[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[C. Yeas and Nays and Other Votes of Record]
[Â§ 28. Recapitulation of Roll Call Vote]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11606-11616]
 
                               CHAPTER 30
 
                                 Voting
 
               C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
 
Sec. 28. Recapitulation of Roll Call Vote

    The term, ``recapitulation,'' refers to a procedure (16) 
whereby the count on a roll call vote is verified by the Chair. 
Undertaken at the Chair's discretion,(17) a recapitulation 
is had either before or after the announcement of the result. The sole 
purpose is to ascertain how Members are recorded. Occasionally 
requested on close votes,(18) the procedure enables 
incorrectly recorded Members to obtain corrections. Members may not 
change their votes during a recapitulation (19) [a 
correction, of course, does not constitute a ``change'' of vote]. 
However, if the Chair directs the recapitulation before announcing the 
result of the vote, Members may change their votes following the 
recapitulation and preceding the announcement of the 
result.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 28.8, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 28.1-28.5, infra.
18. See Sec. Sec. 8.4, 28.5, infra.
19. See Sec. 28.6, infra.
20. See Sec. 28.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in the 92d Congress, the House began using the electronic 
voting system (Sec. 31, infra). Most yea and nay votes have been taken 
with the electronic system since Jan. 23, 1973. Recapitulation has not 
been permitted since that time but would still be available on a vote 
taken by roll call.                          -------------------

Speaker's Discretion

Sec. 28.1 Either before or after the announcement of the result of a 
    roll call vote, the Speaker may, in his discretion, order a 
    recapitulation of the vote.

    On Sept. 2, 1959,(1) the House voted on overriding a 
Presidential veto of a bill (H.R. 7509) making appropriations for civil 
functions administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies 
of the Department of the Interior, and the Tennessee Valley Authority 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 105 Cong. Rec. 17752, 17753, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the votes were tallied, but before the Speaker announced the 
result, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, prompted the following 
discussion:

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recapitulation of the 
    vote.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, may we not 
    have the vote announced first?
        The Speaker: (2) The Chair holds that there can be a 
    recapitulation be

[[Page 11607]]

    fore or after the vote. Therefore, we will have a recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Upon request, will not the Speaker announce the 
    vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair has discretion in this matter.
        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, regular 
    order.
        The Speaker: The regular order is the Clerk will call the names 
    of those voting in the affirmative. . . .
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker. I renew my request for an 
    announcement of the vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already ordered a recapitulation. 
    The Clerk will call the names of those voting in the 
    affirmative.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For similar instances, in which the Chair makes evident its 
        authority to order a recapitulation before the announcement of 
        the vote, see Sec. 28.3, infra; and 81 Cong. Rec. 7772, 75th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1937. But see Sec. 28.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.2 In the course of exercising his discretionary authority, the 
    Chair once stated that it was not possible to request a 
    recapitulation where a roll call vote was still in progress.

    On Oct. 12, 1962,(4) the House agreed to a conference 
report on a bill (H.R. 12900) making certain public works 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. The Members 
then proceeded to consider the first amendment remaining in 
disagreement between the two bodies, and Mr. Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, moved that the House recede from its disagreement and concur 
in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 23432, 23433, 23434, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Speaker put the question on the motion, it was taken; and 
he announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. Cannon then 
objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present 
whereupon the Chair counted and subsequently directed the Clerk to call 
the roll. The roll having been called, the Speaker directed the Clerk 
to call the names of those Members who failed to answer the first call.
    In the course of this resumption of the call, the following 
proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa] (interrupting the rollcall): Mr. 
    Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, how many times must a Member check how 
    he has voted?
        The Speaker: That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma] (interrupting the 
    rollcall): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11608]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Edmondson: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to have a 
    recapitulation of the votes that have been cast in advance of the 
    announced vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that there has been no vote 
    announced as yet. Therefore, at this point it is not possible to 
    request a recapitulation.
        (The Clerk resumed calling the roll.)

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that any determination 
as to whether to conduct a recapitulation is within the discretionary 
power of the Chair. Thus, it is altogether possible to interpret the 
Speaker's language in this instance as meaning that such a request was 
not permissible because in the exercise of the Speaker's discretionary 
authority, he did not choose to entertain such a request before the 
announcement of the vote.
    Moreover, the majority of recapitulation instances indicate that 
the Chair has felt few constraints on the timing of his decision to 
order a recapitulation. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, for example, 
declined a Member's request for announcement of the vote prior to 
undertaking a recapitulation in 1941.(6) Speaker William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, responding to a Member's point of order in 1937, 
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 87 Cong. Rec. 6869, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 7, 1941.
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 7772, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In answer to the point of order the Chair refers to section 
    3123, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents. The syllabus recites that 
    ``under the more recent practice recapitulation of a vote may be 
    had either before or after the announcement of the result of the 
    vote.''

--Members' Responsibility

Sec. 28.3 When a recapitulation of a roll call vote on overriding a 
    Presidential veto is ordered by unanimous consent, Members who come 
    on the floor for the first time while the recapitulation is being 
    taken are not permitted to vote. Members leaving the Chamber after 
    voting on the original roll call who may have been incorrectly 
    recorded do so on their own responsibility, and any Member who 
    desires to change his vote before the vote is announced following 
    the recapitulation may do so.

    On Aug. 7, 1941,(8) the House proceeded by roll call 
vote to consider the question of overriding the President's veto on S. 
1580 (a road bill). When the roll call was completed the Speaker 
(9) announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 87 Cong. Rec. 6895-97, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks this vote is close enough so that, if there is 
    no objection, there will be a recapitulation. . . .

[[Page 11609]]

        Mr. [Joseph E.] Casey of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Casey of Massachusetts: May we hear the present vote?
        The Speaker: We are starting a recapitulation to determine 
    whether or not the vote is correct. The Clerk will call the names 
    of those recorded as voting ``yea.''
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Speaker, will Members who come on the floor 
    while this recapitulation is being taken be permitted to vote?
        The Speaker: Members cannot qualify unless they were here 
    before the roll call was completed.
        Mr. [Leo E.] Allen of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Allen of Illinois: How could you have a correct analysis of 
    the vote if a Member were out of the Chamber now who had voted 
    ``nay'' and he is recorded as voting ``yea'' and he is not here to 
    correct it?
        The Speaker: That is not the business of anybody in the House 
    except the particular Member involved. . . .
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: As I understand the rules, at the conclusion of 
    the calling of the roll, the rules require the Speaker to announce 
    the result.
        No business can intervene between the calling of the roll and 
    the announcing of the result of the roll call. After the result has 
    been announced and it is known whether or not the vote is close, 
    the Speaker may, of his own volition, order a recapitulation of the 
    roll call. . . . It has been held that a recapitulation will only 
    be ordered where the vote is close. Consequently, it seems 
    imperative that the House should be advised as to what the vote is 
    before a recapitulation is ordered. . . .
        It is fundamental that a Member cannot change his vote after 
    the result of the roll call has been announced. A recapitulation is 
    for the purpose of correcting any errors in the vote as recorded, 
    and not for the purpose of giving an additional opportunity to 
    members to change their votes. . . . A recapitulation is for the 
    purpose of correcting clerical errors.
        To hold otherwise would be to lend encouragement to effective 
    filibuster in order that one side in a closely contested vote might 
    bring influence to bear and cause Members to change their original 
    votes. To hold otherwise would do violence to the democratic 
    processes of the House. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair certainly is not in a filibuster. It has 
    been held time and time again that any Member may change his vote 
    before the vote is announced, and I read from page 419 of Cannon's 
    Procedure in the House of Representatives, and this is exactly what 
    the Speaker operated under:

            The motion that a vote be recapitulated is not privileged, 
        but either before or after the announcement of the vote, the 
        Speaker may, in his discretion, order recapitulation. (If

[[Page 11610]]

        more than four votes different, in the absence of other 
        considerations, recapitulation will not be ordered.)

        The Speaker did not order a recapitulation until he asked if 
    there was objection by any Member of the House.
        Mr. Michener: There was no announcement to see whether there 
    was a difference of but a few votes. The effect of this procedure 
    is to interrupt an incompleted roll call and proceed with a 
    recount. No votes should be changed in a recount and no new votes 
    should be added during a recount or a recapitulation.
        The Speaker: The Chair is following this book. The Chair is 
    going to hold that up until the time the result of this vote is 
    announced by the Chair any Member may change his vote, because that 
    is merely following the precedents of the House. Any Member who 
    desires to change his vote before the vote is announced, may do so.

    After the names of Members who had voted aye were called, and the 
last of those voting no, several Members then changed their votes 
before the result was announced.
    The vote was--yeas 251, nays 128, not voting 54. So the President's 
veto was not overridden.

Closeness of Vote as Determining Factor

Sec. 28.4 The Speaker has declined to order a recapitulation where the 
    difference in the vote was as great as 10.

    On June 21, 1962,(10) Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, 
offered a motion to recommit a bill (H.R. 11222) to the Committee on 
Agriculture pertaining to farm products, prices, income, and other 
agricultural matters. When the Speaker put the question, the yeas and 
nays were demanded and subsequently ordered. The question was taken; 
and there were--yeas 215, nays 205, not voting 17. The Chair then 
announced the result of the vote on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 11383, 11384, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following exchange occurred:

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    for a recapitulation of the vote.
        The Speaker: (11) Does the gentleman insist on his 
    request for a recapitulation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cooley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I insist upon it.
        The Speaker: The Chair feels that the vote is not sufficiently 
    close to order a recapitulation.
        Mr. Cooley: All right, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the 
    request.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Chair has also declined to order a recapitulation after being 
        so urged in earlier Congress; see, for example, 101 Cong. Rec. 
        11930, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1955, where a seven-vote 
        difference was involved, and 83 Cong. Rec. 5124, 75th Cong. 3d 
        Sess., Apr. 8, 1938, where there was an eight-vote spread. See 
        also Sec. .28.5, infra.

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

[[Page 11611]]

Sec. 28.5 The Speaker has declined to order a recapitulation of a vote 
    where there was a four-vote difference.

    On Oct. 9, 1969,(13) Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of 
Massachusetts, offered a motion instructing House conferees to insist 
on a particular provision with respect to a bill (H.R. 11612) making 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 29314, 29315, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shortly thereafter, a preferential motion was offered to lay the 
Conte motion on the table. On a vote by division, there were--ayes 64, 
noes 44. Mr. Conte objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was 
not present whereupon the Speaker, concurring, directed the Clerk to 
call the roll. The question was taken and there were--yeas 181, nays 
177. Accordingly, the preferential motion was agreed to.
    Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, was the vote 181 affirmative and 177 
    negative?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that is correct.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, on that I request a recapitulation.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair feels that if 
    there was a difference of one or two votes, the Chair would order a 
    recapitulation, but where there are four votes the Chair does not 
    feel a recapitulation should be ordered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Referring to the difference between the yea 
and nay columns in a similar situation, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
stated,(15) ``If the number were less than 4, the Chair 
would consider a recapitulation but not on a vote where there is this 
much [seven votes] difference.'' A number of years earlier, Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, noted,(16) ``The Chair has 
the discretion upon a very close vote to request a recapitulation; that 
is, where there is a difference of only one or two or three or possibly 
four votes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 101 Cong. Rec. 11930, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1955.
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 5124, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 8, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vote Changes; Effect of Announcement of Result

Sec. 28.6 Members desiring to change their votes on a re

[[Page 11612]]

    capitulation of a vote may do so after the recapitulation providing 
    the result has not been announced by the Chair.

    On July 28, 1954,(17) the House took a roll call vote on 
a resolution (H. Res. 626) providing that upon its adoption the 
Committee of the Whole would sit to consider a bill (H.R. 236) 
authorizing a flood control project in Colorado. Immediately after the 
vote and prior to making any announcement as to the result, the Chair 
asked for a recapitulation, and the following proceedings then 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 100 Cong. Rec. 12453, 12454, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold A.] Patten [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patten: What are we doing now?
        The Speaker: We are recapitulating the vote to find out if the 
    Members are correctly recorded.
        Mr. Patten: Is it true that a Member who voted ``yea'' can now 
    vote ``nay''?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Patten: Then you are not recapitulating, you are asking for 
    a new vote.
        The Speaker: The House is in the process of recapitulating the 
    vote.
        Mr. Patten: A person who voted ``yea'' before may now vote 
    ``nay.'' You cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. I raise a point of 
    parliamentary procedure. You cannot do that.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman take his seat, and we will do 
    it in due order?
        Mr. Patten: No; I shall not take my seat.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman cease for a moment?
        Mr. Patten: The Parliamentarian will tell you that is wrong.
        The Speaker: The Parliamentarian informs the Chair that Members 
    can change their votes at any time before the Chair announces the 
    result of the vote.
        Mr. Patten: Then I may change my vote at this point?
        The Speaker: Not until after the recapitulation.
        The Clerk will call the names of those voting ``yea.''
        The Clerk proceeded to call the names of those voting ``yea.''
        Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio] (interrupting the 
    recapitulation): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk passed my name. I voted in 
    the affirmative about four times as loud as I could yell.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may make that correction at the end 
    of the call of those who voted in the affirmative.

    Immediately after the recapitulation, but prior to the Chair's 
announcement of the result, the Record reveals that 10 Members changed 
their votes.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Members desiring to change incorrectly recorded votes may do so, of 
        course, at the proper time during the recapitulation; see 
        Sec. Sec. .28.7, 28.8, infra.

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

[[Page 11613]]

Sec. 28.7 The result of a roll call vote having been announced, a 
    Member may not change his vote on a subsequent recapitulation 
    although he is entitled to correct his vote if it was incorrectly 
    recorded.

    On Feb. 17, 1955,(20) the House had under consideration 
a resolution (H. Res. 142) which provided that upon its adoption the 
House would resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole in order to 
consider a bill (H.R. 1) to extend the authority of the President to 
enter into trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 
1930. The resolution additionally provided that no amendment other than 
those offered by the Committee on Ways and Means would be in order, and 
that such amendments would not be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 101 Cong. Rec. 1661, 1678, 1682, 1683, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the previous question on the resolution was voted down, Mr. 
Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, offered an amendment to provide for an open 
rule which would have allowed ``any amendment . . . germane to H.R. 1 
when . . . considered under the 5 minute rule.'' Following debate on 
the Brown amendment, the Speaker put the question, it was taken; and, 
the yeas and nays having been ordered, there were--yeas 191, nays 193, 
not voting 50. The Chair announced the result of the vote, and the 
following proceedings then occurred:

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, may I call for a 
    recapitulation.
        The Speaker: (1) The Chair thinks the vote is close 
    enough so that there should be a recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will call the names of those voting in the 
    affirmative.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McCormack: I would like to inquire of the Speaker if my 
    understanding is correct that on recapitulation no Member can 
    change his vote. The question is only how they are recorded.
        The Speaker: That is true because the vote has been announced.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Upon recapitulation, if a Member finds that 
    his vote has been recorded incorrectly, he certainly has a right to 
    correct it.
        The Speaker: That is the purpose of a 
    recapitulation.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also Sec. .28.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedure

Sec. 28.8 When a recapitulation is ordered, the Clerk calls first

[[Page 11614]]

    those voting in the affirmative, second, those voting in the 
    negative, and, third, those answering ``present''; any necessary 
    corrections are made after all the names in each respective 
    category are called.

    On July 28, 1954,(3) the House took a roll call vote on 
a resolution (H. Res. 626) providing that upon its adoption the 
Committee of the Whole would sit to consider a bill (H.R. 236) 
authorizing a flood control project in Colorado. Immediately after the 
vote and prior to making any announcement as to the result, the Speaker 
asked for a recapitulation, and directed the Clerk to call the names of 
those voting in the affirmative. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 100 Cong. Rec. 12453, 12454, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (4) The Clerk will call the names of 
    those voting ``yea.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to call the names of those voting ``yea.''
        Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio] (interrupting the 
    recapitulation): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk passed my name. I voted in 
    the affirmative about four times as loud as I could yell.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may make that correction at the end 
    of the call of those who voted in the affirmative.
        Mr. Clevenger: I voted in the affirmative.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman be seated and wait until the 
    end of the call?
        The Clerk concluded the call of the names of those voting 
    ``yea.''
        The Speaker: Are there any corrections to be made where any 
    Member was listening and heard his name called as voting ``yea'' 
    who did not vote ``yea''? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.
        Did any Member vote ``yea'' whose name was not called?
        Mr. Clevenger: Mr. Speaker, I said I voted four times in the 
    affirmative.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will be recorded as voting ``yea.''
        The Clerk will call the names of those recorded as voting 
    ``nay.''
        The Clerk called the names of those voting ``nay.''
        The Speaker: Is there any Member voting ``nay'' who is 
    incorrectly recorded? (5) [After a pause.] The Chair 
    hears none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For comparable instances, see 105 Cong. Rec. 17752, 86th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Sept. 2, 1959; 101 Cong. Rec. 5807, 84th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 5, 1955; 97 Cong. Rec. 8876, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 25, 1951; and 87 Cong. Rec. 6897, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Aug. 7, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Different Result Obtained

Sec. 28.9 The Chair having directed a recapitulation on a close vote, a 
    different result than that previously announced was obtained.

[[Page 11615]]

    On Mar. 24, 1949,(6) Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, moved 
that the bill (H.R. 2681) to provide pensions for veterans of World 
Wars I and II based on nonservice-connected disability and attained 
age, be recommitted to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for further 
study. Shortly thereafter, the Speaker Pro Tempore put the question on 
Mr. Teague's motion, it was taken; and the Chair announced that the 
``ayes'' had it. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then demanded the 
yeas and nays which were ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 3114, 3115, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The roll was called, and prior to the announcement of the result, 
two Members changed their votes from ``no'' to ``aye.'' Thereafter, the 
following exchange took place:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) On this vote the ayes 
    are 208; the noes are 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks the vote is so close that there should be a 
    recapitulation.
        Mr. Rankin: Oh, no; it is clear.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will take its own 
    initiative; either way the Chair would have taken the initiative on 
    this vote.
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make such a 
    request.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a Member cannot change his vote 
    during the recapitulation; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        The Clerk will call the names of those voting in the 
    affirmative.

    At this point the recapitulation process took place after which the 
Chair stated:

        Upon the tallying of the vote on the recapitulation it appears 
    the vote is as follows: Those in favor of recommittal, 208; those 
    opposed, 207.

    Accordingly, the motion to recommit was agreed to--a different 
result having been obtained after recapitulation of the vote.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The cause of this different result lay in 
the change of votes by the aforementioned two Members from ``no'' to 
``aye.'' It seems the tally clerk properly added two more affirmative 
votes to the ``yea'' column but inadvertently neglected to subtract 
those votes from the ``nay'' column. Hence, the original error.

In the Senate

Sec. 28.10 The Chair has held that a Senator may vote after a yea and 
    nay vote has been recapitulated providing the result of the vote 
    has not been announced.

[[Page 11616]]

    On Feb. 28, 1947,(8) the Senate resumed consideration of 
a concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 7) establishing a ceiling for 
expenditures for the fiscal year 1948 and for appropriations for the 
fiscal year 1948 to be expended in that fiscal year. In the course of 
the resolution's consideration, the President Pro Tempore put the 
question on an amendment to an amendment. The yeas and nays having been 
ordered on this particular proposal, the vote was taken and a 
recapitulation was had.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 93 Cong. Rec. 1547, 1552, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:

        The President Pro Tempore: (9) On this vote the yeas 
    are 38, the nays----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Arthur H. Vandenberg (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Millard E.] Tydings [of Maryland]: Mr. President, I ask 
    for a recapitulation.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Clerk will recapitulate the 
    vote.
        The vote was again recapitulated.
        The President Pro Tempore: On this vote the yeas are 38----
        Mr. [Glen H.] Taylor [of Idaho]: Mr. President----

        Mr. [Robert A.] Taft [of Ohio]: It is too late, Mr. President.
        Mr. Tydings: Oh, no; it is not. The result has not been 
    announced.
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Idaho is 
    recognized.
        Mr. Taylor: I vote ``yea.''

    Senator Taylor's vote having been permitted, the final tally was--
yeas 39, nays 38, not voting 18. Thus, the result of the vote was 
altered by the Chair's recognition of the Senator from Idaho prior to 
the announcement.