[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14, Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[C. Yeas and Nays and Other Votes of Record]
[§ 31. The Electronic Voting System]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 11627-11661]
CHAPTER 30
Voting
C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
Sec. 31. The Electronic Voting System
The electronic voting system was first used in the House on Jan.
23, 1973.(15) The pertinent rule [Rule XV clause 5(a)] was
adopted in 1972.(16) Since its installation, it has been
used almost exclusively for votes taken by the yeas and nays in the
House and for recorded votes in the House and in Committee of the
Whole. Back-up procedures have been used on rare occasions where the
electronic system was inoperable.(17) The use of the
electronic system, with the shortened voting times the system permits,
coupled with the rules change in the 92d Congress which for the first
time permitted recorded votes in Committee of the Whole,(18)
has changed the culture of the House. In the 90th Congress when the
Members responded verbally when their names were called by the reading
clerk, there were 875 roll calls (397 quorum calls and 478 votes by the
yeas and nays), while in the 103d, utilizing the electronic system,
there were 1,122 (only 28 quorum calls, 468 yeas and nays, and 626
recorded votes), and in the 104th, there were 1,340 (19 quorum calls,
522 yeas and nays, and 799 recorded votes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 1793, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H. Res. 1123, 118 Cong. Rec. 36005-12, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13,
1972.
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 6699, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 7, 1973; 129 Cong.
Rec. 18858, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., July 13, 1983.
18. H. Res. 5, 117 Cong. Rec. 132-44, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22,
1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedures used in conducting electronic votes have been
altered as the House lived with the system and learned its
capabilities. Various changes in the pertinent rules and in the manner
of using the system have been adopted by the House or announced by the
Speaker. These
[[Page 11628]]
are noted in this section. Some are carried for their historical
significance even though no longer current in the practice of the
House. -------------------
Use of; Procedure
Sec. 31.1 In the 92d Congress, the House amended its rules to provide
procedures for the recording of votes in the House and in Committee
of the Whole by electronic device at the discretion of the Chair;
provision was also made for a ``back-up'' nonelectronic procedure
for recorded votes by which clerk tellers may be appointed under a
single-step demand for a ``recorded vote.''
On Oct. 13, 1972,(19) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution
1123.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 36005, 36006, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
20. H. Res. 1123 was intended to incorporate the electronic voting
system into prevailing House procedures with only slight rule
changes where necessary. The context of those changes, however,
is relevant to an understanding of the system's availability.
Accordingly, that language which would amend the then-
prevailing rules is italicized. A concise yet comprehensive
explanation of these language changes is provided in the
excerpted remarks of Mr. H. Allen Smith (Calif.), infra. Rule I
clause 5 has been subsequently amended to remove the option for
teller votes. See H. Res. 5, 139 Cong. Rec. 49, 103d Cong. 1st
Sess., Jan. 5, 1993.
A current edition of the House Rules and Manual should be
consulted for further modifications in Rules I, VIII, and XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows [emphasis supplied]:
H. Res. 1123
Resolved, That (a) clause 5 of Rule I of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
``5. He [the Speaker] shall rise to put a question, but may
state it sitting; and shall put questions in this form, to wit:
`As many as are in favor (as the question may be), say
``Aye''.'; and after the affirmative voice is expressed, `As
many as are opposed, say ``No''.'; if he doubts or a division
is called for, the House shall divide; those in the affirmative
of the question shall first rise from their seats, and then
those in the negative; if he still doubts, or a count is
required by at least one-fifth of a quorum, he shall name one
or more from each side of the question to tell the Members in
the affirmative and negative; which being reported, he shall
rise and state the decision. However, if any Member requests a
recorded vote and that request is supported by at least one-
fifth of a quorum, such vote shall be taken by electronic
device, unless the Speaker in his discretion orders clerks to
tell the names of those voting on each side of the question,
and such names shall be recorded by electronic device
[[Page 11629]]
or by clerks, as the case may be, and shall be entered in the
Journal, together with the names of those not voting. Members
shall have not less than fifteen minutes to be counted from the
ordering of the recorded vote or the ordering of clerks to tell
the vote.''.
(b) Clause 2 of Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
``2. Pairs shall be announced by the Clerk immediately
before the announcement by the Chair of the result of the vote
from a written list furnished him, and signed by the Member
making the statement to the Clerk, which list shall be
published in the Record as a part of the proceedings,
immediately following the names of those not voting. However,
pairs shall be announced but once during the same legislative
day.''.
(c) Rule XV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended to read as follows:
``Rule XV.
``on calls of the roll and house
``1. Subject to clause 5 of this Rule upon every roll call
the names of the Members shall be called alphabetically by
surname, except when two or more have the same surname, in
which case the name of the State shall be added; and if there
be two such Members from the same State, the whole name shall
be called, and after the roll has been once called, the Clerk
shall call in their alphabetical order the names of those not
voting. Members appearing after the second call, but before the
result is announced, may vote or announce a pair.
``2. (a) In the absence of a quorum, fifteen Members,
including the Speaker, if there is one, shall be authorized to
compel the attendance of absent Members; and those for whom no
sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those
present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found,
by officers to be appointed by the Sergeant-at-Arms for that
purpose, and their attendance secured and retained; and the
House shall determine upon what condition they shall be
discharged. Members who voluntarily appear shall, unless the
House otherwise direct, be immediately admitted to the Hall of
the House, and they shall report their names to the Clerk to be
entered upon the Journal as present.
``(b) Subject to clause 5 of this Rule, when a call of the
House in the absence of a quorum is ordered, the Speaker shall
name one or more clerks to tell the Members who are present.
The names of those present shall be recorded by such clerks,
and shall be entered in the Journal and the absentees noted,
but the doors shall not be closed except when so ordered by the
Speaker. Members shall have not less than fifteen minutes from
the ordering of a call of the House to have their presence
recorded.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Another proposed change in H. Res. 1123 affecting Rule 15 clause
2(b) was the deletion of language granting the Chair
discretionary authority to require the use of tally sheets in
counting a quorum. See the remarks of Mr. H. Allen Smith
(Calif.), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``3. On the demand of any Member, or at the suggestion of
the Speaker, the names of Members sufficient to make a quorum
in the Hall of the House who do not vote shall be noted by the
Clerk and recorded in the Journal, and reported to the Speaker
with the names of the Members voting, and be counted and
announced in determining the presence of a quorum to do
business.
``4. Subject to clause 5 of this Rule, whenever a quorum
fails to vote on any question, and a quorum is not
[[Page 11630]]
present and objection is made for that cause, unless the House
shall adjourn there shall be a call of the House, and the
Sergeant-at-Arms shall forthwith proceed to bring in absent
Members; and the yeas and nays on the pending question shall at
the same time be considered as ordered. The Clerk shall call
the roll, and each Member as he answers to his name may vote on
the pending question, and, after the roll call is completed,
each Member arrested shall be brought by the Sergeant-at-Arms
before the House, whereupon he shall be noted as present,
discharged from arrest, and given an opportunity to vote and
his vote shall be recorded. If those voting on the question and
those who are present and decline to vote shall together make a
majority of the House, the Speaker shall declare that a quorum
is constituted, and the pending question shall be decided as
the majority of those voting shall appear. And thereupon
further proceedings under the call shall be considered as
dispensed with. At any time after the roll call has been
completed, the Speaker may entertain a motion to adjourn, if
seconded by a majority of those present, to be ascertained by
actual count by the Speaker; and if the House adjourns, all
proceedings under this clause shall be vacated.
``5. Unless, in his discretion, the Speaker orders the
calling of the names of Members in the manner provided for
under the preceding provisions of this rule, upon any roll call
or quorum call the names of such Members voting or present
shall be recorded by electronic device. In any such case, the
Clerk shall enter in the Journal and publish in the
Congressional Record, in alphabetical order in each category, a
list of the names of those Members recorded as voting in the
affirmative, of those Members recorded as voting in the
negative, and of those Members answering present, as the case
may be, as if their names had been called in the manner
provided for under such preceding provisions. Members shall
have not less than fifteen minutes from the ordering of the
roll call or quorum call to have their vote or presence
recorded.''.
(d) Clause 2 of Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
``2. Whenever a Committee of the Whole finds itself without
a quorum which shall consist of one hundred Members, the
Chairman shall invoke the procedure for the call of the roll
under clause 5 of Rule XV, unless in his discretion, he orders
a call of the committee to be taken by the procedure set forth
in clause 2(b) of Rule XV; and thereupon the Committee shall
rise, and the Chairman shall report the names of the absentees
to the House, which shall be entered on the Journal; but if on
such call a quorum shall appear, the Committee shall thereupon
resume its sitting without further order of the House.''.
Thereafter, Mr. Sisk yielded part of his time to Mr. Wayne L. Hays
(Ohio) (Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, the
committee responsible for installation of the electronic voting
system), who proceeded to explain some of the aspects of the system.
Mr. Hays pointed out the two consoles--one on each side of the House--
at which the Majority and Minority Leaders would be able to ``call up
any group of names'' and determine how those Members voted. He further
discussed several other components, as the following excerpt indicates:
If the Members will notice the tallies on either side of the
Chamber, it can
[[Page 11631]]
be noticed the time is ticking away. When the votes start, where it
says ``time,'' it will be 15 minutes, and it keeps ticking down to
zero. When it reaches zero, the Chair will announce that all the
voting is over, and unless there is a Member in the Chamber who has
not voted, then he will be permitted to vote, and the Chair will be
able to lock the vote in, and that will be it, and it will tell
instantaneously what the vote is, the ``yeas'' and ``nays.''
In addition to that, there will be a printout available for the
members of the press out in the lobby almost immediately after the
vote is over, telling exactly how each and every Member voted.
Mr. Speaker, the voting will be done by a little plastic card
which is punched on either end identically, so you can put it in
upside down or backwards. No matter how you put it in, it is
supposed to work, and it will key only your name.
If the Members will note during this demonstration, under my
name we just have one card made up as a sample at the moment. Every
Member will get one. There is a red light at the left of my name.
That means I have inserted the card and voted ``no.'' If I decide
to change my vote, I will put the card back in one of the slots and
press the ``yea.''
Mr. Speaker, I will now press the ``yea'' button, and hopefully
the red light will change to a green light. . . .
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hays offered to answer any of the Members'
questions whereupon Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, prompted the
following exchange:
Mr. Boggs: . . . Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the
gentleman this question: On the time clock over here, does the
board automatically go off when the time limit has expired?
Mr. Hays: No, it does not. It does not go off until it is
locked out up at the Speaker's desk.
Mr. Boggs: So that means we now have 1 or, rather, 1\1/2\
minutes to vote. May I ask, when it becomes zero, then how long is
it open there at the desk?
Mr. Hays: When it comes to zero, the Speaker will bang down his
gavel and will say, ``All time has expired,'' or ``Are there any
Members in the Chamber who desire to vote?'' It is just like we do
it now on a teller vote. If there are any who desire to vote, he
will give them a minute or two more to do so, and then he will lock
the machine out, and that is the end of it.
If a Member has misplaced a card, then he can go to the desk,
and there will be an arrangement where he can fill out a card, an
arrangement where he can sign a red or green or amber ballot, just
like we do now for a teller vote. Then the Clerk up there will put
a master card in and vote for the Member, and it will show up as on
the teller votes. . . .
Mr. Hays proceeded to discuss the economics of the system after
which Mr. Sisk sought to explain some of the procedural changes being
proposed as well as the nature of the ``backup'' procedures:
I would briefly like to comment in connection with the fallback
or fail-safe position with regard to the voting and other matters
contained in the resolution.
[[Page 11632]]
In brief we propose that machinery be used in all appropriate
voting situations, that is, whenever names of Members are to be
recorded. We also propose to put in the rules substitution of
present procedures as a backup in case the machinery becomes
unavailable for whatever the reason may be. We also propose that we
use the backup procedures at the discretion of the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole.
We also are suggesting two additional changes in the backup
procedure. The first occurs in the procedure for tellers with
clerks or what is called the recorded teller vote.
I want to emphasize that the amendments we offer do not in any
way alter the basic substance of that procedure. What we are trying
to do is to simplify the process.
I might add what we propose is substantially the way the
Democratic caucus asked for during the past year. As the rules now
stand a Member must make two separate requests to get a recorded
teller vote, and we know the procedures.
We further propose doing away with the time-consuming process
of making Members act as tellers in the recording of the teller
votes. There is no reason why Members must be found to stand at the
head of the aisle to record the vote. Clerks will simply be
required to do that in the future in the event that there are
teller votes.
Mr. Speaker, we are also proposing a new method for recording
Members during quorum calls. At the present time, as you know, the
Clerk calls the roll twice and recognizes Members in the House in a
time-consuming process. Again we have a recommendation from the
caucus in connection with this matter. In effect this method would
have the clerks tell the Members just as they do in a recorded
teller vote, for instance, in recording the presence of the
Members.
Instead of calling the roll, the clerks would merely record the
names of the Members as they came up the aisle in the Chamber, or
in any other fashion that the Speaker made known.
Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sisk: I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Hays: You could use the electronic system for a quorum
call.
Mr. Sisk: Certainly. In almost all cases I think the electronic
system will be used. What I am explaining is the so-called backup
procedure in the event that we did not desire to use the electronic
system.
In the course of further discussion, Walter E. Fauntroy, the
Delegate from the District of Columbia, posed the following question
(2) to which Mr. Sisk offered a reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 118 Cong. Rec. 36007, 36008, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Fauntroy: Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, I cannot vote
in this Chamber, and I would like to, and I am very anxious to do
so some day. But I would ask, under this proposed system, what
would prevent someone who is as anxious as I am to vote, of someone
handing me their card, and punching the card for them?
Mr. Sisk: Let me make a brief comment here. Actually, the
Members of
[[Page 11633]]
the Congress work on their own honor, as we are today. As you will
recall, there was an incident in the last Congress in which
accusations were made. I do not think anything deliberate had been
done, but there were mistakes, apparently, by the clerks. But again
it gets down to a matter of the integrity of each Member.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Sisk yielded his remaining time to Mr. H.
Allen Smith, of California, who concisely singled out those changes in
the rules which would be brought about by passage of House Resolution
1123:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of House Resolution 1123 is to make
the changes in the House rules which will be required in order to
use the electronic voting equipment installed in the House Chamber.
Changes are made at four different points in the rules.
The first change [is] in rule I, clause 5, which deals with how
votes may be taken in the House. House Resolution 1123 adds
language, which provides that a recorded vote may be taken by
electronic device. The procedure would be as follows: A Member may
request a recorded vote at any time after the question has been put
by the Speaker. The intent is that a request for a recorded vote
shall be in order before or after a voice vote, a division vote or
a teller vote. If a Member requests a recorded vote and is
supported by one-fifth of a quorum, the vote will be taken by
electronic device. A Member may no longer demand a vote by tellers
with clerks. However, once a recorded vote is ordered, the Speaker
in his discretion may order a recorded vote with clerks. This would
be similar to the present vote by tellers with clerks, except that
the Speaker will appoint clerks to count, rather than Members. A
Member shall have not less than 15 minutes to be counted. The time
begins to run from the ordering of the recorded vote or the
ordering of clerks to tell the vote.
The second change in the rules affects rule VIII, clause 2,
which deals with the announcing of pairs. The present rule provides
in relevant part, that--
Pairs shall be announced by the Clerk, after the completion
of the second rollcall.
The new language provides that--
Pairs shall be announced by the Clerk immediately before
the announcement by the Chair of the result of the vote.
This is a technical change to reflect the fact that there will
no longer necessarily be a rollcall preceding the announcement of
pairs, because of the use of the electronic device.
The third change in the rules affects rule XV which deals with
calls of the roll and House. House Resolution 1123 adds language
which provides that any rollcall or quorum call may be taken by
electronic device. This new language is in clause 5 of rule XV.
However, the Speaker in his discretion, may order that the names be
called in the traditional manner. The first four clauses of rule
XV, which describe the traditional system for taking rollcalls and
quorum calls, are left intact for the most part, but are made
subject to clause 5, which provides for the use of the electronic
device.
[[Page 11634]]
As in the case of a vote, Members have not less than 15 minutes
from the ordering of a call of the House to have their presence
recorded by the electronic device.
In addition to changes in wording necessary to provide for
rollcalls or quorum calls by electronic device, there is one part
of the present rule XV which is dropped under this resolution. The
present clause 2(b) of rule XV allows the Speaker discretion to
order the use of tally sheets to record a quorum; once a quorum is
recorded, it is in order to dispense with the rest of the call,
allowing Members 30 minutes to record their presence on the tally
sheet. This procedure was put into the rules as an amendment to the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. However, the procedure has
never been used, and is removed from the rules by House Resolution
1123.
The fourth change in the rules affects rule XXIII, clause 2,
which deals with the Committee of the Whole House. The language
changes permit the use of the electronic device to record the
presence of a quorum in the Committee of the Whole.
In summary, the major effect of House Resolution 1123 will be
to provide for the use of the electronic device, while giving the
Speaker the discretion to return to the traditional system as a
backup. . . .
Following additional discussion, Mr. Sisk offered an amendment
(3) providing that the resolution would become effective
immediately before noon on Jan. 3, 1973. The amendment was agreed to,
and the resolution, as amended, was also agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Id. at p. 36012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 31.2 The Speaker inserted in the Record a detailed statement
describing procedures to be followed during votes and quorum calls
by electronic device and by the ``back-up'' procedures therefor.
On Jan. 15, 1973,(4) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
announced to the Members that effective Jan. 23, 1973, the electronic
voting system would become operative. The Chair urged the Members to
obtain their electronic voting cards and reminded them that a detailed
statement concerning the operation of the system had been mailed to
their offices by the Clerk. The Speaker further pointed out that each
Member had been given a committee (5) print entitled ``The
Electronic Voting System for the U.S. House of Representatives''; and
that he would insert both the statement and the print (6) in
the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 119 Cong. Rec. 1055, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
5. Committee on House Administration.
6. See 119 Cong. Rec. 1056, 1057, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 15, 1973,
for a copy of the print.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statement, in its entirety,(7) reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Id. at pp. 1055, 1056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11635]]
Statement on Electronic Voting
Members are familiar with the fact that an electronic voting
system was designed, developed, and installed during the 92d
Congress. The rules of the House, adopted on January 3, 1973, now
provide for the use of this new voting system. The Chair will
announce in a few days when this system will be utilized, but in
advance of its implementation, it seems advisable to pro-mulgate
the procedures regarding its use.
The Chair has given careful consideration to the implementation
of this new voting mechanism. Discussions have been held with the
Committee on House Administration, which is responsible for the
technical development of the system, with the Committee on Rules,
and with the Leadership on both sides of the aisle to determine the
most efficient and practical means of utilizing the electronic
system.
This new voting system has been designed primarily with the aim
of reducing the time required to conduct recorded votes and quorum
calls while at the same time assuring the accuracy of the vote or
call. Consequently, the Chair anticipates that the use of this new
procedure will not supplant votes by voice, division, or tellers as
provided in the Rules of the House.
The use of this system by the Members can best be described in
terms of the essential physical components. A number of vote
stations are attached to selected chairs in the Chamber. Each
station is equipped with a vote card slot and four indicators,
marked ``yea,'' ``nay,'' ``present,'' and ``open.'' The first three
indicators are also push-buttons used to cast votes, while the
fourth is illuminated only when a vote period is in progress and
the station is in operational readiness to accept votes. Each
Member has been provided with a personalized Vote-ID Card. The vote
cards are encoded with a pattern of holes so as to be uniquely
identifiable by the system when inserted into any of the vote
stations. The main display, located over the press gallery, lists
the Members' names alphabetically and will indicate their vote
preferences by the illumination of colored lights adjacent to each
Member's name. The color code is: green for yea, red for nay, and
amber for present. The duplicate summary displays, located on the
east and west gallery ledges, will identify the issue under
consideration, provide running tallies of the yea, nay, and present
responses recorded by the system, and show the time remaining
during a vote period.
As the Members are undoubtedly aware, a computer system
coordinates the interaction of these components and maintains a
permanent record of the Members' votes.
Where a vote is to be taken, electronically, the Chair will
instruct Members to record their presence or votes by means of the
electronic device. This will initiate a fifteen minute voting
period during which a Member may cast his vote. The initiation of a
vote period will be accompanied by the illumination of the blue
``open'' light at each of the vote stations and by activation of
the main and summary displays. The time indicated on the summary
displays will reduce from 15:00 minutes to 00:00 minutes during the
vote period.
A Member casts his vote by inserting his Vote-ID card into any
one of the
[[Page 11636]]
vote stations and depressing the appropriate push-button indicator.
The voting system indicates the recording of the Member's vote by
illuminating the selected push-button indicator at the vote station
and the vote preference light adjacent to the Member's name on the
main display panel. At the same time, the appropriate running tally
on the summary display will be incremented.
If a Member mis-casts his vote or desires to change his vote
during the voting period, he may do so by simply repeating the
method used for casting his original vote. The system will
illuminate the push-button he last selected when he inserts his
Vote-ID card into the station. At this point, he may change his
vote by depressing another push-button. The running tallies on the
summary displays will reflect the changed vote, and the vote
preference light adjacent to the Member's name on the main display
will change accordingly.
A Member may also verify his previously cast vote by simply
inserting his Vote-ID card into a vote station and observing which
push-button is illuminated.
In the event that a Member is in the Chamber without his Vote-
ID card, he may still cast his vote in the following manner. Green
``yea'' ballot cards, red ``nay'' ballot cards, and amber
``present'' ballot cards will be available in the cloakrooms and in
the Well. These cards have spaces for the Member to fill in his
name, State, and district. Upon properly filling out an appropriate
ballot card, the Member casts his vote by handing the ballot card
to the Tally Clerk in the Well. The Tally Clerk will then record
the vote electronically and the main and summary displays will
reflect the Member's vote preference. At the same time, the system
deactivates the use of the Member's Vote-ID card for the duration
of the vote then in progress. A Member without a Vote-ID card who
has been recorded in this fashion and who then wishes to change his
vote must seek recognition by the Chair and announce his change.
That Member does not submit a second ballot card.
If a Member present in the Chamber at the time of a recorded
vote in the House desires to be paired with a Member not present he
should record himself as ``present'' in the manner prescribed above
and, at the conclusion of the voting period seek recognition by the
Speaker to announce his desire to create a pair with his absent
colleague. As has been the practice under the precedents ``pairs''
will not be permitted in Committee of the Whole.
At the conclusion of the 15 minutes voting period, the time
indicated on the summary displays will show ``0:00''; however, the
vote stations will remain open, indicated by the blue illumination
of the ``open'' indicator light, until the Chair declares the vote
to be closed and announces the final result. At this point, the
summary panel time display will indicate ``FINAL'' and the vote
stations will be closed to the acceptance of further votes.
When the vote is finally declared, printed reports of the
results, alphabetically listing Members who responded ``aye,''
``nay'' or ``present'' or who did not respond at all will be
available to the Leadership.
A similar method governs the use of the electronic vote system
for the re
[[Page 11637]]
cording of quorum calls, both for the House and for the Committee
of the Whole. The Chair will instruct that a quorum call be taken
by electronic device. This will initiate a 15 minute period during
which the Member may indicate his presence by inserting his Vote-ID
card into a vote station and depressing the ``present'' push-
button. The main and summary displays will reflect the Member's
responses as in the case described above for a recorded vote. The
vote stations, however, will not accept a vote other than
``present'' during a quorum period. At the conclusion of the 15
minute period, the time indicated on the summary display will be
``0:00''. The vote stations will remain open until the Chair
announces that the count is final, at which point the vote stations
will be closed and the time indicator will show ``FINAL''. A
printed report of those responding on the quorum call will then be
distributed as previously described.
If a Member is in the Chamber without his Vote-ID card, he may
indicate his presence by using the amber ballot card, as previously
described.
One further aspect of the electronic voting system deserves
mention at this time. Video consoles equipped with key boards are
located at both the majority and minority tables. These devices may
be used by the Leadership to review the progress of the vote. The
same information is available on both devices, though, of course,
they are operated independently of one another. The actual
operation and use of the devices is the responsibility of the
majority and minority leaders.
Under the provisions of Rules XV and XXIII, the Chair may in
his discretion determine that recorded votes be taken by
alternative procedures in lieu of the electronic device. In the
House, the Constitutional yeas and nays or an ``automatic roll
call'' (where a quorum is not present and objection to a vote is
made for that reason) may be taken by a call of the roll under
Clause 1 of Rule XV. In such event, the names of Members shall be
called alphabetically and there shall be a second roll call of
those Members who failed to respond to the first roll call. Members
may respond ``aye'', ``no'', or ``present'' when their names are
called.
In the House and in the Committee of the Whole a ``recorded
vote''--that is a vote demanded under the provisions of Clause 5,
Rule I by one-fifth of a quorum--may, at the Chairman's discretion,
be told by tellers in lieu of using the electronic system. In that
event, Members will fill in a green ``aye'' ballot card to be
deposited in the ``aye'' ballot box at the rear of the aisle to the
Chair's left or a red ``no'' ballot card to be deposited in the
``no'' ballot box at the rear of the aisle to the Chair's right.
Members wishing to be recorded as ``present'' in such case will
announce this fact to the Chair prior to the announcement of the
result.
Quorum calls in the House and in the Committee of the Whole
may, at the discretion of the Chair, be recorded by clerks in lieu
of electronic devices under clause 2(b) of Rule XV. In that event,
Members will find quorum call cards here at the Clerk's desk which
must be filled in by name, State and district. Tally clerks will be
stationed at a box to be located at the rear of the center aisle.
The Clerks will take the cards, deposit them in the box and count
the number of Members who respond to the call. When the Clerk de
[[Page 11638]]
clares that procedures under this clause have been completed the
Tally Clerk will give the Chair a final count which the Chair will
announce to the House.
The Speaker has placed in the Congressional Record a guide to the
bell and light system, and has occasionally announced upgrades to
reflect current usage. For instance, on Jan. 23, 1979, the Speaker
announced the usage as follows:
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: Several changes in the rules of the House with
respect to voting will necessitate a change in the legislative bell
and light system. The Clerk has sent to each Member a detailed
statement indicating changes in the bell system, and the Chair will
insert the statement in the Record at this point:
One bell and light indicates a teller vote taken in
accordance with clause 5, Rule I (Members indicate their
preference by walking up the center aisle to be counted by
Members who are named as tellers by the Chair. This is not a
recorded vote).
Two bells and lights indicate an electronically recorded
vote, either demanded under the Constitution by one-fifth of
those present (in the House), by one-fifth of a quorum under
cl. 5, Rule I (in the House), by 25 Members (in Committee of
the Whole) under cl. 2(b), Rule XXIII, or pursuant to an
``automatic vote by yeas and nays'' where any Member in the
House objects to a vote on the ground that a quorum is not
present under cl. 4, Rule XV.
Two bells may also indicate a recorded vote under clause 5,
Rule I under a back-up procedure whenever Members are to record
their votes by depositing ballot cards in the ``aye'' or ``no''
boxes. The two bells will be repeated five minutes after the
first ring to give Members a second notice of the vote in
progress.
Two bells, a brief pause, followed by two bells and lights
indicates a yea and nay or recorded vote taken under the
provisions of clause 1, Rule XV by a call of the roll. The
bells will be sounded again when the Clerk reaches the ``R's''
in the first call of the roll.
Two bells and lights, a brief pause, followed by five bells
and lights, indicate the beginning of the first (15 minute)
vote in a series of two or more votes where subsequent
electronic votes immediately thereafter may be reduced to five
minutes; under one of four different procedures as follows:
1. At beginning of first electronically recorded vote
ordered on series of ``clustered'' votes on final passage or
adoption of bills, resolutions, or conference reports (cl.
5(b), Rule I);
2. At beginning of electronically recorded vote ordered on
recommittal to be immediately followed by possible five-minute
record vote on final passage or adoption of bills, resolutions,
or conference reports (cl. 5, Rule XV);
3. At beginning of first electronically recorded vote
ordered on series of ``clustered'' votes on resolutions from
Rules Committee (cl. 4(e), Rule XI); or
4. At beginning of first electronically recorded vote
ordered on series of ``clustered'' votes on motions to suspend
the rules (cl. 3, Rule XXVII).
After the first five minutes on the first electronically
recorded vote conducted under any of these procedures, two
bells and lights will be repeated to give Members a second
notice of the vote in progress. (As indicated below, five bells
will be rung
[[Page 11639]]
on all subsequent five-minute votes in each series on which the
Speaker has reduced voting time.)
Three bells and lights indicate a regular quorum call
either in the House or Committee of the Whole by electronic
system or by clerks (cl. 2, 5, Rule XV, cl. 2(a), Rule XXIII).
Three bells will be repeated five minutes after the first ring
to give Members a second notice of the quorum call in progress.
Three bells and lights, a brief pause, followed by three
bells and lights indicate a quorum call in House or in
Committee of the Whole under cl. 1, Rule XV by a call of the
roll, repeated when the Clerk reached the ``R's'' in the first
call of the roll.
One long bell, a brief pause, followed by three regular
bells, indicate that the Chair has exercised his discretion
under cl. 2, Rule XXIII and will vacate proceedings when quorum
of the Committee of the Whole appears (``Notice'' or ``short''
quorum call). One bell followed by three bells and lights will
be repeated every five minutes unless (a) the call is vacated
by ringing of one long bell and extinguishing of three lights,
or (b) the Chair converts to a regular quorum call and three
regular bells are rung as explained above.
Three bells, a brief pause, followed by five bells,
indicate beginning of a regular quorum call in Committee of the
Whole, which will possibly be immediately followed by five-
minute recorded vote at discretion of Chair if recorded vote is
ordered on pending question (cl. 2, Rule XXIII). Three bells
will be repeated five minutes after the first ring to give
Members a second notice of the quorum call in progress.
Four bells and lights indicate an adjournment of the House,
followed by extinguishing of amber light on right.
Five bells and lights indicate the beginning of any five-
minute electronically recorded vote. The bells are not rung
again during a five minute vote.
Six bells and lights indicate a recess of the House.
Twelve bells, sounded at two-second intervals, with six
lights illuminated, indicate Civil Defense Warning.
At the beginning of each Congress, the Speaker usually enunciates
guidelines for the use of the electronic voting system. While Rule XV
establishes a minimum time of 15 minutes for responding on such a vote,
in practice, the length of an electronic vote often stretched to 30
minutes or more. In recent Congresses, Speakers have alerted Members
that time limits set by the rule would be followed. An example of such
a policy statement follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ________, 104th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (9) The Chair wishes to enunciate a
clear policy with respect to the conduct of electronic votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Newt Gingrich (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Members are aware, clause 5 of Rule XV provides that Members
shall have not less than 15 minutes in which to answer an ordinary
rollcall vote or quorum call. The rule obviously establishes 15
minutes as a minimum. Still, with the cooperation of the Members, a
vote can easily be completed in that time. The events of October
30, 1991, stand out as proof of this point. On that occasion, the
House was consid
[[Page 11640]]
ering a bill in the Committee of the Whole under a special rule
that placed an overall time limit on the amendment process,
including the time consumed by rollcalls. The Chair announced, and
then strictly enforced, a policy of closing electronic votes as
soon as possible after the guaranteed period of 15 minutes. Members
appreciated and cooperated with the Chair's enforcement of the
policy on that occasion.
The Chair desires that the example of October 30, 1991, be made
the regular practice of the House. To that end, the Chair enlists
the assistance of all Members in avoiding the unnecessary loss of
time in conducting the business of the House. The Chair encourages
all Members to depart for the Chamber promptly upon the appropriate
bell and light signal. As in recent Congresses, the cloakrooms
should not forward to the Chair requests to hold a vote by
electronic device, but should simply apprise inquiring Members of
the time remaining on the voting clock.
Although no occupant of the chair would prevent a Member who is
in the well of the Chamber before the announcement of the result
from casting his or her vote, each occupant of the Chair will have
the full support of the Speaker in striving to close each
electronic vote at the earliest opportunity. Members should not
rely on signals relayed from outside the Chamber to assume that
votes will be held open until they arrive in the Chamber.
Verifying Votes Cast by Electronic Device
Sec. 31.3 The Speaker announced that Members should utilize the
safeguards of the electronic voting system to verify that their
votes are properly recorded.
On Feb. 6, 1973,(10) shortly after the House convened,
the Speaker (11) made a statement regarding the verification
problems attendant upon electronic voting:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 3558, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to make a brief statement about the use of
the electronic voting system.
Members now have been using this new voting system for several
days. A sufficient number of Members have spoken to the Chair about
its use to demonstrate that there is some general misunderstanding,
or lack of understanding, about the safeguards which have been
built into this system. The Chair would like to stress two points:
First, when a Member inserts his card in a voting station, he
should carefully note whether the blue light--that is the light on
the far right of the voting station--goes off momentarily and then
illuminates. When this light comes on, and only then, is the
mechanism ready to receive the Member's vote. The Member then
depresses the appropriate button--yea, nay, or present--before
removing his card. When he depresses the button of his choice, that
button will also light. It may take a second or two for this voting
light to come on. The Member should continue to depress the button
until it does illuminate.
[[Page 11641]]
Second, having voted in this fashion, a Member can very quickly
and simply verify whether or not he is correctly recorded, or is
recorded at all, on the rollcall or quorum call then in progress,
simply by reinserting his card in the same or any other voting
station and observing which button lights. If he has previously
voted in the affirmative, for example, the yea button will light to
indicate that the computer already has registered his vote.
A Member also can verify his vote by watching the master panel
on the wall of the Chamber above the Press Gallery. However, a
Member can more accurately check his vote by the procedure just
explained.
If a Member has any difficulty with the system, he should of
course check with the employees of the House who are positioned at
the majority and minority tables next to the monitoring screens.
Changing Electronic Votes
Sec. 31.4 At various times, the Speaker has announced changes in the
procedure for changing votes taken by the electronic system. In the
94th Congress, a policy was implemented which prohibited vote
changes from the voting stations and required Members to come to
the well, fill out a vote card, and announce his change. This
policy was reversed in the second session of the 94th Congress.
On Sept. 17, 1975,(12) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 28903, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: The Chair desires to make an announcement.
It has been suggested to the Chair by the leadership on both
sides of the aisle, by representatives of the Committee on House
Administration, and by other Members that certain procedures
associated with the use of the electronic voting system be
changed--specifically, those procedures required to change a vote
once it has been cast.
Under the present procedure, a Member may change a vote simply
by repeating the method used for casting his original vote and may
do so any number of times during the progress of a vote.
After due consideration of all the factors involved in
directing an adjustment in voting procedures, the Chair has come to
the conclusion that it would be better if the House were to return
to the system for changing votes which was in effect prior to the
advent of the electronic system; that is, that Members should come
to the well at the conclusion of the vote to announce and make
changes in their votes. Accordingly, the Chair has directed that
the voting computer be reprogramed, effective September 22, 1975,
so that once votes have been cast during a voting period they may
be changed only if Members come into the well at the conclusion of
the 15-minute minimum vot
[[Page 11642]]
ing time, seek recognition and announce their vote changes after
their names are called by the reading clerk. When called by name,
Members should state ``off aye, on no'' or ``off no, on aye'' or
``off aye, on present,'' and at the same time hand in a red, green
or amber tally card to indicate a final vote of ``no,'' ``aye,'' or
``present.'' The computer will accept no vote changes from the
voting stations in the Chamber, other than from ``present'' to
``aye'' or ``no.''
The specific procedure is as follows: At the end of the 15
minute voting period permitted under clause 5, rule XV, the Chair
will follow his present practice of asking if there are additional
Members who wish to be recorded.
When the Chair ascertains that there are no other Members
attempting to be initially recorded, the Chair will then inquire if
there are Members who wish to change their votes. As indicated, a
Member who wishes to change his vote must come to the well, and
when his name is called, announce his change and submit a red,
green or amber voting card to the tally clerk to indicate his
corrected vote. The tally clerk will then enter the corrected vote
into the computer and the changed vote will then be reflected on
the large voting panel over the Speaker's rostrum, on the south
wall of the Chamber.
While this process is continuing, Members who have not
initially voted may, of course, still be recorded but they must do
so by submitting a card at the well, for the voting stations
throughout the Chamber will be turned off during these proceedings.
As stated, these new procedures will be in effect on next
Monday. The Chair trusts that Members will view these changes as
the Chair intends them--as an attempt to further improve upon and
preserve the usefulness and integrity of the voting procedures of
this House.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, within the last few months the
gentleman from Maryland raised a request from the floor for a
recapitulation following a rather close electronic rollcall, and
was informed by the Chair that under the electronic system,
recapitulations were not permitted.
It seems fairly obvious, at least to the gentleman from
Maryland, that under this new procedure a recapitulation would not
only be in order, but in many instances would probably be very
beneficial, especially if the result were very close.
I put this question to the Chair: Under this changed electronic
procedure just announced, will recapitulations be granted when
requested by Members?
The Speaker: As the gentleman has submitted his parliamentary
inquiry, there is no change in that ruling. That is not the reason
why the prior ruling was made. The names of the Members will still
appear on the panel and Members can verify their changed votes
without a recapitulation. That was the basis for the original
ruling, that all names, whether they are by Members inserting their
voting cards
[[Page 11643]]
or voting from the well, will appear on the voting panel for
verification. The ruling will remain as it was when the gentleman
made his inquiry at an earlier date.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bauman: What the gentleman from Maryland is not completely
sure about is by what complete authority changes of the rules of
this nature are made by the ruling of the Chair alone. If a Member
wished to seek to have the full House act on the announcement just
made by the Chair, would this be done only by resolution referred
to the Committee on Rules?
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair.
On Mar. 22, 1976,(13) Speaker Albert announced a further
modification of the voting system to permit Members to change their
votes electronically during the first 10 minutes of the 15-minute
voting period but requiring changes made in the last five minutes to be
announced from the well by submission of a voting card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 7394, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER--CHANGE IN ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM
The Speaker: The Chair wishes to make an announcement
concerning the electronic voting system.
After consultation with the leadership on both sides of the
aisle and with the chairman of the Committee on House
Administration, it has been decided that it would be a convenience
to Members to permit changes in votes cast with the electronic
system by reinserting a voting card during the first 10 minutes of
the voting period. After 10 minutes, if a Member wishes to change
his vote, he must follow the present procedure of doing so by
voting card, in the well, following the completion of the 15-minute
voting period. As with the present system, a Member wishing to
change a vote cast during a 5-minute vote, such as occur on
suspension days, must do so by filling out a card in the well and
announcing his change when recognized to do so.
The necessary programing of the computer has been accomplished
to accommodate this change and so this new procedure is effective
today.
In 1977,(14) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, clarified the policy to be followed for making changes
during a vote which has been reduced to five minutes of duration.
During such votes, changes can be made electronically and an
announcement from the well is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 73, 74, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair desires to make an announcement
concerning the electronic voting system. . . .
. . . [O]n 5-minute votes, the revised procedure will permit
Members to reinsert voting cards in any voting sta
[[Page 11644]]
tion at any time until the Chair directs voting stations to be
closed by inquiring whether Members in the Chamber wish to change
their votes or be recorded. From that point until the Chair's
announcement of the result, Members must follow the present
procedure of submitting voting cards, in the well, at the
completion of the 5-minute voting period, and announcing his change
when recognized to do so.
The necessary programing of the computer has been accomplished
to accommodate this change and so this new procedure on 5-minute
votes is effective today.
Sec. 31.5 Although Members have a minimum of 15 minutes in which to
record their votes on a vote taken by electronic device, the Chair
has exercised his discretion to close the vote and to announce the
result at any time after the 15 minutes have elapsed; and those
precedents guaranteeing Members in the Chamber the right to have
their votes recorded even if the Chair has announced the result,
which predate the use of an electronic voting system, do not
require the Chair to hold open indefinitely a vote taken by
electronic device.
The Chair has on occasion been required to make ad hoc decisions
concerning the use of the electronic system when circumstances in the
Chamber required. On Mar. 14, 1978,(15) certain Members were
expressing their dissatisfaction with a decision made by a standing
committee by asking for numerous roll calls on procedural matters: a
call of the House, a vote on a motion that the Journal be read, and
another vote on the approval of the Journal were part of the tactics
employed. Members were also delaying the termination of votes by
changing their responses from yea to nay in the well at the conclusion
of votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 6838-41, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following proceedings, during which the Speaker Pro Tempore
entertained a parliamentary inquiry during the progress of the vote--a
practice normally not followed but one within the Chair's discretion--
illustrate the authority of the Chair to meet parliamentary exigencies.
[Following a quorum call, the Speaker pro tempore moved to the
next order of business.]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair has examined
the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the
House his approval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without objection, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object to
the approval of the Journal.
[[Page 11645]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Does the gentleman from Maryland offer a motion?
Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Speaker.
preferential motion offered by
mr. bauman
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the preferential
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bauman moves that the Journal be read in full.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the preferential
motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Bauman: 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
99, nays 301, not voting 34, as follows: . . .
Messrs. McClory, Schulze, Walker, Dickinson, Vander Jagt,
Stangeland, Steers, and Livingston changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
Messrs. Moore, Edwards of Oklahoma, Stratton, Marlenee, Don H.
Clausen, and Burgener changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
The Speaker Pro Tempore: All time has expired.
The Chair will take votes of those Members who have not had an
opportunity to vote, and those who have had such an opportunity can
clear the well. If there are people here who have not voted, the
Chair will take those votes. Otherwise, the vote is closed.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: All time has expired.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, under Cannon's Precedents it says
clearly:
The vote of a Member failing to be recorded, he may insist
that it be recorded even after the Chair has declared the
result and the Chair then makes a new declaration (V, 6064,
6065; VIII, 3143).
Under the precedents, I would like to suggest that the Chair is
not making a proper ruling.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Those precedents apply only to
rollcalls preceding the installation of the electronic device and
are not a precedent for holding the vote by electronic device open
indefinitely.
All time has expired.
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [Richard T.] Schulze [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Schulze: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to change my vote under
the electronic device process before the conclusion of the vote and
was unable to do so. So, if we are not going to be able to change
our vote by electronic device then we must be able to change
[[Page 11646]]
our vote in the well or change the electronic device so that we can
watch our vote.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's objection will be
noted. The Chair will rule that a point of order will not lie when
the Chair exercises his discretion to close the voting.
In the absence of an objection the Chair will approve the
Journal.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the Journal be approved.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman submit a
written motion.
Mr. Foley: I have a written motion at the desk.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Foley moves that the Journal be approved.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered
by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley).
The question was taken and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Ashbrook: 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
371, nays 29, not voting 34, as follows: . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Are there Members in the Chamber who
have failed to cast their votes?
The Chair will advise Members that the electronic voting
stations are still open, and they will remain open for 5 minutes.
Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: My card did not work,
Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: If there are Members who do not have
cards, the Chair will certainly take the word of those Members and
they may vote in the well.
Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall
that the rules provide for qualification.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members who desire to vote may do so.
The voting stations will remain open for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will take the parliamentary
inquiry, although he is not required to do so during the vote.
Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland thanks the Chair for
his indulgence.
The gentleman from Maryland was aware that the Speaker of the
House of Representatives had previously announced rules governing
the operation of the electronic voting device. Is the Chair now
announcing that those rules have been permanently changed, and that
there will be no 5-minute closed period at the end of all 15-minute
rollcalls?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that he is not
making a change. He is just adapting the procedure to fit the
situation.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair.
Mr. [James G.] Martin [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I have
a parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 11647]]
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker has announced that the
electronic recording devices are open. They are, but they have
neglected to throw the switch which will allow us to change our
vote, which is what I have been trying unsuccessfully to do.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman
that the voting stations remain open for those Members who have not
yet recorded their votes. Pursuant to the announcement of the
Speaker on March 22, 1976, changes in votes already recorded may
not be made from the voting stations during the last 5 minutes of a
vote taken by electronic device, but must be made by card from the
well.
Mr. Martin: That is right, Mr. Speaker, because I have not been
able to change my vote.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Martin) bring his card to the well?
The gentleman will not be able to change his vote at this time;
he will be able to vote for the first time. If the gentleman
desires to change his vote, he should come to the well when we take
changes at the end of the 5 minutes.
Five minutes has expired. The Chair will accept changes for an
additional 5 minutes.
Messrs. Johnson of Colorado, Schulze, Hagedorn, Ketchum,
Wampler, Coughlin, O'Brien, Walker, Collins of Texas, Crane, Del
Clawson and Treen changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Messrs. Kindness, Dickinson, Livingston, Martin, and Steers
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma moves to reconsider the vote
whereby the Journal was approved.
Mr. Foley: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider
on the table.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to table
the motion to reconsider.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma: 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
308, nays 91, not voting 35, as follows:
Mr. McEwen changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
Mr. Beard of Tennessee changed his vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
No Recapitulation on Electronic Vote
Sec. 31.6 A Member may not demand a recapitulation of a vote taken by
electronic device.
[[Page 11648]]
Where the House was voting on the adoption of a special rule which
provided that the House concur in Senate amendments to a House bill,
the vote on adoption was very close--with the voting display showing a
tie at 213 voting aye and 213 voting in the negative. A Member who had
been recorded as ``present'' then changed his vote, filling out a card
at the Clerk's table and voting in the affirmative. The resolution was
thus agreed to by a one vote margin. Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland,
then asked for a ``recapitulation.'' Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
declined to recognize for that demand. Pertinent proceedings from July
30, 1975,(17) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 25840, 25841, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I object.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Maryland object to
ordering the previous question?
Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Speaker.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand a division.
The question was taken; and there were--ayes 396, noes 20.
So the previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. Bauman: 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
214, nays 213, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows: .
. .
Mr. Bauman (prior to the announcement of the vote): Mr.
Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Burke)
was listed in the recorded vote on the board as having voted aye.
Mr. [J. Herbert] Burke of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I changed my
vote from ``present'' to ``aye.''
The Speaker: The vote is final.
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.
point of order
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recapitulation, under the
rules.
The Speaker: Under the rules, a recapitulation of an electronic
vote is not in order.
[[Page 11649]]
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate.
Sec. 31.7 The Speaker Pro Tempore indicated in response to a
parliamentary inquiry that a demand would not be in order for a
recapitulation of a vote taken by electronic device even where the
display panels were inoperative, since individual votes and vote
totals still could be verified through individual voting stations
and through the monitoring stations.
On June 21, 1978,(18) the Chair, in response to a
parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Pro Tempore James C. Wright, Jr., of
Texas, declined to entertain a request for a recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 18260, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the display
board is not working today, will it be in order for Members to
demand a recapitulation of the vote in view of the fact that we
quite often have close votes on amendments or on other legislation
here?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that Members can
still verify by the machine. A Member can ascertain the manner in
which his vote has been recorded after having voted by inserting
his card into the same or a different receptacle or by going to a
monitor. There will be attendants at the monitors on both sides of
the Chamber.
Mr. Bauman: I thank the Speaker.
Speaker's Discretion as to Use of Standby Procedures
Sec. 31.8 The Speaker announced that, pending preparation and testing
of Members' voter-identification cards to be used with the newly
installed electronic voting system, roll call votes would be
conducted under the standby provisions of the rules.
On Jan. 3, 1973,(19) the Speaker (20) was
obliged to delay the implementation of the electronic voting system.
Accordingly, he ad-vised the Members as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 27, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to make a statement, and it is a statement
that is important to all of the Members of the House.
The Rules of the House provide for the use of an electronic
voting system which has recently been installed in the House
Chamber. The chairman of the Committee on House Administration
addressed a letter to each Member advising the places, dates, and
times
[[Page 11650]]
when staff personnel from the office of the Clerk and the Committee
on House Administration would be available for preparation of House
of Representatives voter identification cards. The Chair urges
Members to have the cards prepared and tested as soon as possible.
Of course, it will take a few days to complete this project.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in clause 5 of rule
XV,(1) the Chair directs that until further notice all
rollcall votes and quorum calls shall be taken by the Clerk calling
the roll in the same manner as was the practice in the last
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 774b (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members will be given sufficient notice as to when the
electronic voting system will be activated.
Sec. 31.9 The Speaker may direct the Clerk to call the roll
alphabetically where the electronic voting device is not in
operation.
On May 16, 1973,(2) the Committee of the Whole having
arisen after considering a bill (H.R. 5777) to protect hobbyists
against the manufacture of certain imitation hobby items, among other
things, the Speaker (3) put the question on the passage of
the bill. The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 119 Cong. Rec. 15860, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, Mr. John W. Wydler, of New York, objected to the
vote on the ground that a quorum was not present and made the point of
order that a quorum was not present. The Speaker sustained the point of
order, but noted that ``The electronic voting device apparently is not
operating properly.'' Accordingly, the Clerk was directed to call the
roll.
Where the electronic voting system is inoperative, one back-up
procedure available in the House or in Committee of the Whole is the
procedure in Rule XV, clause 2(b)-``tellers with clerks.'' This
alternative voting procedure has been utilized to conduct a ``short
quorum'' call in Committee of the Whole.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The use of tellers with clerks consumes less time than a roll call
by the Clerk, but is seldom used since the clerks are often not
prepared with cards and ballot boxes without advance notice.
See the proceedings of July 13, 1983, 129 Cong. Rec. 18858,
98th Cong. 1st Sess. for an instance where tellers with clerks
were used as a backup in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 31.10 The Speaker has announced that the electronic voting system
was temporarily inoperable and that until further notice roll call
votes would be conducted under the ``back-up'' provisions of the
rules.
[[Page 11651]]
On Mar. 7, 1973,(5) the Speaker (6) made the
following statement to the Members:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 119 Cong. Rec. 6699, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to make an announcement.
The Chair has been advised that the electronic voting system is
at the present time not operable.
Until further notice, therefore, all votes and quorum calls
will be taken by the standby procedures which are provided in the
rules.
Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XV clause 1 authorizes the Chair to
direct the alphabetical call of the roll on ``every roll call'' unless
the Chair in his discretion, utilizes the electronic
device.(7) Rule XV clause 5 refers to ``any roll call or
quorum call;'' (8) and clause 2(b) permits ``calls of the
House'' to be told by clerks where the electronic device is not
utilized.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 765 (1995).
8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 774(b) (1995).
9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 771(b) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 31.11 The use of the electronic voting system, inoperative for
several days, resumes at the Chair's discretion.
On July 19, 1973,(10) following messages from both the
President and the Senate, the Speaker (11) made the
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 24919, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair desires to make a statement.
The Chair has been advised that the electronic voting system,
which has not been functioning for the past 3 days, is now in
order.
Technicians thoroughly tested the system this morning and have
assured the Chair that it is fully operable.
The Chair will therefore direct that its use be resumed as of
today.
Electronic Voting System; Display Panels Inoperative
Sec. 31.12 The Speaker has directed the electronic voting system to be
utilized even where the display boards showing how Members are
recorded and the running totals on the pending vote are
inoperative, where he is assured that the votes can still be
correctly recorded by the insertion of the Members' voting cards
and that Members can verify their votes by reinserting their cards.
On June 6, 1977,(12) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, of
Massachusetts, made the following an
[[Page 11652]]
nouncement concerning the use of the electronic voting
system:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 123 Cong. Rec. 17484, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Similar announcements were made where the display panels were again
inoperative on June 21, 1978, 124 Cong. Rec. 18256, 95th Cong.
2d Sess.; July 18, 1979, 125 Cong. Rec. 19279, 96th Cong. 1st
Sess.; Sept. 18, 1985, 131 Cong. Rec. 24160, 99th Cong. 1st
Sess.; Dec. 4, 1985, 131 Cong. Rec. 34233, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
On Sept. 19, 1985, the electronic system failed again, and the
Speaker ordered the vote taken by a roll call. 131 Cong. Rec.
24245, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair would like to make an announcement about
the electronic voting system. The Chair has been informed that the
board displaying each Member's name behind the Chair and the boards
displaying the bill number and vote totals to the left and right of
the Chair are not working today. However, all voting stations are
operating, and the Chair has directed all vote monitoring stations
to be staffed with personnel so any Member may go to any monitor
and verify his or her vote. Members may also verify their votes--as
they should on any vote, by reinserting their card at the same or
another voting station.
The Chair therefore directs that the vote be taken by
electronic device. Members interested in the progress of the vote
may inquire at the vote monitoring stations.
Where Breakdown Occurs--De Novo Votes
Sec. 31.13 Where the electronic voting system became inoperative during
a recorded vote in Committee of the Whole, the Chair, pursuant to
his authority under the rules, directed that the vote be taken de
novo by clerks.
On July 16, 1973,(14) the Committee of the Whole was
considering a bill (H.R. 8860) to amend and extend the Agricultural Act
of 1970. The Chairman (15) put the question on an amendment
offered by Mr. Bob Bergland, of Minnesota, to strike the cotton section
of the bill. The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt,
the Committee divided, and there were--ayes 49, noes 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 23970, 23971, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, rose to demand a
recorded vote. Mr. Teague's demand having been supported by the
requisite number of Members, a recorded vote was ordered and commenced.
The Chair then interrupted the vote-taking to make the following
announcement:
The Chair desires to announce to the Members that the
electronic device is not working. This vote will be repeated by a
recorded vote with clerks.
--Vacating Vote
Sec. 31.14 Where the electronic voting system has malfunc
[[Page 11653]]
tioned, the Chair may abort and vacate one electronic vote and
initiate a second such vote on the same question pursuant to clause
5, Rule XV.
On Oct. 4, 1989,(16) where a breakdown occurred while a
vote by electronic device was in progress, the Speaker ordered the
pending vote vacated and immediately ordered a new vote on the same
question. The Speaker's announcement explained the situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 135 Cong. Rec. 23204, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) If the Members will
bear with the Chair, we have had some problems with the electronic
voting machine and the Chair is attempting to decide at this point
whether to vacate the previous vote and to begin again, so if the
Members will hold for just a moment, the Chair is trying to find
out if the machine has been restored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair would like to advise the House that that machine was
not working properly. The Clerk is not certain that all the votes
were recorded.
So it is the intent of the Chair to vacate the vote at this
point and to direct a new record vote by electronic device on the
previous question on the motion to instruct conferees.
The voting machine is now working. So we will begin the voting
process again. The Chair is informed that some Members have left
the Chamber, so this will be a full 15 minute vote in all fairness
to give all Members an opportunity to vote.
This vote is on ordering the previous question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were yeas
198, nays 222, not voting 12, . . .
So the previous question was not ordered.
--Votes Electronically Recorded Before Breakdown
Sec. 31.15 Where the electronic voting system became inoperative during
a yea and nay vote on a motion to suspend the rules, the Speaker
directed the Clerk to call the roll alphabetically pursuant to the
rules and then announced that Members who had been recorded prior
to the malfunction of the electronic voting device would be
included in the tally of those voting on the motion.
On Dec. 21, 1973,(18) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West
Virginia, moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to a House
resolution (H. Res. 761) to take from the Speaker's table a Senate bill
(S. 921) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with a Senate
amendment to the House
[[Page 11654]]
amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate amendment to the House
amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 43285, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following discussion of this proposal, the Speaker (19)
put the question,(20) whereupon Mr. John D. Dingell, of
Michigan, demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays having been
ordered, the Members commenced to vote electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 43288, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of the voting, however, the Speaker interrupted to
make the following announcement:
Will the Members of the House give the Chair their attention?
The electronic equipment is out of order. It is evident that it is
not going to be repaired in time to finish this bill tonight. The
Chair knows of no way in which to handle this matter except by a
rollcall vote,(1) and to combine with the rollcall vote
any Member whose name is recorded who has left.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Chair's authority was derived from the provisions of Rule XV.
See Rule XV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 774(b)
(1995); Rule XV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 765
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, House Resolution 761.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds not having voted in favor
thereof) the motion was rejected. In an effort to clarify the method by
which this vote would be indicated in the Record, the Speaker later
made an additional statement: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 119 Cong. Rec. 43292, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair wishes to announce that the names of all Members who
voted by means of electronic device will be included in the list of
those voting on this motion so that the Record will clearly reflect
the names of all Members who have voted on this
matter.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Accordingly, the text of the Record only shows the complete vote on
the motion, and does not distinguish between those Members who
voted electronically before the malfunction and those Members
who voted thereafter.
A similar breakdown of the electronic system occurred in
1981 during the consideration of amendments to the Interior
Department appropriation bill (H.R. 4035) in the Committee of
the Whole. Chairman George E. Danielson, of California, handled
the situation in a similar fashion, directing a roll call vote
de novo but stating that Members who had responded
electronically would be ``captured'' in the final tally. 127
Cong. Rec. 16819-20, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1981. In
the 98th Congress, where a breakdown occurred in the middle of
an electronic vote on the approval of the Journal, the Chair
again used a roll call as the means of finalizing the result.
The final tally was delayed until the Clerk could retrieve the
names of Members who had voted electronically but failed to
answer the roll when their names were called. 129 Cong. Rec.
18844, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., July 13, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11655]]
Correcting Electronic Vote
Sec. 31.16 While the Speaker will not entertain unanimous-consent
requests to correct the Record and Journal on a vote taken by
electronic device or where a vote was changed by submission of a
ballot card to the tally clerk, the incorrect transcription by the
Official Reporters of Debates of an announced vote change in the
well may be corrected in the Record by unanimous consent.
On Sept. 24, 1975,(4) a Member incorrectly recorded by
the Official Reporters of Debate as having changed his vote, received
unanimous consent for the correction of the permanent Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 121 Cong. Rec. 30059, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, in the
Record of yesterday, September 23, 1975, on page H8993, I am
correctly recorded as having voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 536, the
vote on the Collins of Texas antibusing amendment.
However, on the same page, after the rollcall, the following
paragraph appears:
Messrs. Dent and Ullman, Mrs. Boggs, Messrs. Addabbo, Smith
of Iowa, Carney, Hastings, Bauman, and Florio changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Speaker, this is incorrect. I did not change my vote at
all, having voted ``yea'' during the rollcall. I did, however, come
to the well and inquire of the Chair (Mr. Bolling) how I was
recorded. I did so out of an abundance of caution, in view of the
new procedure announced by the Speaker which now governs electronic
rollcalls.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record
be corrected to reflect the fact that I did not change my vote, and
I thank the Chair.
The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The Speaker: It has been called to the Chair's attention that
the Record of yesterday incorrectly indicates changes of votes made
by two Members, one of whom being the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Bauman).
The Chair will point out, however, that the errors in the
Record were errors in transcription of the notes taken by the
reporters, and that the proper votes by each Member were accurately
recorded in the electronic system and can be verified by the voting
cards themselves.
The Chair has taken precautions to assure that in the future
any changes of votes recorded by the Official Re
[[Page 11656]]
porters of Debates will be checked against the voting cards
submitted to the tally clerk before they are noted in the
Congressional Record.
Sec. 31.17 The Speaker entertained a unanimous-consent request to
permit a Member to correct the Record and Journal where he had
inadvertently not been recorded on a quorum call taken by a call of
the roll where the electronic voting system had been inoperative.
Parliamentarian's Note: Where a unanimous-consent request to
correct the permanent Record is procedurally permissible and no
objection is heard, the actual honoring of the request obviates the
need to include it, as originally stated, in the permanent edition of
the Record. The reader of the permanent edition, of course, will be
unaware that any mistake warranting such a correction was made.
Accordingly, all correction requests of this category (i.e., those
which require unanimous consent, which are procedurally permissible,
and which are not objected to) may only be found in the temporary
edition of the Congressional Record.
On July 17, 1973,(6) Mr. Ronald A. Sarasin, of
Connecticut, rose to address the Chair (7) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, on yesterday, July 16, 1973, on rollcall No. 339,
a quorum call, I am recorded as absent. I was present and answered
to my name. I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record and
Journal be corrected accordingly.
The Speaker then put the request to the House; (8) and,
there being no objection, the Record was corrected.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. If the quorum call in question had been taken by electronic means,
Mr. Sarasin would have been precluded from obtaining such a
correction in light of the general proscription against
unanimous-consent requests where electronic voting is involved.
See Sec. 32.2, infra.
9. 119 Cong. Rec. 23986, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacating Disputed Vote
Sec. 31.18 A disputed vote has on rare occasions been vacated and the
question put de novo to ameliorate a dispute regarding the conduct
of the vote.
Illustrative are the proceedings of June 21 and 22, 1995, where a
vote taken in Committee of the Whole was held open for longer than the
17 minutes normally allowed to conclude a vote but was closed while
several Members were in the well--or proceeding to the well--attempting
to be recorded. The amendment was nar
[[Page 11657]]
rowly defeated, 213-214 and certain Members felt seriously aggrieved
and were protesting the vote. A preferential motion that the Committee
of the Whole rise was then offered by the manager of the bill and was
adopted. Back in the House, a motion to adjourn was immediately offered
and carried. On the following day, June 22, 1995, the Majority Leader
asked, in the House, that when the Committee of the Whole resumed its
sitting on the measure, the question be put de novo on the disputed
amendment. After some discussion, this request was agreed to.
When the Committee resumed its deliberations, the question on the
amendment was again put and after limited debate, the amendment was
agreed to by a vote of 220-204. Pertinent excerpts from the proceedings
surrounding this dispute commencing on June 21, 1995,(10)
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (11) It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 104-146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Linder (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment offered by mr. fazio of california
Mr. [Vic] Fazio of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio of California: Page 19,
after line 13, insert the following:
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (Public Law
92-484) including official reception and representation
expenses, expenses incurred in administering an employee
incentive awards program, and rental of space in the District
of Columbia, $18,620,000.
The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio] and a Member opposed will each be recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. [Ron] Packard [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in this
instance in strong opposition to the amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will
be recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
amendment offered by mr. houghton as a substitute for the
amendment offered by mr. fazio of california
Mr. [Amo] Houghton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as
a substitute for the amendment.
The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the
amendment is as follows:
[[Page 11658]]
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Houghton as a substitute for
the amendment offered by Mr. Fazio of California: Page 23, line
18, strike ``$60,083,000'' and insert ``$75,083,000''.
Page 26, line 19, strike ``$211,664,000'' and insert
``$195,076,000''.
The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Houghton], and a Member in opposition, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard], will be recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was
agreed to. . . .
The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
213, noes 214, not voting 7, as follows: . . .
The Chairman: For what reason does the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard] rise?
Mr. Packard: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
The Chairman: The gentleman from California moves that the
Committee do now rise. There is a motion on the floor. The
gentleman from California has been recognized. . . .
Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: A parliamentary inquiry,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Bonior: Mr. Chairman, we had 2 Members in the well with
their voting cards out, and the vote was 214 to 213, and the
gentleman in the Chair, respectfully I say to him, called the vote
while two of our Members were voting. That, Mr. Chairman, is not
fair. It is not right. This side of the aisle is not going to stand
for it.
The Chairman: That is not correct.
Mr. Bonior: I would further add, Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman: That was not a parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has a privileged
motion before the Committee. The gentleman will state his motion.
Mr. Packard: The motion is to rise.
The Chairman: The question is on the motion to rise offered by
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
233, noes 190, not voting 11, as follows: . . .
So the motion to rise was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore
(Mr. LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
[[Page 11659]]
State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 1854) making appropriations for the
legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996,
and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
Mr. [Richard K.] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Ray LaHood (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
224, noes 190, not voting 20, as follows: . . .
So the motion to adjourn was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), the House
adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 22, 1995, at 10 a.m.
The proceedings in the House and the Committee of the Whole on June
22, 1995,(13) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 141 Cong. Rec. p. __, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIRNESS IN HOUSE VOTING PROCEDURES
(Mr. Armey asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. Armey: Mr. Speaker, prior to making a unanimous-consent
request, I have two comments to make about yesterday's vote on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] as
amended during consideration of the legislative branch
appropriations bill.
First, after viewing and reviewing the videotape of yesterday's
proceedings, it is quite clear that the Chair, the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Linder], was on solid parliamentary ground when he
called the vote on the Fazio amendment. The Clerk informs us that
he called the vote after 17 minutes and 10 seconds. The videotape
shows Mr. Linder started to call the vote and refrained from
completing the call to allow a Member on the minority side of the
aisle to vote at the desk, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Ackerman]. The video then shows the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Linder] called the vote with the well of the House empty of
Members. The video then shows that after some time two Members from
the minority party appeared at the desk and attempted to vote. The
regular procedure of the House is that after the Chair has called
the vote, it is too late for Members to cast a vote. The fact that
Mr. Linder paused to allow the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Ackerman] to vote demonstrates that his intent was not to
arbitrarily shut off Members from their right to vote, nor did the
Chair cut off anyone in the well from their right to vote because
there were no Members in the well at the time he announced the
vote. . . .
However, I know all too well that once the perception of
unfairness and arbitrariness has set in, it is difficult
[[Page 11660]]
to undo regardless of the facts of the matter. It is important to
this Member that fairness govern this Chamber because this Member
spent over a decade attempting to do the people's business under
very unfair conditions. It is important to this Member that the
victories we win are honest and that the defeats we endure are
equally so.
For that reason I am about to make a unanimous-consent request
to revisit the vote on the Fazio amendment. . . .
Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, and I am reserving the right to object, but I
will not object. I want to respond briefly to what the majority
leader said.
Mr. Speaker, I think what the majority leader is attempting to
do is right. Our version of the facts is different than his, and I
would like to give that version just for the purpose of all of us
understanding what was involved here and so that we can try to not
have these kinds of things happen again.
As all of my colleagues know, the Speaker made a ruling early
in the year that we would try to hold votes to 17 minutes. The
ruling stated unless someone was in the well. Our version of the
facts was that these two Members, who will speak for 5 minutes and
will give their version of it in a moment, were in the Chamber,
were trying very much to get into the well, but were not able to
physically get there, but were, clearly understood by everybody in
the Chamber, trying to vote, and in fact at some point, and there
is a dispute about when they handed the card in or even handing
cards in to vote, when the vote was called to an end, they were not
allowed to vote. There is added suspicion because the vote was
close and the majority was winning by one vote, and we had two
Members coming into the Chamber, so there is added suspicion from
that end of it.
Mr. Speaker, there is very strong feeling on this side. I have
been here now 19 years, and I have not in my experience seen the
depth of feeling that occurred on this particular issue because, as
the gentleman said, the thing that we all hold most dear is our
ability to represent over 500,000 people in this Chamber on every
issue that is voted on. These Members were doing their best to be
here on time and to vote. I think there is added feeling on this
side because we seem to be into a differing standard from vote to
vote. As was said on the vote just before this vote, there was a
long time that the clock was held open. On the vote after, on the
motion to adjourn, it again was held open for a much longer time
than 17 minutes. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Speaker: Therefore, proceedings on rollcall No. 405 will be
vacated, and, when the Committee of the Whole resumes consideration
of H.R. 1854 pursuant to House Resolution 169, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole will be directed to put the question de novo
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] as amended by the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Houghton]. . . .
[[Page 11661]]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Pursuant to House
Resolution 169 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 1854. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Paul E. Gillmor (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, June 21, 1995, amendment No. 5 printed in House Report
104-146 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] had
been disposed of.
de novo vote on amendment offered by mr. fazio of california,
as amended
The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
Chair will now put the question de novo.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
Mr. Fazio of California: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton] be allowed to speak
out of order for 2 minutes in order to underscore and explain the
amendment that is about to be voted on.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California? . . .
The Chairman: All time has expired.
The Chair will now put the question de novo.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that he was
in doubt.
recorded vote
Mr. Fazio of California: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
220, noes 204, not voting 10. . . .