[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14,  Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[C. Yeas and Nays and Other Votes of Record]
[Â§ 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significance even though no longer current in the practice of the 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. . . .