposed will vote ``no.''
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    353, nays 53, not voting 26, as follows: . . .
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Arizona will state it.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the electronic device by which the 
    House votes indicates that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Diggs) 
    has voted on the question which the House just considered. I would 
    like to make a point of order against the vote by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Diggs)

[[Page 11452]]

    based on rule VIII, clause 1, which of course states:

            Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the House 
        during its sittings, unless excused or necessarily prevented; 
        and shall vote on each question put, unless he has a direct 
        personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question.
            In making the point of order, I submit that the gentleman 
        from Michigan clearly has a personal interest in the question 
        just decided.

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule on the gentleman's 
    point of order. For the information particularly of the new Members 
    as to how the pending vote came about, it is stated in the Rules of 
    the House that a Member cannot read from a document upon which the 
    House will not vote without the permission of the House. In this 
    instance the gentleman was going to read from the records of the 
    court. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) objected. This 
    has happened in the past.
        It was on December 19, 1974, that there was an objection to the 
    reading from a paper by the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Abzug, 
    and the House voted that she could read from the paper.
        The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) has addressed himself 
    in an inquiry to the Chair on the application of rule VIII, clause 
    1, providing that each Member shall vote on each question unless he 
    has a direct personal or pecuniary interest therein.
        Speaker Clark held that the question of whether a Member's 
    interest was such as to disqualify him from voting was an issue for 
    the Member himself to decide and that the Speaker did not have the 
    prerogative to rule against the constitutional right of a Member to 
    represent his constituency.
        Speaker Blaine stated that the power of the House to deprive 
    one of its Members of the right to vote on any question was 
    doubtful.
        The Chair has been able to discover only two recorded instances 
    in the history of the House where the Speaker has declared a Member 
    disqualified from voting. The last decision occurred over 100 years 
    ago.
        Because the Chair severely doubts his authority to deprive the 
    constitutional right of a Member to vote, and because of the 
    overwhelming weight of precedent, the Chair holds that each Member 
    should make his or her own determination whether or not a personal 
    or pecuniary interest in a pending matter should cause him to 
    withhold his vote. The point of order is overruled.
        So the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Butler) was allowed to 
    read.

For Medical Reasons

Sec. 3.3 A Member may be excused from voting for medical reasons only 
    by the House; the Committee of the Whole has no such authority, 
    even by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(12) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
2362) to strengthen and improve edu

[[Page 11453]]

cational quality and educational opportunities in the nation's 
elementary and secondary schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 6095, 6096, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Adam C. Powell, 
of New York, asked unanimous consent that Mr. Charles E. Bennett, of 
Florida, and Mr. Elmer J. Holland, of Pennsylvania, be excused from any 
teller votes. Although both of these Members were present, Mr. Bennett 
had a broken leg and was confined to a wheelchair; and Mr. Holland was 
recovering from a severe stroke and found walking difficult.
    The Chairman (13) was unable to permit the Powell 
request, however, stating that ``That is not in order in the Committee 
of the Whole. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstentions and Announcements Thereof

Sec. 3.4 Two Members abstained from voting on a bill [to increase 
    compensation for service-connected disabilities for veterans] in 
    which they had a pecuniary interest.

    On Apr. 2, 1962,(14) Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, moved 
to suspend the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 10743) to amend title 38 of 
the United States Code. The purposes of the bill were to provide 
increases in the rates of service-connected disability compensation to 
reflect the change which had occurred in the cost of living since the 
previous compensation increase in 1957 and to more adequately 
compensate the nation's seriously disabled veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 5561, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following discussion of the motion, the Speaker (15) put 
the question.(16) It was taken; and, the yeas and nays 
having been ordered, there were--yeas 347, answered ``present'' 2, not 
voting 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 5568, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two Members voting ``present'' were Mr. Robert H. Michel, of 
Illinois, and Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi. Both of the 
aforementioned Members possessed service-connected 
disabilities.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. In an earlier instance, the same Mr. Williams along with Mr. 
        Charles E. Potter (Mich.), notified the Speaker that they would 
        be personally affected by a bill (S. 1864) to authorize the 
        Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to purchase automobiles for 
        certain disabled veterans. Accordingly, each indicated that he 
        felt compelled to vote ``present.'' See 97 Cong. Rec. 13746, 
        82d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 20, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.5 A Member announced a disqualifying personal inter

[[Page 11454]]

    est in a pending bill [pertaining to marketing orders on pears] and 
    stated his intention to vote ``present'' on the issue.

    On Sept. 9, 1968,(18) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering a bill (H.R. 
10564) to amend section 2(3), section 8c(2), and section 8c(6)(I) of 
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended. The 
purpose of the bill was to add pears for canning or freezing to the 
list of commodities for which federal marketing orders may be made 
applicable and to permit the inclusion of a checkoff for marketing 
promotion projects, including paid advertising for the commodity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 114 Cong. Rec. 26035, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Charles S. Gubser, 
of California, felt compelled to make the following statement: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 26038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I am the owner and operator of a small pear 
    orchard. So, obviously, I have a personal interest in this matter 
    which I construe as a conflict of interest. I therefore take this 
    time to announce to the membership of the House that if a rollcall 
    is held on this bill, I shall vote ``present.''

Sec. 3.6 A Member announced that he had not voted on a roll call 
    because of a pecuniary interest in the legislation, which dealt 
    with urban renewal.

    On July 27, 1965,(20) the House agreed to the conference 
report on a bill (H.R. 7984) to assist in the provision of housing for 
low and moderate-income families to promote orderly urban development, 
to improve living environment in urban areas, and to extend and amend 
laws relating to housing, urban renewal, and community facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 18424, 18425, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following this vote, Mr. James H. Scheuer, of New York, requested 
unanimous consent to address the House for one minute. There being no 
objection, Mr. Scheuer made the following statement:

        Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the record that on 
    rollcall No. 204 concerning H.R. 7984, I was present but did not 
    vote because I felt I had a direct personal interest in the 
    legislation, and under rule 8 of the House was precluded from 
    voting thereon.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.7 Where a bill was pending relating to the reserves required to 
    be maintained by certain banks, a Member disqualified himself on 
    the vote

[[Page 11455]]

    because of a pecuniary interest in the question voted upon.

    On July 1, 1959,(2) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (S. 
1120) to amend the National Bank Act and the Federal Reserve Act with 
respect to the reserves required to be maintained by member banks of 
the Federal Reserve System against deposits and to eliminate the 
classification ``central reserve city.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 12481, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the Committee's deliberations, the Chairman 
(3) recognized Mr. Thomas M. Pelly, of Washington, who then 
made the following statement: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 12504, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I desire the Record to show that in conformity 
    with rule 8 of the Rules of the House when this measure comes to a 
    vote, I shall feel constrained to vote ``present.'' (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal of Vote Owing to Pecuniary Interest

Sec. 3.8 A Member has withdrawn his vote on a roll call because of a 
    pecuniary interest in the question voted upon.

    On July 21, 1954,(6) the House voted to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill (H.R. 9020) to provide increases in the monthly 
rates of compensation and pension payable to certain veterans and their 
dependents. Prior to the Speaker's (7) announcement of the 
result, Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, addressed the Speaker 
and asked how he was recorded. The Speaker responded by informing Mr. 
Williams that he was recorded as voting ``yea.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 100 Cong. Rec. 11262, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Williams made the following statement:

        Mr. Speaker, under rule 8, clause 1, of the Rules of the House 
    of Representatives I do not feel qualified to vote on this 
    particular measure. I therefore withdraw my vote of ``yea'' and 
    vote ``present.''

    The result of the vote was then announced, after which Mr. Williams 
sought and received unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the 
Record. In so doing, he said the following:

        Mr. Speaker, on the rollcall just completed, I am recorded as 
    voting ``present.'' In view of the fact that I am not recorded as 
    favoring or opposing the measure, I feel that I should take this 
    means to clarify my personal position on the bill just passed.

[[Page 11456]]

        Clause 1, rule VIII of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives provides that every Member ``shall vote on each 
    question put unless he has a direct or pecuniary interest in the 
    event of such question.'' (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. This language did not change in the intervening period of time. See 
        Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Further, Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, 
    paragraph 376, states:

            Where the private interests of a Member are concerned in a 
        bill or question, he is to withdraw.

        Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that I would be one of the 
    veterans personally affected by the bill just passed, I felt 
    compelled under the Rules of the House to withdraw from voting and 
    to be recorded as voting ``present'' (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. In the 84th Congress, Mr. Williams also withdrew a ``yea'' vote on 
        a roll call to pass a bill of pecuniary interest to certain 
        veterans for virtually the same reasons. See 102 Cong. Rec. 
        12566, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Subject Matter in Question Affects Class of Members

Sec. 3.9 The Chair has held that where the subject matter before the 
    House affects a class of citizens, which includes some Members, 
    rather than individual Members, the personal interest of Members 
    who belong to that class is not such as to disqualify them from 
    voting; and the Chair noted, in so ruling, that the power of the 
    House to deprive one of its Members of the right to vote on any 
    question is doubtful.

    On May 31, 1939,(10) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up a resolution (H. Res. 
205) and asked for its immediate consideration. The resolution 
provided, in part, that upon its adoption, the House would resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 6359, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . for the consideration of H.R. 6466, a bill to provide for 
    and promote the general welfare of the United States by supplying 
    to the people a more liberal distribution and increase of 
    purchasing power, retiring certain citizens from gainful 
    employment, improving and stabilizing gainful employment for other 
    citizens, stimulating agricultural and industrial production and 
    general business, and alleviating the hazards and insecurity of old 
    age and unemployment. . . .

    Shortly thereafter,(11) Mr. Martin J. Kennedy, of New 
York, propounded a parliamentary inquiry--the answer to which comprised 
a rather lengthy statement by the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 6360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin J. Kennedy: . . . I feel that in such an important 
    issue as the

[[Page 11457]]

    pending one the House and the country are entitled to know whether 
    or not these Members over the age of 60 are disqualified to vote 
    under rule VIII of the House.(12) If this bill passes 
    they will automatically become immediate beneficiaries under the 
    provisions of the bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary 
    inquiry is, Are such Members disqualified from voting on this bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The language of the first clause of Rule VIII did not change 
        between 1939 and 1973. See Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman from New York has 
    propounded a parliamentary inquiry which, of course, the Chair 
    assumes is propounded in good faith, and the Chair imagines that 
    the gentleman has in mind rule VIII of the House of 
    Representatives, which is in the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the House 
    during its sittings unless excused or necessarily prevented, and 
    shall vote on each question put unless he has a direct personal or 
    pecuniary interest in the event of such question.

        The Chair does not feel, in view of the pressing circumstances 
    with respect to time, it is necessary to undertake to elaborate 
    upon this question, as it is certainly not a novel one, and in the 
    brief time since the gentleman gave notice he would propound his 
    parliamentary inquiry the Chair has found that this question has 
    been specifically presented to the House on a number of occasions 
    and finds that very thoughtful and elaborate opinions have been 
    rendered upon this point, particularly by Mr. Speaker Blaine 
    (Hinds' Precedents, vol. V, sec. 5952), by Mr. Speaker Longworth 
    (Cannon's Precedents, vol. VIII, sec. 3072), and by Mr. Speaker 
    Clark (Cannon's Precedents, vol. VIII, sec. 3071), all of whom join 
    in the conclusion stated in the syllabus of the Blaine opinion in 
    the following language:

            Where the subject matter before the House affects a class 
        rather than individuals, the personal interest of Members who 
        belong to that class is not such as to disqualify them for 
        voting.
            The power of the House to deprive one of its Members of the 
        right to vote on any question is doubtful.

        If the Chair were disposed to elaborate upon the opinion 
    announced in the Blaine decision, it might be proper for him to 
    read extracts from that decision. However, it seems to be well 
    determined--and the Chair thinks it is based on sound reasoning and 
    philosophy--that where a bill comes up affecting a general class of 
    people and no direct or personal pecuniary interest of a Member as 
    such is involved, Members are not proscribed in absolute good faith 
    and in all morality from voting upon a bill of that character.
        If the rule were otherwise, all of us would probably be subject 
    to some prohibition in the way of voting upon Federal Taxation. It 
    might be taken to excuse ourselves from voting upon such questions 
    because our pecuniary interests are involved. A number of other 
    suggestions might be made along the same line.
        So the Chair answers the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman 
    from New York to the effect that under the

[[Page 11458]]

    rulings of former Speakers in well-considered opinions and as a 
    matter of constitutional right the Members can, and should, in all 
    good faith vote upon the bill now involved.

Votes and Ethics Inquiries

Sec. 3.10 A Member's stock ownership has been the subject of an 
    investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
    where it was alleged that the Member's votes on legislation before 
    the House tended to benefit his investment.

    In the 94th Congress, the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct investigated several charges of misconduct brought against Mr. 
Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida. The committee eventually submitted a 
report urging a reprimand of the Representative which was adopted by 
the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 1421, 122 Cong. Rec. 14381-83, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., July 
        29, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the charges against Mr. Sikes was that he had violated Rule 
VIII clause 1,(15) which provides that a Member not vote on 
questions in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest, in 
that he had voted on a general defense appropriation bill in 1974 which 
carried an appropriation of funds to purchase aircraft to be 
manufactured by a corporation in which he owned stock. The committee 
declined to recommend that the Member be punished for this vote and 
cited in support of its decision Speaker Albert's response to a 
parliamentary inquiry on Dec. 2, 1975.(16) In that instance, 
Speaker Albert had stated that a Member's ownership of stock did not 
disqualify him from voting on a bill general in scope where he would be 
within a class of numerous individuals with similar pecuniary 
interests. It is up to each Member to make a determination whether to 
withhold his vote under Rule VIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule VIII clause 1, provides: ``Every Member shall be present 
        within the Hall of the House during its sittings, unless 
        excused or necessarily prevented; and shall vote on each 
        question put, unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary 
        interest in the event of such question.'' House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 38135, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Meeting as Excusing Duty To Vote

Sec. 3.11 Permission from the House to a committee to sit during House 
    sessions, does not relieve committee members from their obligation 
    to respond on House roll calls.

[[Page 11459]]

    On Aug. 5, 1937,(17) the House, by unanimous consent, 
granted its permission to the Committee on Ways and Means to sit during 
the sessions of the House for the remainder of the session. Immediately 
thereafter, Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, addressed the Speaker 
(18) and the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 8300, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Indiana yield to permit 
    the gentleman from New York to submit a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. [Arthur H.] Greenwood: I yield.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, when permission is given to a committee 
    to sit during the sessions of the House, does that give any rights 
    to any of the members of that committee on roll calls?
        The Speaker: Absolutely none.
        Mr. Fish: Not even on quorum roll calls?
        The Speaker: It does not. On all quorum roll calls all Members 
    who desire to be recorded must appear and vote on the roll call.

Right of Chairman of Committee of the Whole To Participate

Sec. 3.12 Appointment of a Member to Chair the Committee of the Whole 
    does not effect a forfeiture of his right to vote or to object to a 
    unanimous-consent request.

    On Dec. 9, 1947,(19) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
4604) providing aid to certain foreign countries. In the course of the 
lengthy discussion which followed, a question arose as to the possible 
invasion of the Chair's rights. Mr. August H. Andresen, of Minnesota, 
had sought unanimous consent to discuss his proposed amendment 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole on the following day. 
Objection being heard,(1) Mr. Andresen withdrew his request. 
However, Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, sought to strike the 
last word in order to voice his reservations against such a request per 
se. Mr. McCormack felt constrained to say that he ``would never agree 
to a unanimous-consent request which takes away from the Chairman of 
the Committee . . . the right to recognize Members in [the] Committee 
of the Whole.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 11188, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Id. at p. 11230.
 1. Id. at p. 11231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In responding to Mr. McCormack's assertion, the Chair 
(2) in

[[Page 11460]]

dicated that it did not believe any of its prerogatives would be 
forfeited if such a request were honored. Said Chairman Michener:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair understands the rule, the presiding officer in the 
    Committee is in a dual capacity. First, he is selected to be the 
    presiding officer during the consideration of the bill. But by 
    accepting such appointment he does not lose his right to vote and 
    object as any other Member. That is, his district is not deprived 
    of its rights by virtue of the Chairman selection. That being true, 
    the Chair not making any objection, I cannot see how the rights of 
    the Chair are infringed upon if the committee, by unanimous 
    consent, wants to provide that a certain individual may speak at a 
    certain hour during the Committee consideration. If the Chair is 
    agreeable and all Members are agreeable.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For specific precedents pertaining to votes by the Chair in the 
        generic sense (i.e., by the Chairman of the Committee of the 
        Whole, by the Speaker, and by the Speaker Pro Tempore) see 
        Sec. Sec. 15, 21, 29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Senate

Sec. 3.13 The Senate by viva voce vote excused a Senator from voting on 
    a yea and nay roll call because of his pecuniary interest in an 
    amendment before that body.

    The Senate having resumed consideration of a bill (H.R. 3687) to 
provide revenue, and for other purposes, Senator J. W. Elmer Thomas, of 
Oklahoma, called up an amendment pertaining to mineral depletion 
allowances.(4) Discussion ensued after which the Presiding 
Officer (5) put the question (6) on the 
amendment. Senator Thomas then requested the yeas and nays which were 
ordered shortly thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 300, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 18, 1944.
 5. John L. McClellan (Ark.).
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 304, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the legislative clerk proceeded to call his name, Senator Warren 
R. Austin, of Vermont, initiated the following exchange:

        Mr. President, I ask to be excused from voting on this 
    amendment. I am personally interested in one of the items affected, 
    namely, talc.
        The Presiding Officer: Shall the Senator from Vermont, for the 
    reasons assigned by him, be excused from voting? [Putting the 
    question.] The ``ayes'' have it, and the Senator is excused.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While Members of the House are expected to 
vote on each question unless they have a ``direct personal or pecuniary 
interest'' (7)--a question which each Representative must 
decide on his own--members of the Senate are expected to vote unless 
``excused by

[[Page 11461]]

the Senate.'' (8) The procedure is described in part as 
follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule VIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 656 (1995).
 8. Rule XII clause 2, Senate Manual (1995).
 9. Id. at clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When a Senator declines to vote on call of his name, he shall 
    be required to assign his reasons therefor, and having assigned 
    them, the Presiding Officer shall submit the question to the 
    Senate: ``Shall the Senator, for the reasons assigned by him, be 
    excused from voting?'' which shall be decided without debate.

Proxy Voting

Sec. 3.14 While the exercise of proxy voting is forbidden in the House, 
    recognition of voting proxies by a standing committee has at some 
    periods been left as a matter to be determined by the committee 
    itself.

    On Jan. 26, 1950,(10) the House briefly discussed a 
recent decision of the Committee on Rules to delay the reporting out of 
certain legislation because of the absence of two of the committee's 
minority members. As Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, explained to the 
House, one of the missing members had been unavoidably absent because 
of his hospitalization, and had specifically requested that the 
Committee on Rules decision be delayed temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 980, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, a colloquy evolved as follows:

        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, would it not be within the rules 
    of the House for the Committee on Rules to permit a member to give 
    his proxy to another member so a vote could be had on an important 
    matter in which the whole country is interested?
        The Speaker: That is a matter for the committee to determine.
        The Chair may make this statement: He served on one committee 
    for 24 years, and never was a proxy voted on that committee, 
    because the present occupant of the Chair always voted against it.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: The rules of the House are the rules of every 
    committee of the House. I, as chairman of the Committee on 
    Veterans' Affairs, have taken the position that since the rules of 
    the House forbid voting by proxy, under the same rule a member 
    cannot vote by proxy in the committee. Am I right or not?
        The Speaker: Committees have always been permitted to decide 
    that question.

[[Page 11462]]

        Mr. Rankin: The rule states that the committees shall be 
    governed by the rules of the House: that the rules of the House 
    shall be the rules of every committee, and I do not believe a 
    committee can change its own rules to permit absentee voting.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to hold as did Speaker 
    Longworth, that it is a matter for the committee itself to 
    determine.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Speaker Longworth's statement on the use of proxies in committees 
        is found in 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2219. See also Ch. 17, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Effective Jan. 22, 1971, the provisions of 
section 106(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 became 
part of the rules. Those provisions permitted committees to adopt 
written rules permitting proxies in writing, designating the person to 
execute the proxy, and limited to a specific measure or matter and 
amendments or motions relating thereto. Effective Jan. 3, 1975, proxies 
in committee were prohibited, but on Jan. 14, 1975, the rule was 
amended to permit proxies in committees with the additional 
restrictions requiring an assertion that the Member is absent on 
official business or otherwise unable to attend, requiring the Member 
to sign and date the proxy, and permitting general proxies for 
procedural matters. In the 103d Congress, Rule XI clause 2(f), was 
added which prohibited all proxy voting in all committees and 
subcommittees.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Absentee'' or ``Ghost'' Voting

Sec. 3.15 An explicit prohibition against using a voting card for a 
    colleague is now a part of the standing rules.

    While the requirement that a Member has to be physically in the 
Chamber to cast his vote had been an ``accepted'' part of House 
procedures since the First Congress, either explicitly stated or 
universally understood as the norm of behavior, the necessity of 
adopting clause 3, Rule VIII arose after the implementation of the 
electronic voting system. The Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, in its report on ``voting anomalies'' issued in the 96th 
Congress recommended the adoption of an explicit rule.(14) 
The current clause 3 was actually made a part of Rule I on Jan. 5, 
1981.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Rept. No. 96-991.
15. 127 Cong. Rec. 98-113, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.16 The House has reprimanded a Member who permitted votes on his 
    behalf to be cast during his absences.

[[Page 11463]]

    On Dec. 18, 1987,(16) the House considered a privileged 
resolution, reported from the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, to reprimand Mr. Austin J. Murphy, of Pennsylvania, for 
allowing his voting card to be used to cast two votes during his 
absence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266-76, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative 
    Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 335

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the 
        report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated 
        December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J. 
        Murphy of Pennsylvania.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (H. 
        Rept. No. 100-485) set forth the findings of the committee and 
        recommended a reprimand. By adopting the report, the House 
        ratified the committee's findings as well as its 
        recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  announcement by the speaker pro tempore

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to state that 
    unanimous consent has been obtained for Members to extend their 
    remarks on this matter. It is essential that the Congressional 
    Record contain as true and accurate a record of the proceedings as 
    possible. All insertions and extensions not delivered in debate 
    will appear at the end of the proceedings printed in smaller type. 
    The Chair trusts that Members will, in revising remarks they 
    actually delivered in debate on this subject, confine their 
    revisions to those which are necessary to correct grammatical 
    errors and consistent with the permission obtained by the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Dixon] to refrain from making any changes in 
    the substance of debate.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]: 
    . . .
        Mr. Dixon: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, there were four counts that the committee 
    sustained. Two counts dealt with what is commonly known as ghost 
    voting. A third count dealt with the improper diversion of 
    Government resources, and the fourth count dealt with what is known 
    as a ghost employee; that is, Michael Corbett--from September 1981 
    to July 1982--failed to carry out the duties for which he was 
    compensated.
        I want to first take the time to deal with counts 1 and 2. The 
    committee found that on July 14 and August 9, 1978, Representative 
    Murphy was recorded as voting when he wasn't present in the Hall of 
    the House.
        He was recorded ``present'' on rollcall No. 543 at 10:23 a.m. 
    on July 14, 1978. There was clear and convincing evidence and, as a 
    matter of fact, it was

[[Page 11464]]

    stipulated to that he was in Washington, PA, serving as master of 
    ceremonies at Judge Samuel Rogers' swearing in at 10:30 a.m.
        On August 9, 1978, on rollcall No. 663 at 10:26 a.m., he was 
    recorded as being present. He was in Carmichaels, PA, at a ground-
    breaking ceremony at 11 a.m.
        As a matter of fact, Representative Murphy has stipulated that 
    he was present at these particular places. The defense for these 
    actions are that his card was placed in his desk drawer while he 
    was out of town and he had no personal knowledge how these votes 
    occurred. He also asserts that, as a defense, it was not a 
    violation of House rules at that time to proxy vote.
        In 1978, rule VIII said, in part: Every Member shall be present 
    *** and shall vote on each question put ***.
        The committee came to the conclusion that Representative Murphy 
    permitted, either in the sense that he knew or that he didn't guard 
    against being voted on the floor of the House by safeguarding his 
    voting card. Furthermore, he didn't, a short time thereafter, 
    notify the House to disavow the ghost votes. . . .
        It is the totality of this picture: That on at least two 
    occasions ghost voting occurred; that there was an improper 
    diversion of official resources; and that a ghost employee under 
    Representative Murphy's direct supervision, did not carry out his 
    job duties as subcommittee staff director, that this committee has 
    recommended to you, on a vote of 11 ayes to 0 nays, that 
    Representative Murphy be reprimanded. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Members of this body that I 
    appreciate the attention that they have given to both sides of this 
    issue. . . .
        There is some confusion here as it relates to counts one and 
    two, and let me tell you what the facts are. An analysis was made. 
    The votes were not made here or anyplace else. They were made at 
    station 33 with a card; so the issue of whether they were made here 
    and all the confusion, in all respect to the respondent, he is 
    trying to cloud the issue.
        Prior to 1973, that was the year that the voting devices were 
    installed, was there any doubt in any Member's mind that they have 
    to be here physically on the floor and vote? I do not think so.
        After that time in an honorable House with honorable men and 
    women, no one thought to change the rule, and so there is an issue 
    that arose in the Morgan Murphy case as to the crime or breach of 
    confidence or House rule as it relates to someone who took the 
    card, not the person that was responsible for their own vote; and 
    yes, there was a rule change made in 1980 that said not only do you 
    have to be present, but because of technology, the person who does 
    the voting has breached the House rules. That is what occurred in 
    the Morgan Murphy case.
        Mr. Murphy in that case took the well on the Monday after and 
    said he did not allow anyone to vote him.
        Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Austin Murphy, says 
    that some of this came to the committee's attention, and he is 
    correct in part, by a May 7 Times article. Did Mr. Murphy at that 
    time look at the article, ex

[[Page 11465]]

    amine the dates, the specific two dates that were alleged, come to 
    this well, notify the Speaker, ``Yes, I was not here, and there was 
    a recorded vote''? No, he waited until after a statement of alleged 
    violation, after we knew where he was, and then he says, ``Oh, yes, 
    I leave my card--when I get this, now, when I in fact leave''----

        Mr. Murphy: Will the gentleman yield just for a question?
        Mr. Dixon: I will not yield. The gentleman has placed his 
    interpretation on the evidence. These are arguments I have a right 
    to place my interpretation on the evidence.
        I take my card and I put it in my desk drawer, and so when I 
    leave here I do not have my identification card. With that, does he 
    ever check his records to see if he has been recorded? No. He just 
    does not know how it happened.
        When you look at the fact that it did occur at station 33, 
    there is no doubt that he either directed someone to do it, or he 
    did not safeguard this card. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: All time has expired.
        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the resolution.
        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    324, nays 68, answered ``present'' 20, not voting 21, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the resolution was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Voting After Conviction for Felony

Sec. 3.17 In the 93d Congress, the House adopted a resolution 
    expressing the sense of the House that Members should refrain from 
    voting, in the House, its committees, including the Committee of 
    the Whole, when convicted of a crime for which a sentence of two 
    years or more may be imposed. This resolution was later added to 
    the Code of Official Conduct, as clause 10 in Rule XLIII.

    The resolution was considered and adopted on Nov. 14, 
1973.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 26944-46, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 128

            Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
        Representatives that any Member of, Delegate to, or Resident 
        Commissioner in, the House of Representatives who has been 
        convicted by a court of record for the commission of a crime 
        for which a sentence of two or more years' imprisonment may be 
        imposed should refrain from participation in the business of 
        each committee of which he is then a member and should refrain 
        from voting on any question at a meeting of the House, or of 
        the Committee of the Whole House, unless or until judicial or 
        executive proceedings result in reinstatement of

[[Page 11466]]

        the presumption of his innocence or until he is reelected to 
        the House after the date of such conviction. This resolution 
        shall not affect any other authority of the House with respect 
        to the behavior and conduct of its Members.

        Mr. [Mel] Price of Illinois: . . . [T]he committee is unanimous 
    . . . in urging adoption of the pending resolution which would make 
    it the sense of the House that a Member convicted of a crime 
    carrying a possible sentence of 2 or more years' imprisonment 
    should refrain from participation in the business of each committee 
    of which he is a member and refrain from voting on any questions in 
    the House.

    After debate on the resolution, where certain Members addressed 
issues of constitutionality and of depriving constituents of 
representation, the House adopted the resolution by a vote of 388 to 
18, 27 Members not voting.
    Later in the 93d Congress, on Sept. 24, 1974, a Member resigned as 
a conferee, citing the provisions of H. Res. 128 as the reason for his 
action.
    In the 94th Congress, in a report (94-76) issued by the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct, the committee stated that 
``conviction'' in clause 10 includes a plea of guilty or a finding of 
guilty even though sentencing may be deferred.