[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[A. Generally]
[Â§ 4. Pairs]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11466-11478]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
                              A. GENERALLY
 
Sec. 4. Pairs

    The practice of ``pairing votes'' dates back to the early part of 
the 19th century.(20) The fundamental purposes of pairing 
were to indicate a Member's position on a roll call vote when he was 
unable to be present and to prevent his absence from improperly 
affecting the outcome. ``Pairing'' enabled him to effect a 
``cancellation'' of the vote he would have cast on the particular issue 
through a gentleman's agreement with a Member of the opposite view. The 
latter Member either expected to be similarly unavailable for the vote 
in question or would willingly abstain from voting in deference to the 
``pair'' and vote ``present.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initially criticized by Members of prominence,(21) the 
practice was not referred to in the rules until 1880.(1) 
Even then, the applicable rule (2) merely pertained to the 
announcing of pairs; and its promulgation appears to have constituted 
the legitimizing of a longstanding practice. Historically regarded as 
merely private agreements between Members, the pairing procedure grew 
more by custom than by direction; and the original purpose was 
occasionally lost in the

[[Page 11467]]

procedures which evolved. Hence, as early as 1917, ``general pairs'' 
were customarily listed by pair clerks of all absent Members not 
leaving instructions to the contrary.(3) And such lists did 
not necessarily reflect any Member's position or even his opposition to 
the position of the individual with whom he was paired. The rules still 
make only minimal reference to the pair.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Indeed, John Quincy Adams once moved a resolution citing the 
        practice as violative of the Constitution. Id. At Sec. 3076.
 1. Rule VIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 660 (1995).
 2. Id.
 3. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3078.
 4. See Rule VIII clause 2 (Sec. 660) and Rule XV clause 1 (Sec. 765), 
        House Rules and Manual (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, students of congressional procedure frequently encounter 
references to ``simple'' pairs, ``live'' pairs, ``general'' pairs, and 
``broken'' pairs, among other terms. The ``simple'' pair usually refers 
to the basic agreement through which two Members cancel out each 
other's vote by pairing themselves in the Record when each would take 
opposite positions if present, but both anticipate being absent when 
the particular question is put. The ``live'' pair refers to an 
agreement in which a Member who would vote ``yea'' pairs with a Member 
who would vote ``nay,'' and only one of the two expects to be absent; 
when the question is put, the attending Member changes his vote to 
``present'' or merely answers ``present'' and announces that he has a 
``live'' pair with his absent colleague.(5) A ``general'' 
pair does not represent the product of any agreement between Members 
and neither indicates the positions of those paired nor whether they 
hold opposite views; Members anticipating their absence who desire to 
be generally paired, notify the Clerk as such, and their names are 
arbitrarily paired in the Record as ``Member X with Member Y until 
further notice.'' A ``broken'' pair, of course, refers to a pair 
agreement which is vitiated for one reason or another.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Alternatively, the attending Member may vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' and 
        then withdraw his vote pursuant to the ``live'' pair before the 
        result is announced by the Chair. See Sec. 8, infra.
 6. See Sec. 4.2, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In General

Sec. 4.1 Parties to pairs sometimes, by mutual consent, indicate their 
    positions on the question by inserting after their names ``for'' 
    and ``against'' respectively.

    On Oct. 10, 1963,(7) the Committee of the Whole reported 
a bill back to the House where, following a motion to recommit, the

[[Page 11468]]

yeas and nays were taken, after which the Clerk announced the following 
pairs, among others:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 19270, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On this vote:
        Mr. Halleck for, with Mr. Albert against.
        Mr. Conte for, with Mr. Keogh against.
        Mr. Collier for, with Mr. Shepard against. . . .
        Until further notice:
        Mr. Buckley with Mr. Reifel.
        Mr. O'Brien of Illinois with Mr. Curtin.
        Mr. Feighan with Mr. Thomson of Wisconsin.

Sec. 4.2 A pair will be regarded as broken when a paired Member, 
    expecting to be absent, arrives in time to cast his vote.

    On Apr. 26, 1961,(8) the House voted on the conference 
report on a bill (S. 1) to alleviate conditions of substantial and 
persistent unemployment and underemployment in certain economically 
distressed areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 6731, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. James E. Bromwell, of Iowa, having anticipated that he would be 
absent, had been paired on this vote. Immediately after the tally, 
however, he initiated the following exchange with the Speaker: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I was paired on this vote, but I arrived on the 
    floor in time to vote. Of course, I should not be shown twice since 
    I did vote in person.
        The Speaker: The pair will be broken then, if the gentleman 
    desires to do that.
        Mr. Bromwell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Announcements Pertaining to Pairs

Sec. 4.3 Until the 94th Congress, while pairs could not be announced on 
    a vote by tellers with clerks (now a recorded vote) in the 
    Committee of the Whole, a Member could be recorded as ``present'' 
    and then insert at that point in the Record the statement of an 
    absent Member that he and his colleague would have voted on 
    opposite sides of the question.

    On May 18, 1972,(10) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of a bill (H.R. 
14989) making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1973, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 118 Cong. Rec. 18018, 18027, 18028, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the bill's consideration, Mr. Edward J. Derwinski,

[[Page 11469]]

of Illinois, proposed an amendment to increase the amount of funds 
appropriated for the United Nations and seven of its agencies. 
Following discussion of this proposal, the question was taken by 
tellers with clerks, and the amendment was rejected.
    Immediately after this vote, the following personal announcement 
appears in the Record:

        (Mr. Purcell, at the request of Mr. Bergland, was granted 
    permission to extend his remarks at this point in the record.)
        Mr. [Graham B.] Purcell [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I am unable 
    to be present. Were I present, I would vote ``no'' on this 
    amendment. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland) having 
    intended to vote ``aye,'' the result of the vote would be the same. 
    The gentleman from Minnesota voted ``present.''

    Parliamentarian's Note: Clause 2 of Rule VIII was amended in the 
94th Congress to permit pairs to be announced in Committee of the 
Whole.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 
        1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.4 A Member who entered the Chamber after a vote had been 
    announced on the question of overriding a veto, stated the reasons 
    for his absence and entered his name on the pair list.

    Following a decision by the House to override a Presidential veto 
of the Revenue Act of 1944 (H.R. 3687), Mr. Chet Holifield, of 
California, obtained unanimous consent to extend the following remarks 
at that point in the Record: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 2016, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 24, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I arrived on the floor after my name had been 
    called for a vote to sustain or reject the President's veto on the 
    tax bill. Due to an unavoidable appearance before the State 
    Department on an immigration matter for a constituent, I arrived 
    some 3 minutes late. In such a case the rules of the House prohibit 
    the Member qualifying for the roll-call vote. I immediately entered 
    my name on the pair list in favor of sustaining the President's 
    vote. If I had been present in time for qualification, I would have 
    cast my vote in favor of sustaining the President's veto.

Sec. 4.5 Immediately after announcing that a live pair with an absent 
    colleague compelled him to withdraw his negative roll call vote on 
    an amendment, a Member additionally announced that he had voted 
    ``present'' in the Committee of the Whole on a recorded teller vote 
    pertaining to the same amendment based upon a similar agreement 
    with the identical colleague.

[[Page 11470]]

    The House entertaining consideration of an amendment to a bill 
(H.R. 8190) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1971, the question on the amendment was put, and, 
following a vote by the yeas and nays, but before the Speaker's 
announcement of the result, Mr. Glenn R. Davis, of Wisconsin, was 
recognized by the Chair.(13) He stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 14590, 14591, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., May 12, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from 
    Mississippi, Mr. Griffin. If he had been present he would have 
    voted ``yea.'' I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw my vote and vote 
    ``present.''
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to further state that my vote of 
    ``present'' on the teller vote is also explained by my live pair 
    with the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Griffin.

Parliamentary Inquiries as to Pairs

Sec. 4.6 While the Chair does not interpret or take other cognizance of 
    pairs, he may respond to a parliamentary inquiry concerning whether 
    or not a particular Member's name was read by the Clerk as being 
    paired.

    The House having passed a bill (H.R. 15149), Mr. Frank T. Bow, of 
Ohio, withdrew his ``nay'' vote immediately thereafter, and voted 
``present'' instead, explaining that he had a ``live pair'' with Mr. 
Donald W. Riegle, Jr., of Michigan, who would have voted ``yea,'' had 
he been present.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 37996, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 9, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action prompted the following inquiry and the Chair's 
response:

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: When the pairs were originally announced, was not 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle) announced as being paired?

        The Speaker: The Chair will state, in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry, that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Riegle) was announced as paired for. The Chair does not take 
    cognizance of pairs.

Member's Proscription Against Pairing

Sec. 4.7 A Member may leave instructions with pair clerks that he is 
    never to be paired, on any occasion.

    On Oct. 8, 1962,(16) shortly after the House convened, 
Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, made the following personal 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 22801, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a summary of votes on legislation for the session 
    shows me as having been paired on one occasion.

[[Page 11471]]

        Mr. Speaker, the clerks have direction never to pair me. I am 
    never paired on a vote on any occasion, and I wish to make this 
    statement at this time.

Subsequent Deletion of Pair

Sec. 4.8 Following a statement as to how he would have voted on the 
    final passage of a bill if he had been present, a Member obtained 
    unanimous consent to delete his ``until further notice'' pair with 
    another Member from the Record.

    On Apr. 25, 1972,(17) shortly after the House convened, 
Mr. John G. Schmitz, of California, was recognized by the Speaker 
(18) and made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 14214, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be on the House 
    floor on April 20 to be recorded on rollcall No. 119, the vote on 
    H.R. 14070, to authorize appropriations for the National 
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, including the funding for the 
    space shuttle program. Had I been present I would have voted 
    ``yea.''
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the listing of my 
    name under the pairs under the ``until further notice'' section be 
    stricken, to reflect this fact.

    There being no objection to the unanimous-consent request, it was 
honored; and the name of Mr. Thomas S. Foley, of Washington, with whom 
Mr. Schmitz had been paired, was also deleted (19) from the 
permanent Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 13654, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 20, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Live'' Pairs; Withdrawing Vote; In General

Sec. 4.9 A Member who qualified as being opposed to a bill and offered 
    the motion to recommit (which was defeated) withdrew his ``no'' 
    vote on passage and, after announcing a live pair, answered 
    ``present.''

    On Dec. 9, 1969,(20) the Committee of the Whole directed 
its Chairman (1) to report a bill (H.R. 15149) to the House 
making appropriations for foreign assistance and related programs for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes with 
sundry amendments and with the recommendation that the amendments be 
agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 37995, 37996, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill having been engrossed and read a third time, Mr. Frank T. 
Bow, of Ohio, rose to offer a motion to recommit. The Speak

[[Page 11472]]

er (2) ascertained Mr. Bow's opposition to the measure and 
the Clerk was directed to report the motion to recommit. The motion was 
rejected, however, and the bill was passed by the yeas and nays with 
Mr. Bow voting in the negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, Mr. Bow addressed the Chair and made the 
following statement:

        Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Riegle). If he had been present he would have voted 
    ``yea.'' I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw my vote and vote ``present.''

Sec. 4.10 A Member withdrew his roll call vote of ``no'' and answered 
    ``present'' pursuant to a ``live pair'' with an absent Member, and 
    then announced that he had answered ``present'' on a recorded 
    teller vote on that amendment in the Committee of the Whole based 
    upon a similar agreement with the absent Member.

    On May 12, 1971,(3) following consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill making supplemental appropriations for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, the bill (H.R. 8190) was reported 
back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that 
the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass. The 
previous question was then ordered in the House, and a request emerged 
for a separate vote on a particular amendment. The yeas and nays having 
been demanded, the question was taken; and there were--yeas 201, nays 
197, answered ``present'' 6, not voting 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 14590, 14591, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among those who answered ``present'' was Mr. Glenn R. Davis, of 
Wisconsin, who, in the course of withdrawing his vote, explained:

        Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from 
    Mississippi, Mr. Griffin. If he had been present he would have 
    voted ``yea.'' I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw my vote and vote 
    [answer] ``present.''
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to further state that my vote 
    [answer] (4) of ``present'' on the teller vote [the 
    teller vote with clerks on the same amendment in the Committee of 
    the Whole] is also explained by my live pair with the gentleman 
    from Mississippi, Mr. Griffin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. It should be noted that a ``vote'' of ``present'' is a misnomer. A 
        Member answering ``present'' does not cast a vote in so doing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing of Withdrawal

Sec. 4.11 Members desiring to withdraw their roll call votes

[[Page 11473]]

    of ``yea'' or ``nay'' in order to answer ``present'' pursuant to a 
    live pair must do so before the announcement of the result.

    On May 27, 1947,(5) the House voted by the yeas and nays 
on a resolution (H. Res. 218) waiving points of order against a bill 
(H.R. 3601) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for 
the fiscal year 1948. The Speaker (6) announced the result 
of the vote, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The 
resolution having been agreed to, a motion was then offered to resolve 
into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 5878, 5879, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange transpired:

        Mr. [William S.] Hill [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hill: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how I was recorded? I had 
    a pair with the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Jonkman. I voted 
    ``no.'' I wish to withdraw my vote and vote ``present.''
        The Speaker: The vote has been announced and the time when the 
    gentleman could have announced how he would have voted has passed. 
    . . . He should have addressed the Chair and requested that he be 
    recorded as ``present.'' (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For a comparable instance, see 118 Cong. Rec. 34166, 92d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 5, 1972, where Mr. Philip M. Crane (Ill.), who had 
        formed a live pair with Mr. Roman C. Pucinski (Ill.), appeared 
        to be cognizant of the fact he had waited too long to withdraw 
        his ``nay'' vote and chose not to ask the Chair for permission 
        to do so. Instead, he merely stated that he was ``unable to 
        exercise'' the live pair and announced how Mr. Pucinski would 
        have voted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal of Vote Relating to Vetoed Bill; Pairing on Votes Requiring 
    Two-thirds for Adoption

Sec. 4.12 Where a Member with a ``live pair'' withdraws his vote on 
    overriding a vetoed bill and answers ``present,'' the pair clerks 
    include the name of a third Member who would have voted, if 
    present, to override the veto [by the required two-thirds vote] in 
    order to pair two Members in favor with one against the question.

    On June 25, 1970,(8) the House reconsidered a bill (H.R. 
11102) to amend the Public Health Service Act in order to extend 
existing hospital construction programs and to provide additional funds 
for the construction of hospitals and for the guarantee and subsidy of 
hospital loans, among other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 21552, 21553, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill having been previously vetoed, a two-thirds vote taken by

[[Page 11474]]

the yeas and nays was required by the Constitution.(9) The 
Speaker (10) put the question, it was taken; and enough 
votes were cast in the affirmative to override the veto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7.
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately after the vote and before the Chair announced the 
result, the following statements were made:

        Mr. [John H.] Kyl [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair 
    with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bush). If he were present, he 
    would vote ``nay.''
        I voted ``yea.'' I, therefore, withdraw my vote and vote 
    [answer] ``present.''
        Mr. [Dan H.] Kuykendall [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    live pair with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow). If he were 
    present, he would vote ``nay.'' I voted ``yea.'' I, therefore, 
    withdraw my vote and vote [answer] ``present.''

    Mr. Kyl and Mr. Kuykendall having voiced the statement quoted 
above, the pair clerks, pursuant to their usual practice, paired them 
in the Record, as follows:

        The Clerk announced the following pairs:

        On this vote:
        Mr. Kyl and Mr. Pollock for, with Mr. Bush against.
        Mr. Kuykendall and Mr. Smith of Iowa for, with Mr. Bow against. 
    . . .

    A similar situation occurred in the 99th Congress when a Member 
changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``present'' pursuant to a ``live 
pair'' with another Member who was absent and would have voted ``yea'' 
on the question of over-riding a Presidential veto. The pair clerks 
found another absent Member to ``round up'' the pair in the proper 2 to 
1 ratio, and the Congressional Record carried the following result of 
the vote: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 132 Cong. Rec. 19387, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 6, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk announced the following pairs:
        On this vote:

            Mr. Pepper and Mrs. Long for, with Mr. Foley against.

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    live pair with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Pepper]. If he were 
    present, he would have voted ``yea.'' I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw 
    my vote and vote ``present.''
        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa] changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
    ``present.''
        So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the veto of 
    the President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Sec. 4.13 Where a Member voted against the overriding of a veto and 
    then came into the well to announce his ``live pair'' with two 
    absent Members who would have voted

[[Page 11475]]

    in the affirmative, the tally clerk at the rostrum adjusted the 
    electronic voting system to reflect the Member's withdrawal of his 
    vote and to indicate his answer of ``present.''

    On Sept. 12, 1973,(12) the House reconsidered a 
previously vetoed bill (S. 504) to amend the Public Health Service Act 
to authorize assistance for planning, development and initial 
operation, research, and training projects for systems for the 
effective provision of health care services under emergency conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 29329, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following considerable discussion of the bill, the Speaker 
(13) put the question (14) which, as required by 
the Constitution,(15) had to be determined by the yeas and 
nays; and the vote was taken by electronic device. During the course of 
that procedure, Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, first voted ``nay,'' and 
then came forward into the well, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 29352, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
15. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from 
    Arkansas (Mr. Mills) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton). If they had been present they would have voted ``yea.'' 
    I voted ``nay.'' I withdraw my vote and vote [answer] ``present.''

    The tally clerk then adjusted the electronic voting system to 
indicate the withdrawal of Mr. Mahon's vote and his decision to answer 
``present'' without obliging the Member to reinsert his card or fill 
out a ballot at the rostrum.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Normally, the correct procedure for ``live 
pairs'' on a vote being taken electronically is for the Member to 
record himself as ``present'' with his voting card and then announcing 
his reasons for so doing in the well before the announcement of the 
result.

Erroneously Listed Pairs; Correcting the Record by Unanimous Consent; 
    Deleting Pairs

Sec. 4.14 While the House does not take cognizance of pairs, a Member 
    may, by unanimous consent, correct the Record where a pair is 
    erroneously listed. Thus, a Member, paired in favor of a 
    proposition without his consent, asked unanimous consent that the 
    pair be deleted from the permanent Record and Journal.

    On May 16, 1966,(16) Mr. John V. Tunney, of California, 
ad

[[Page 11476]]

dressed the Chair (17) to make the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Carl Albert (Okla.), Speaker Pro Tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, in the Congressional Record of May 10, 1966, I am 
    listed as paired in favor of an amendment to provide $20 million in 
    rent supplement contractual authority, and $2 million for payments 
    under contracts in fiscal year 1967. An error was made, and I ask 
    unanimous consent to have the permanent Record and Journal 
    corrected to eliminate this pair.
        Mr. Speaker, I was granted an official leave of absence by the 
    House to take part in the United States-British Interparliamentary 
    Conference on Africa on May 10. Had I been present on this, I would 
    have opposed this amendment.

    The Speaker Pro Tempore then asked the Members if there were any 
objection, and, none being voiced, the Member's request was granted.

Sec. 4.15 By unanimous consent, a Member who had been incorrectly 
    paired in opposition to the adoption of a conference report was 
    permitted to delete the ``pair'' from the permanent Record.

    On Sept. 20, 1972,(18) Mr. LaMar Baker, of Tennessee, 
rose to address the Chair (19) and make the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the 5th of September, on rollcall No. 
    351, record vote on adopting the conference report on H.R. 12350, 
    the OEO authorization, I was recorded as absent. I was paired as 
    opposed to adopting the conference report. If present and voting, I 
    would have voted ``yea'' to adopt the conference report. I ask 
    unanimous consent that my pair be deleted from the permanent 
    Record.

    There being no objection to the Member's request, the Record was so 
corrected.

Adding Pairs

Sec. 4.16 The Congressional Record was corrected, by unanimous consent, 
    to add the names of two Members to the list of those shown as 
    ``paired'' on a roll call.

    The House having agreed to the conference report (20) on 
a bill (H.R. 7885) to further amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
as amended, the names of two Members who were paired on the roll call 
were inadvertently omitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 109 Cong. Rec. 23850, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, on Dec. 10, 1963,(1) Mr. Charles A. Mosher, 
of Ohio, rose to address the Speaker (2) with the following 
request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record 
    be corrected as follows:

[[Page 11477]]

        On rollcall No. 224, immediately following the last live pair 
    of Mr. Martin of Massachusetts for, with Mrs. St. George against, 
    add the following pair: Mr. Rhodes of Arizona for, with Mr. Michel 
    against.

    There being no objection to Mr. Mosher's request, the permanent 
Record was corrected.

Converting Pairs

Sec. 4.17 The Majority Leader corrected the Congressional Record, by 
    unanimous consent, to show that Members paired as ``for'' and 
    ``against'' a motion to suspend the rules actually had been only 
    ``general'' pairs.

    On Aug. 3, 1965,(3) Majority Leader Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, addressed the Chair (4) with respect to a roll 
call vote taken the previous day (5) on a motion to suspend 
the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 8027) providing assistance to state and 
local law enforcement personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 18976, 18977, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the following excerpt reveals, the Majority Leader's request 
resulted in a correction of the permanent record:

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to correct the 
    Record.
        On rollcall No. 215, page 18262 of the [temporary edition of 
    the] Congressional Record for August 2, 1965, all pairs are shown 
    to have been for or against, whereas all pairs should have been 
    general pairs.
        I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record be corrected 
    accordingly.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 4.18 The Congressional Record was corrected, by unanimous consent, 
    to show that Members listed as having ``live'' pairs on a 
    particular vote actually had only ``general'' pairs.

    On May 23, 1963,(6) the House agreed to a resolution (H. 
Res. 362) making in order a bill (H.R. 6060) to prohibit sex 
discrimination in the payment of wages by employers engaged in commerce 
or in the production of goods for commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 9194, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The temporary Record for that day having erroneously listed many 
Members as comprising halves of numerous ``live pairs,'' Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, subsequently initiated the following 
(7) exchange on the next legislative day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 27, 1963.

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

[[Page 11478]]

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 54 there were listed 
    as live pairs the names of sundry Members. These should have been 
    listed as general pairs.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record 
    be corrected accordingly.
        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.