Record Voting in the House of Representatives: Issues and Options
Record Voting in the House of Representatives:
Issues and Options
July 3, 2008
Michael L. Koempel
Senior Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress
Government and Finance Division
Judy Schneider
Specialist on the Congress
Government and Finance Division
Record Voting in the House of Representatives:
Issues and Options
Summary
Record voting in the House of Representatives appears to be a straightforward
process but is an activity steeped in parliamentary complexity. While this report
analyzes the evolution of voting beginning with the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1970 (LRA), some House rules related to voting have existed since the First
Congress. The House has had nearly 220 years of experience with voting that
manifests itself in precedents relevant today.
The LRA contained two major departures related to record voting. First, it
authorized development of an electronic voting system. Second, it allowed record
votes in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the form in
which the House usually operates to consider amendments to legislation.
Since the LRA’s enactment, there have been notable developments in record
voting procedures in the House. In general, the House through rules changes and
precedents has limited votes that might be viewed as dilatory rather than substantive,
and has expanded opportunities for votes that might be viewed as substantive.
Changes in rules have also authorized the presiding officer to postpone and cluster
votes and to reduce voting time to five minutes; largely ended pairing; and allowed
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote in the Committee of the Whole.
Policy announcements by the Speaker and rulings by presiding officers have ended
the correction of Members’ votes; sought to limit the duration of votes; and dictated
the manner by which Members may change a vote once cast.
Controversies have arisen on occasion. Some were related to the use of the
electronic voting system, some to Members being able to cast or change a vote after
the 15-minute minimum voting-time had expired. Others were related to a perception
that a vote had been “held open” beyond a reasonable amount of time. Only a very
few controversies have resulted in an investigation. The Standards of Official
Conduct Committee has made three investigations. A select committee is currently
investigating the manner by which a vote was ended.
Should the House wish to address rules, precedents, or practices, or the sources
of particular controversies, it has a number of possible vehicles and potential options.
Vehicles include House and party rules, the Speaker’s policies, and administrative
policies. Changes might be made to the electronic voting system, operations on the
Speaker’s dais, Members’ ability to vote after the 15-minute minimum, and other
aspects of voting in the House.
Complementary analyses to this report may be found in CRS Report RL34366,
Electronic Voting System in the House of Representatives: History and Evolution, by
Jacob Straus, and CRS Report 98-396, Guide to Individuals Seated on the House
Dais, by Mildred Amer. See also supplementary information at the CRS
Congressional Processes website, [http://www.crs.gov/products/guides/guidehome.
shtml]. This report will be updated after the Select Committee to Investigate the
Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007 issues its final report.
Contents
Changes to Record Voting in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970......2
Electronic Voting Amendment...............................4
Recorded Tellers Amendment................................6
Evolution of House Rules on Record Voting Since 1970...................9
Obtaining a Vote.........................................10
House ..............................................12
Approval of the Journal............................12
Presence or Absence of a Quorum....................12
Speaker’s Count in Support of the Yeas and Nays.......13
Voice Vote Precedes Record Vote....................13
Timely Demand for Record Vote.....................13
Automatic Vote on Final Passage....................14
Motion to Recommit..............................15
Vote by Yeas and Nays if Vote by Electronic Device.....16
Committee of the Whole...............................17
Number Required for Record Vote...................17
Demand for Record Vote vis-à-vis Division Vote or
Quorum ....................................19
Dispense with Reading an Amendment................20
Appeal the Ruling of the Chair......................21
Withdraw Demand for Record Vote..................21
Timely Demand for Record Vote.....................21
Postponed and Clustered Votes/Five-Minute Votes..............22th
Rules Changes through 100 Congress....................22
Practice through the 100th Congress.......................27stth
Rules Changes, 101 through 105 Congresses..............30
Practice, 101st through 105th Congresses...................32th
Rules Changes, 106 Congress to Present..................33
Practice, 106th Congress to Present.......................34
Recorded Teller Votes.....................................35
Electronic Voting System..................................36
Rules Changes Anticipating the Electronic Voting System.....37
Speaker’s Announcements Anticipating Electronic Voting....41rd
Practice in the 93 Congress............................42
94th - 105th Congresses.................................43
R ecapi t u l at i o n ...................................44
Constitutionality ..................................44
Malfunction of the Electronic Voting System...........45
Speakers’ Policies on Voting by Electronic Device......45
Illuminating Display Boards Other than when a Vote Is
Being Conducted.............................48th
106 Congress to Present...............................48
Recodification and Amendment of Rules..............48
Malfunction of Electronic Voting System..............49
Allowing Late-Arriving Members to Vote/Changing an Outcome...51
Prior to Voting by Electronic Device......................51
Advent of the Electronic Voting System...................52
106th Congress to the Present............................58
Members Changing Their Vote..............................61
Absence, Failure to Vote, Recusal from Voting, and Proxy Voting..63
Rules and Precedents after the LRA......................63
Members’ Announcement of Their Position after a Vote..........64
Pairs ...................................................65th
106 Congress to Present...............................66
Correction of a Member’s Vote..............................67
Delegate Voting..........................................68
Speaker’s Vote...........................................73
Interruption of the Conduct of a Vote.........................74
Bells and Lights..........................................75
Issues Related to Record Voting Since 1970............................76
Inoperative Electronic Voting System.............................77
99 Congress........................................78
101 Congress.......................................79
108 Congress.......................................80
Inoperative Display Boards.....................................81rd
93 Congress........................................81
96 Congress........................................82
106 Congress.......................................83
108 Congress.......................................83
110th Congress.......................................83
Absent, but Displayed as Voting.............................84
106 Congress.......................................84
Members’ Personal Explanations on Votes.........................86
Absent Members’ Voting Explanations........................86
Incorrectly Recorded Votes.................................87
Members Attempting to Vote...................................89
104th Congress.......................................89
Holding Votes Open..........................................90
108 Congress.......................................91
110th Congress.......................................91
Investigations Related to Votes and Voting Since 1970...................92
“Ghost” Voting..............................................93
100 Congress...........................................94
Exchanging a Vote for a Benefit.................................95th
108 Congress...........................................95
Terminating a Vote...........................................97th
Options for Addressing Issues Related to Record Voting.................100
Vehicles for Effecting Changes Related to Record Voting............100
House Rules............................................101
Unanimous Consent......................................101
Rulemaking Statute......................................101
Speaker Announcements..................................102
Standing Order..........................................102
Administrative Order.....................................102
Custom and Tradition....................................102
Vote Duration and Well Cards..................................103
House Rules/Speaker Announcements...........................104
Training/Education ..........................................104
Dais Personnel .............................................106
Official Absences............................................106
Tally Sheets................................................107
Tally (Summary) Boards......................................107
Voting Stations..............................................108
Administrative/Legislative Organization..........................108
Make No Changes...........................................109
Appendix A. Constitutional Provisions, House Rules, and Speaker’s Policies
Related to Voting............................................110
Constitution ................................................110
Article 1, Section 5, clause 1 (excerpt).......................110
Article 1, Section 5, clause 3 (excerpt).......................110
Article 1, Section 7, clause 2 (excerpt).......................110
Article 1, Section 7, clause 3...............................110
Rule I. The Speaker..........................................110
Clause 1 (excerpt).......................................110
Clause 5 (excerpt).......................................111
Clause 6...............................................111
Clause 7...............................................111
Rule II. Other Officers and Officials.............................111
Clause 1 (excerpt).......................................111
Rule III. The Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioner of
Puerto Rico............................................111
Clause 1...............................................111
Clause 2...............................................111
Clause 3(a) (excerpt).....................................112
Rule X. Organization of Committees.............................112
Clause 5(a)(1) (excerpt)...................................112
Clause 5(c)(1) (excerpt)...................................112
Rule XIII. Calendars and Committee Reports......................112
Clause 6(a)(1)...........................................112
Clause 6(c).............................................112
Rule XIV. Order and Priority of Business.........................112
Clause 6...............................................112
Rule XV. Business in Order on Special Days......................113
Clause 1(a) (excerpt).....................................113
Clause 5(b)(1) (excerpt)...................................113
Clause 6(a) (excerpt).....................................113
Clause 8(c).............................................113
Rule XVIII. The Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union .................................................113
Clause 6...............................................113
Clause 12..............................................114
Rule XIX. Motions Following the Amendment Stage................114
Clause 2(a) (excerpt).....................................114
Rule XX. Voting and Quorum Calls.............................115
Clause 1...............................................115
Clause 2...............................................115
Clause 3...............................................115
Clause 4...............................................115
Clause 5...............................................116
Clause 6...............................................117
Clause 7...............................................118
Clause 8...............................................118
Clause 9...............................................119
Clause 10..............................................119
Clause 11..............................................119
Rule XXI. Restrictions on Certain Bills...........................119
Clause 5(b) (excerpt).....................................119
Rule XXII. House and Senate Relations
......................................................119
Clause 12(a) (excerpt)....................................119
Rule XXIII. Code of Official Conduct
......................................................120
Clause 10..............................................120
Speaker’s Policies...........................................120
Appendix B. House Voting Procedures: Forms and Requirements..........121
Appendix C. Points of Order Relating to Voting in the 110th Congress......123
Appendix D. Parliamentary Inquiries Relating to Voting in the 110th
Congress ...................................................125
List of Tables
Table 1. House Rules Before and After the 106th Congress Recodification....10
Table 2. Electronic Voting System Failures, 1973.......................78
Table 3. Instances of Electronic Voting Issues in Personal Explanations: rdth
Record Voting
In the House of Representatives:
Issues and Options
Member voting is perhaps the most important activity of any legislature —
determining the fate of bills, resolutions, amendments, and other matters. With record
votes, legislators and their parties put themselves on the public record for or against
specific questions. The action of voting in the House of Representatives appears to
be a straightforward process, but it is an activity steeped in parliamentary complexity.
Rules, precedents, and practices govern voting in the House and the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union (hereafter, the Committee of the
Whole). Largely, voting procedures in the House and the Committee of the Whole
have evolved to become similar since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
(LRA).1 The first purpose of this report is to discuss the two momentous changes in
record voting procedures that the House included in the LRA and to analyze the
evolution of rules, precedents, and practices on record voting procedures since that
time.
The conduct of record votes in the House, moreover, has demonstrated a need
for flexibility on some occasions and generated controversy on others. The Standards
of Official Conduct Committee and the House Administration Committee as well as
a select committee have been called on formally or informally to investigate some
controversies. The second purpose of this report is to discuss how the House has
adapted to exigencies in conducting record votes, and to analyze the occasion and
resolution of controversies that have arisen.
The House in the 110th Congress adopted a rules change that sought to terminate
record votes in a manner that allowed all Members to vote but did not purposely2
reverse “an already-established outcome.” Yet, a vote taken on August 2, 2007,
resulted in the House establishing a select committee to investigate the termination
of that vote. The third purpose of this report is to identify options and mechanisms
available to the House if it wishes to address some of the rules, precedents, practices,
exigencies, and controversies that have defined voting procedures.
1 P.L. 91-510; 84 Stat. 1140 (1970).
2 Rule XX, cl. 2(a). U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of
the House of Representatives of the United States, 110th Congress, H.Doc. 109-157, 109thnd
Cong. 2 sess., prepared by John V. Sullivan (Washington, DC: GPO, 2007), p. 808.th
(Hereafter, House Rules and Manual, 110 Congress.)
The different forms of voting available in the House and the Committee of the
Whole — voice, division, and record3 — and the procedures for obtaining these votes
are succinctly explained in Appendix B. The constitutional provisions and rules of
the 110th Congress pertinent to voting, and the Speaker’s policy in the 110th Congress
on voting by electronic device, appear in Appendix A. Points of order and
parliamentary inquiries pertinent to voting in the 110th Congress, through May 2008,
appear in Appendices C and D, respectively. (The parliamentarian’s notes in the
Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives of the
United States regularly cite practices and actions that established precedent, in
addition to citing rulings on points of order and responses to parliamentary inquiries.
This document is published early in the first session of each Congress, to incorporate
rules changes and to update the parliamentarian’s notes.)
This report is divided by first-level headings into sections. The sections are
divided into parts. Cross references within the report will therefore refer to another
section or to another part.
Changes to Record Voting in the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
On the eve of two momentous changes to House rules concerning voting, the
features of voting that these changes overturned might seem shocking to Members
and staff today. Prior to enactment of the LRA, record votes in the House were
conducted by an oral, alphabetical call of the roll and the hand recording of
Members’ positions. In addition, record votes were not permitted in the Committee
of the Whole, the form in which the House normally operates to debate and vote on
amendments to measures before the House itself votes on passage.4
The House Administration Committee in the 91st Congress (1969-1971) was
studying the potential of an electronic voting system,5 but H.R. 17654, the LRA as
reported by the Rules Committee, did not include a provision dealing with an
automated voting system. The House nonetheless amended H.R. 17654 to authorize
the development of an electronic voting system to record votes.
3 “Record vote” and “recorded vote” are used in this report to include yea-and-nay votes in
the House and recorded votes in the House and the Committee of the Whole.
4 Rule XIII, cl. 1, and Rule XVIII, cl. 3, in House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, pp. 614
and 762.
5 Rep. Joe D. Waggonner Jr., “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional
Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25825.
As explained in a companion CRS report on electronic voting, Thomas Edison in 1869
demonstrated an electro-mechanical voting system to the House. Members then introduced
legislation to install an electrical voting system in the House in a number of Congresses
between 1886 and before World War II and in every Congress after World War II through
and none was considered by the House. CRS Report RL34366, Electronic Voting System in
the House of Representatives: History and Evolution, by Jacob R. Straus.
On the second matter — no record votes in the Committee of the Whole — the
House through its history had continued to follow ancient British practice:
[The Committee of the Whole] originated in the time of the Stuarts, when
taxation arrayed the Crown against the Commons, and suspicion made the
Speaker a tale-bearer to the King. To avoid the Chair’s espionage[,] the
Commons met in secret, elected a chairman in whom it had confidence, and[,]
without fear of the King[,] freely exchanged its views respecting supplies. The
informality of its procedure survived the occasion for secrecy [in the House of6
Representatives]....
By rule and practice, the Committee of the Whole House continues today to use a
separate set of procedures from those of the House. Before the LRA’s enactment,
however, the forms of votes available in the Committee of the Whole were voice,
division, and “teller.”
The House rule in the 91st Congress on voting, which continued largely intact7
from the First Congress, stated:
[The Speaker]...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 from each side of the
question to tell the Members in the affirmative and negative; which being8
reported, he shall rise and state the decision.
“Tell” here was used to mean “count” or “enumerate.” As explained by one Member
in debate on the LRA, the teller vote was conceived “as a method of voting the will
of the people while escaping the wrath of a powerful and vengeful monarch....We
[kept the rule] because we said it helped expedite the often slow legislative process.”9
6 Alexander, De Alva Stanwood, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives
(1916. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), p. 257.
“The yeas and nays...are not taken in Committee of the Whole....” U.S. Congress,
House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of thestthnd
United States, 91 Congress, H.Doc. 402, 90 Cong. 2 sess., prepared by Lewis Deschler
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1969), p. 27. See also Walter Kravitz, “Congressional Procedures
and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Parliamentary Journal, vol. XII, no. 1,
January 1971, p. 13 (hereafter, Kravitz, “Congressional Procedures and the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970”).
7 Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1st Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1
(Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 9.
8 House Rule I, cl. 5 (91st Congress), in Journal of the House of Representatives of the
United States, 91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1969), p. 1431. (While Housest
Rule I both in the 91 Congress and today concerns the Speaker, House rules wereth
recodified in the 106 Congress, affecting the provisions of Rule I.)
9 Rep. Hale Boggs, “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, vol.
(continued...)
H.R. 17654, the LRA as reported by the Rules Committee, also did not include
a provision on record votes in the Committee of the Whole. During committee
markup, an amendment to allow such votes failed on a 6-6 vote.10 The House
nonetheless amended H.R. 17654 to authorize “recorded teller votes.”
Electronic Voting Amendment. As noted, H.R. 17654, the LRA as reported
by the Rules Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, did not include a provision
pertaining to an automated voting system in the House. The chair of the special
subcommittee of the House Rules Committee that had drafted the bill explained
during floor debate:
Because of the work the Committee on House Administration was doing...your
subcommittee felt that it probably was inappropriate, and not timely at the time,11
to actually attempt to amend the rules to make provision for electronic voting....
Other Members were skeptical of the explanation, however, with one Member noting
that “the Members of the [subcommittee] who have spoken [earlier] have all seemed12
to be against the idea.”
Support in the House to replace oral roll-call voting with automated voting was
nonetheless considerable. On July 27, 1970, Representative Robert McClory offered
an amendment to H.R. 17654 to allow the use of an electronic voting system to
record votes, and to authorize spending for such a system. The amendment provided:
...(a) Rule XV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
“5. In lieu of the calling of the names of Members in the manner provided for
under the preceding provision of this rule, upon any roll call or quorum call, the
names of such Members voting or present may be recorded through the use of
appropriate electronic equipment. 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 and those Members recorded as voting in the negative, or a list of the
names of those Members voting present, as the case may be, as if their names had
been called in the manner provided for under such preceding provision.”
9 (...continued)
10 Rep. Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,”
Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25796. (Hereafter, Rep. O’Neill,
remarks in the House.)
11 Rep. B.F. Sisk, “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, vol.
12 Rep. Andrew Jacobs Jr., “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional
Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25829.
(b) The contingent fund of the House of Representatives shall be available to
provide the electronic equipment necessary to carry out the purpose of the13
amendment made by subsection (a).
Republican Representative McClory and bipartisan proponents argued for the
efficiency that an electronic voting system would bring to the House: an oral roll-call
vote typically consumed more than 30 minutes, while a vote using an automated
system was anticipated to require half that much time. Advocates also noted that oral
roll calls consumed too much time as the House work load increased, and that
changes in the LRA could further increase the number of roll-call votes. Some
Members, having served in state legislatures, offered their experiences with
automated systems as testament to the efficiency to be gained.14 One Member
recalled an investigation of “ghost voting” the previous year and the recommendation
from the Standards of Official Conduct Committee for a new voting system.15 No one
spoke against automated voting during debate on the McClory amendment.
Several Members commented on the use of “may” rather than “shall” in the
wording of the amendment — “the names of...Members...may be recorded through
the use of appropriate electronic equipment.” (Emphasis added.) Representative
McClory responded to a question on the word choice as follows:
The word “may” is in there so that the House through its organized committees
can proceed to complete its work and so that we can record votes in that way.
However, under my amendment it would not be necessary to record votes and
roll calls electronically, nor would we necessarily record all votes in that way.
These are questions to be determined at a later time when details of the system16
are worked out.
13 Rep. Robert McClory, “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record,
vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25818. (Hereafter, Rep. McClory, remarks in the
House.) P.L. 91-510, §121; 84 Stat. 1140, 1157 (1970).
The House agreed earlier on July 27, in adopting an amendment allowing “recorded
teller votes” in the Committee of the Whole, to a compatible amendment allowing those
votes to be taken by electronic device. See footnote 32 for information on the earlier
amendment.
References in this report to the “Journal” mean the Journal of the House of
Representatives of the United States.
14 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July
15 Rep. Charles E. Bennett, “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional
Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25829. See also “Communication from the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,” Congressional Record, vol. 115, part 12
(June 19, 1969), p. 16629; “House Group Urges Roll-Call Reform,” The New York Times,
December 19, 1968, p. 33; and “Three Branches Involved in Ethics Controversies,” in
Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1969, vol. XXV (Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly Inc., 1970), p. 1028.
16 Rep. McClory, remarks in the House, p. 25818.
This argument satisfied members of the House Administration Committee, the panel
with jurisdiction over an automated voting system.17
Members skeptical of the House implementing an electronic voting system, in
the absence of a specific directive, supported an amendment to the McClory
amendment. Representative Robert L. Leggett’s amendment, among other things, set
a specific commencement date for an electronic voting system. Mr. Leggett
ultimately withdrew his amendment following remarks by Representative Joe D.
Waggonner Jr., chair of the House Administration Committee’s Special
Subcommittee on Electrical and Mechanical Office Equipment. Mr. Waggonner
explained the status of the subcommittee’s work and indicated that recommendations
on an electronic voting system would be made in the current Congress.18
The McClory amendment was agreed to by voice vote in the Committee of the
Whole,19 and enacted when President Richard M. Nixon signed the LRA into law.20
Recorded Tellers Amendment. As also noted, H.R. 17654, the LRA as
reported by the Rules Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, did not include a
provision to allow recorded votes in the Committee of the Whole. House rules and
precedents allowed only voice, division, and teller votes in the Committee of the
Whole.
When the Committee of the Whole took a vote by tellers, the chairman of the
Committee of the Whole “if he still doubts [after a division vote], or a count is
required by at least one-fifth of a quorum,...shall name one or more from each side
of the question to tell the Members in the affirmative and negative; which being21
reported he shall rise and state the decision.” Members passed in front of the
appropriate teller and were counted, and only the numbers for and against a question22
were announced by the chair and reported in the Congressional Record.
By the 91st Congress, teller votes had become controversial. There was growing
sentiment inside and outside of the House that Members used the Committee of the
Whole’s secrecy to escape accountability for votes, and that at least some
controversial or well-publicized amendments that failed in the Committee of the
17 See, for example, Rep. Fred Schwengel, “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,”
Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), pp. 25824, 25827. (Hereafter, Rep.
Schwengel, remarks in the House.)
18 Reps. Robert L. Leggett and Joe D. Waggonner Jr., “Legislative Reorganization Act of
and 25829.
19 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July
20 P.L. 91-510, §121; 84 Stat. 1140, 1157 (1970).
21 House Rule I, cl. 5 (91st Congress).
22 See, for example, “Prevailing Rate Pay Systems for Government Employees,”
Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 23 (September 9, 1970), p. 30866: “The Committee
again divided, and the tellers reported that there were — ayes 73, noes 55.”
Whole would have been agreed to had there been recorded votes.23 Since the
precedents of the House generally allowed a recorded vote in the House only on first-
degree amendments agreed to in the Committee of the Whole — a practice that
continues today — the precedents afforded virtually no opportunity for a recorded
vote on an amendment that failed.24
To expose Members’ positions on amendments voted on by tellers, citizens took
seats in the House visitors’ gallery, trying to see which Members stood in each line
for and against an amendment. Individuals who opposed the Vietnam War, for
example, sat in the visitors’ gallery and attempted to see how individual Members
voted on war-related amendments, and then reported whom they observed. Such
observations were prone to error. These citizens were referred to as gallery
“watchers” or “observers.”25 In the 91st Congress, votes on issues widely covered in
the media and widely discussed in the electorate — the invasion of Cambodia, the
anti-ballistic missile (ABM), and the supersonic transport plane (SST) — were
decided by teller votes on amendments in the Committee of the Whole.26
During the Rules Committee’s markup of H.R. 17654, Democratic
Representative Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. proposed an amendment to allow
“recorded teller votes,” or “tellers with clerks,” in the Committee of the Whole. It
failed on a 6-6 vote.27 On July 27, 1970, Representatives O’Neill and Charles S.
Gubser, a leading Republican proponent of allowing more recorded votes, offered a
floor amendment to H.R. 17654 to add the following language to Rule I, cl. 5:
23 Rep. O’Neill, remarks in the House, p. 25797; and Rep. Boggs, remarks in the House, p.
The Washington Post, July 12, 1967, p. A23; and Henry Cathcart, “Inside Washington:
Teller Vote Errs; Makes History,” Chicago Daily Defender, July 20, 1967.
24 Wm. Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents, and Procedures of the House (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003), pp. 59-61.
(Hereafter, Brown and Johnson, House Practice.)
At the time, a Member could offer a motion to recommit with instructions, but it was
not debatable after the previous question was ordered. Opponents could therefore use the
previous question vote to head off debate and an up-or-down vote on a motion to recommit.th
House Rules and Manual, 110 Congress, p. 794; Rep. William A. Steiger, “Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p.
25811 (hereafter, Rep. Steiger, remarks in the House); and Kravitz, “Congressional
Procedures and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” pp. 14-15.
25 Rep. Steiger, remarks in the House, p. 25811; and Rep. Fred Schwengel, remarks in the
House, p. 23916. See also Norman G. Miller, “Some in House Seek to End Old Practice of
Nonrecord Voting,” Wall Street Journal, June 18, 1970, pp. 1, 3.
26 Rep. O’Neill, remarks in the House, p. 25797. See also “Members Vote in Anonymity on
Many Crucial Issues,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1970, vol. XXVI (Washington,
DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1971), p. 454; Bernard D. Nossiter, “House Rebuts
Moves to Curb Nixon on Asia,” The Washington Post, May 7, 1970, p. A1; and John W.
Finney, “House Bars Curb on the President,” The New York Times, May 7, 1970, p. 1.
27 Rep. O’Neill, remarks in the House, p. 25796. For background, see “House Group Seeks
More Roll Calls to Record Votes,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. XXVIII,
no. 26, June 26, 1970, pp. 1650-1652.
If before tellers are named any Member requests tellers with clerks and that
request is supported by at least one-fifth of a quorum, the names of those voting
on each side of the question shall be entered in the Journal. Members shall have
not less than twelve minutes from the naming of tellers with clerks to be28
counted.
In support of the amendment, Representative O’Neill argued:
There should be no one among us who is not willing to go on record on the vital
issues of the day. There should be no one among us who is unwilling to go to his
constituency on this record — his true record, based on the important votes in the29
Committee of the Whole.
Other Members argued that the change would increase not only accountability of the
House and its individual Members but also decrease Member absenteeism — a
problem evident from the low numbers counted on various teller votes — since30
Members would not want to miss recorded votes. Some noted that unrecorded teller
votes were of importance when Congress met for just a few months, but that this
justification had disappeared with the development of essentially a year-round
Congress and the emergence of the “highly complex relationship between the people31
and their government.” Members did not speak against recorded teller votes during
debate on the O’Neill-Gubser amendment.
The recorded teller amendment was agreed to by voice vote in the Committee3233
of the Whole, and enacted when President Nixon signed the LRA into law.
28 Rep. O’Neill, remarks in the House, p. 25796.
29 Ibid., p. 25797.
30 See, for example, Rep. James A. Burke, “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,”
Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25797; and Rep. David R. Obey,
p. 25810.
31 See, for example, Rep. Charles S. Gubser, “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,”
Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25799.
32 “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July
Before the O’Neill-Gubser amendment was agreed to, two amendments to it were also
agreed to. The first amendment required the names of Members not voting on a question to
be recorded, in addition to those Members voting for and against. Rep. James A. Burke,
“Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27,
1970), p. 25808. The second amendment allowed teller votes to be recorded by clerks or by
electronic device. Rep. James G. O’Hara, “Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,”
Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 19 (July 27, 1970), p. 25813-25814.
33 P.L. 91-510, §120; 84 Stat. 1140, 1157 (1970).
Evolution of House Rules on
Record Voting Since 1970
This section of the report, on the evolution of House rules, precedents, and
practices, related to record voting procedures since the 1970 LRA, is divided into
broad topics, such as Obtaining a Vote or Allowing Late-Arriving Members to
Vote/Changing an Outcome. Normally, a paragraph briefly explaining rules,
precedents, or key changes since 1970 begins a topic. A topic may be further divided
so that the reader may easily find a topic’s constituent parts.
The changes to House rules examined in this section of the report were
contained in the rules packages adopted at the beginning of new Congresses and in
resolutions agreed to during various Congresses, beginning with the 92nd Congress
(1971-1973). The precedents and practices examined are based on the Congressional
Record references in the parliamentarian’s notes in the editions of Constitution,
Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives for each Congress
(referred to hereafter as the House Rules and Manual), from the 92nd Congress
through the current Congress.
The focus of this section of the report is rules, precedents, and practices
specifically related to record voting procedures in the House and the Committee of
the Whole. This section draws principally from editions of the House Rules and
Manual, as follows:
!sections 76 through 80, which explicate precedents related to the
constitutional provision on the yeas and nays (art. I, § 5, cl. 3);
!Rule I, cl. 6 (Rule 1, cl. 5, before recodification in the 106th Congress
(1999-2001)), on the Speaker putting a question;
!Rule III (Rule VIII), pertaining to Members, Delegates, and the
Resident Commissioner;
!Rule XVIII, cl. 6 (Rule XXIII, cl. 2), on quorums and voting in the
Committee of the Whole; and
!Rule XX (Rule I, cl. 5, and Rule XV), on quorums and voting in the
House.
Even within these rules and the parliamentarian’s notes on them, however, some
topics are examined introductorily or not at all in this report. Quorum in the House
or the Committee of the Whole is a subject covered introductorily, for example,
through footnotes explaining rules changes that restricted opportunities to obtain a
quorum call.34 The precedence of the motion to adjourn is an example of a subject
that is not examined.
There are a few subjects that are covered introductorily, however, such as the
motion to recommit, that do not relate specifically to record voting procedures. They
34 For an analysis of quorum procedures, see CRS Report 98-988 (archived), Voting and
Quorum Procedures in the House of Representatives, by Stanley Bach.
are included since a rules change increased the opportunities of Members to obtain
a record vote.
The explanations in this report of precedents and practices cited in the
parliamentarian’s notes normally indicate whether a procedural determination
occurred in the House or the Committee of the Whole. It is important to keep in
mind, nonetheless, that the rules of the House generally apply to the Committee of
the Whole. Rule XVIII, cl. 12, provides: “The Rules of the House are the rules of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union so far as applicable.”35
The reader should also keep in mind that the Rules Committee may report a
special rule that, if agreed to by the House, may temporarily change or adapt House
rules as they pertain to a specific piece of legislation.
For the reader’s convenience, Table 1 cross references House rules before and
after recodification in the 106th Congress (1999-2001).
Table 1. House Rules Before and After the
106th Congress Recodification
RulePrior to Beginning in
106th Congress106th Congress
Speaker generallyRule IRule I
Form of a questionRule I, cl. 5Rule I, cl. 6
Members’ votingRule VIIIRule III
Members’ pairingRule VIII, cl. 2Rule XX, cl. 3
Delegate votingRule XII, cl. 2, andRule III, cl. 3, and
Rule XXIII, cl. 2Rule XVIII, cl. 6
Special rules and the motionRule XI, cl. 4, andRule XIII, cl. 6, and
to recommitRule XVI, cl. 4Rule XIX, cl. 2
Voting and quorums in theRule I, cl. 5 and RuleRule XX
HouseXV
Voting and quorums in theRule XXIII, cl. 2Rule XVIII, cl. 6
Committee of the Whole
Source: Table prepared by authors from parliamentarian’s notes in House Rules andth
Manual, 110 Congress.
Note: The recodification of House rules was contained in H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House
January 6, 1999.
Obtaining a Vote. The Speaker or chairman of the Committee of the Whole
first puts a question to a voice vote. A Member on occasion may demand a division
35 Rule XXIII, cl. 9, before recodification.
vote following a voice vote. Most often, however, a Member might seek a record
vote on a question, demanding the yeas-and-nays in the House or a recorded vote in
the House or the Committee of the Whole. The forms of voting and the methods for
obtaining a vote are described in Appendix B.
For House approval of some questions, a supermajority is required. Every week
when it is in session, the House typically considers a number of measures under a
procedure called suspension of the rules, for which a House rule requires two-thirds
of Members voting, a quorum being present, to adopt the motion to suspend the rules
and pass a measure.36
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto or to
approve a constitutional amendment for submission to the states. Interestingly,
passage of a resolution to amend the Constitution does not “necessarily” require a
yea-and-nay vote, but the yeas-and-nays are required to pass a bill over the
President’s veto.37 Rules, precedents, and practices related to votes requiring a38
supermajority are not generally included in this report.
Many rules, precedents, and practices of the House related to voting are long-
standing. Rule I, cl. 6, on the form of a question, for example, has existed since the39
First Congress. Precedents long predate the time frame of this report that the
“constitutional right of a Member to demand the yeas and nays may not be overruled40
as dilatory” or that the Speaker may not refuse to put a question that is in order.
Since the LRA of 1970, the House has adopted rules, and its presiding officers
— sometimes supported by the House’s membership on a vote related to an appeal
of a chair’s ruling — have acted to develop its precedents and practices on voting.
In some instances a rules change or action by the presiding officer has narrowed the
opportunities for obtaining a vote, such as the changes pertaining to the Speaker’s
approval of the Journal or resolving the House into the Committee of the Whole.
These changes have tended to curtail procedural votes. In other instances a rules
change or action by the presiding officer has broadened the opportunities for
obtaining a vote, such as the change to Rule XIII, cl. 6 prohibiting, except in one
36 Rule XV, cl. 1 (110th Congress).
37 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, p. 34. The constitutional requirement for the
yeas and nays to override a veto is explicit: “But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses
shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against
the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 7,
cl. 2. The requirement regarding proposed amendments to the Constitution requires a two-
thirds vote but does not also contain a requirement for the yeas-and-nays. U.S. Const. art.
V.
38 For an explanation of votes requiring a supermajority, see CRS Report 98-778, Super-
Majority Votes in the House, by Walter J. Oleszek.
39 Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1st Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1
(Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 9.
40 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, pp. 35 and 144.
circumstance, the Rules Committee from reporting a special rule disallowing a
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.41
House. For the convenience of the reader, this part of this section is divided
into two subparts, the House and the Committee of the Whole. Changes to Rule XX
(or its predecessor rules before recodification, Rule I, cl. 5 and Rule XV) appear in
the House subpart. Changes to Rule XVIII (or its predecessor rule before
recodification, Rule XXIII) appear in the Committee of the Whole subpart of this
part. Precedents and practices were placed in the House or Committee of the Whole
subparts based on where they occurred. Recall, nonetheless, that Rule XVIII, cl. 12
(Rule XXIII, cl. 9 before recodification) states: “The Rules of the House are the rules
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union so far as applicable.”
Two rules changes of procedural consequence in the House part of this sectionth
were made in the 104 Congress. One change made automatic a yea-and-nay vote on
final passage of certain appropriations, tax, and budget measures. Another prohibited
the Rules Committee from reporting a special rule disallowing a motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Approval of the Journal. The LRA of 1970 contained an amendment to Rule
I, cl. 1 pertaining to the Speaker’s approval of the Journal, replacing the requirement
for reading the Journal unless dispensed with by unanimous consent. The change
allowed the Speaker to approve the Journal and in his discretion to order its reading.
The change also authorized a motion that the Journal be read.42
Presence or Absence of a Quorum. In the 97th Congress (1981-1983), the
Speaker anticipated that a Member would object to a vote on the ground that a
quorum was not present (under Rule XV, cl. 4), and make a point of order that a
quorum was not present. Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. stated that he had
counted the House and that a quorum was present. He established under the rule that
he was not required to state what was the actual count. The yeas and nays were
refused.43
Prior to a vote in the 98th Congress (1983-1985) on the Speaker’s approval of
the Journal, a Speaker pro tempore announced that the electronic voting system was
inoperable. A Member had caused a recorded vote to be ordered by objecting to the
41 The precedence and availability of various motions are not otherwise included in this
report.
42 P.L. 91-510, §127; 84 Stat. 1140, 1160 (1970). Clause 1 was amended again in the 96th
Congress (1979-1981). Rather than a vote on reading the Journal, the Speaker’s approval
of the Journal was “deemed to be agreed to subject to a vote on agreeing to the Speaker’s
approval....” If the motion failed, then a motion could be made to read the Journal. Para. 1
of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 15, 1979.
43 Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., “Conference Report on H.J.Res. 325, Continuing
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1982,” Congressional Record, vol. 127, part 17 (September
For information on House rules changes to limit the opportunities of Members to make
a point of order that a quorum was not present, see footnote 79.
voice vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. In parliamentary inquiries
after the record voting had begun, a Member asked whether the vote could be vacated
by unanimous consent so that another voice vote could be taken. The Speaker pro
tempore stated that business by unanimous consent could not be transacted once the
absence of a quorum had been disclosed. A second Member asked whether the vote
could be delayed. The Speaker pro tempore stated that it was not possible to postpone
a vote once commenced and since the absence of a quorum had been announced by
the presiding officer.44
Speaker’s Count in Support of the Yeas and Nays. On a demand for the
yeas and nays in the 101st Congress (1989-1991), a Speaker pro tempore counted to
ascertain whether one-fifth of the Members present supported the demand. As
Members continued to arrive on the floor, the Speaker pro tempore continued to
count them as well, both to determine the number of Members present and the
number supporting the demand. The Speaker pro tempore ultimately determined that
an insufficient number of Members had risen in support of the demand.45
Voice Vote Precedes Record Vote. The Speaker inserted in the
Congressional Record in the 102nd Congress (1991-1993) a statement that he was “in
error” in ordering the yeas and nays without first putting the question by voice vote
on two roll-call votes. The Speaker indicated that the House, however, had implicitly
granted unanimous consent for the vote to be taken by the yeas and nays.46
Timely Demand for Record Vote. Also in the 102nd Congress, a Speaker pro
tempore announced, after a voice vote on agreeing to a resolution, that the noes
appeared to have it. A Member demanded the yeas and nays. However, another
Member raised a point of order that the demand was not timely. The colloquy was
then as follows:
44 Speaker Pro Tempore Barbara Boxer, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 14 (July 13, 1983), p. 18844.th
A Speaker pro tempore followed this precedent in the 100 Congress (1987-1989). A
Member, after objecting to a voice vote on the ground that a quorum was not present and the
Speaker pro tempore having stated that a quorum was not present, asked to vacate a voice
vote on another measure so that he could request a recorded vote. The Speaker pro tempore
stated that such business was not in order until the vote underway established a quorum.
Rep. William S. Broomfield and Speaker Pro Tempore Kenneth J. Gray, “Condemning the
Bombing by North Korean Agents of Korean Air Lines Flight 858,” Congressional Record,
vol. 134, part 2 (February 24, 1988), pp. 2450-2451.
Additional information on quorums appears at footnote 79.
45 Rep. Newt Gingrich and Speaker Pro Tempore Tom McMillen, “Adjournment,”
Congressional Record, vol. 136, part 18 (September 24, 1990), p. 25522.
The presiding officer’s count on a demand for a recorded vote or the yeas and nays isth
not subject to appeal. House Rules and Manual, 110 Congress, pp. 35 and 347.
46 Speaker Thomas S. Foley, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol.
This precedent appears in the parliamentarian’s notes associated with Rule I, cl. 6. The
parliamentarian’s notes also indicate, “The motion as stated by the Chair in putting the
question and not as stated by the Member in offering the motion, is the proposition votedth
on....” House Rules and Manual, 110 Congress, p. 348.
The Speaker pro tempore. Yes, the gentleman from Massachusetts...was on his
feet.
Mr. Thomas of California. Mr. Speaker, the whole House was on its feet for 5
minutes.
The Speaker pro tempore. The gentleman was on his feet requesting recognition,47
and the House was not in order.
The Speaker pro tempore then ordered the yeas and nays. The parliamentarian’s notes
comment:
The yeas and nays may be demanded...even after the announcement of the vote
if the House has not passed to other business...and if the Member seeking the
yeas and nays is on his feet and seeking recognition for that purpose when the48
Chair announces the result of the voice vote....
Automatic Vote on Final Passage. A vote on final passage of certain
legislation was made automatic by a rules change adopted for the 104th Congress
(1995-1997), organized by the newly elected Republican majority. In adopting its
rules, the House amended Rule XV to add a new clause 7, to provide:
The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered when the Speaker puts the
question on final passage or adoption of any bill, joint resolution, or conference
report making general appropriations or increasing Federal income tax rates, or
on final adoption of any concurrent resolution on the budget or conference report49
thereon.
47 Rep. Bill Thomas and Speaker Pro Tempore Dave McCurdy, “Providing for Consideration
of H.R. 2929, California Desert Protection Act of 1991,” Congressional Record, vol. 137,
part 23 (November 22, 1991), p. 34075.
48 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, pp. 34-35. In response to a parliamentary
inquiry in the 109th Congress (2003-2005) on the timeliness of a Member demanding the
yeas and nays, a Speaker pro tempore responded that the Member seeking the record vote
“was on his feet attempting to reach the microphone.” Rep. Jim McDermott and Speaker Pro
Tempore Charles Bass, “Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 119 (September 21, 2005), p. H8216. See also
precedents that occurred in the Committee of the Whole at footnotes 75 and 76.
49 Sec. 214 of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House January 4, 1995. A Speaker pro tempore
ordered the yeas and nays pursuant to this clause in the 108th Congress (2003-2005) on a
joint resolution making continuing appropriations and enacting by reference six general
appropriations bills. Speaker Pro Tempore Paul E. Gillmor, “Further Continuing
Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2004,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (October
The House adopted other changes to rules for the 104 Congress related to taxation
and spending, for example, Sec. 106(a) requiring a three-fifths vote for passing a bill or joint
resolution or agreeing to an amendment or conference report “carrying a Federal income tax
rate increase.”
Motion to Recommit. Another rules change adopted in the 104th Congress
protected the minority’s right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. The
rules change amended Rule XI, cl. 4(b). This paragraph had provided in part:
...nor shall [the Committee on Rules] report any rule or order which would
prevent the motion to recommit from being made as provided in clause 4 of rule50
XVI.
The amendment added language after the words “rule XVI,” as follows:
[,] including a motion to recommit with instructions to report back an amendment
otherwise in order (if offered by the minority leader or a designee), except with
respect to a Senate bill or resolution for which the text of a House-passed51
measure has been substituted.
While not specifically addressed to obtaining a vote, the added language restricted
the authority of the Rules Committee and expanded the rights of the minority leader
and the minority party. As a consequence, the minority, if it wished, could obtain one
substantive vote on a measure, other than on final passage, even if the House
considered a measure under a special rule that limited or foreclosed amendments. An
exception in the rules change, however, was allowed in the instance where the House
substituted the text of a House-passed measure for the text in a Senate bill or
resolution.52
50 Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., part
51 Sec. 210 of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House January 4, 1995.
52 Rule XVI, cl. 4 (103rd Congress) also pertained to the motion to recommit. This rule
provided in part:
After the previous question shall have been ordered on the passage of a bill or
joint resolution one motion to recommit shall be in order, and the Speaker shall
give preference in recognition for such purpose to a Member who is opposed to
the bill or joint resolution. However, with respect to any motion to recommit
with instructions after the previous question shall have been ordered, it always
shall be in order to debate such motion for ten minutes before the vote is taken
on that motion, except that on demand of the floor manager for the majority it
shall be in order to debate such motion for one hour. One half of any debate on
such motions shall be given to debate by the mover of the motion and one half
to debate in opposition to the motion. rdst
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 103 Cong., 1 sess., part 2
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1998), p. 2005.
The provision of the rule allowing 10 minutes of debate was added by the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510, §123; 84 Stat. 1140, 1158 (1970)), and made part
of House rules by H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 22, 1971. The provision
allowing the majority floor manager of a bill to expand debate to one hour was added whenth
the House adopted its rules for the 99 Congress. Para. 6 of H.Res. 7, agreed to in the House
January 3, 1985.
This restriction on the authority of the Rules Committee vis-à-vis a motion to
recommit with instructions had been long sought by Republican Members.53
Beginning in 1934 with the House’s sustaining on appeal a ruling of the Speaker, a
special rule reported by the Rules Committee could limit the motion to recommit.
The parliamentarian’s notes to Rule XI, cl. 4(b) in the 104th Congress House Rules
and Manual explained:
From 1934 until the amendment of clause 4(b) in the 104th Congress..., it was
consistently held that the Committee on Rules could recommend a special order
that limited, but did not totally prohibit, a motion to recommit pending passage
of a bill or joint resolution, as by precluding the motion from containing
instructions relating to specified amendments...; or by omitting to preserve the
availability of amendatory instructions in the case that the bill is entirely
rewritten by the adoption of a substitute made in order as original text...; or by
expressly allowing only a simple (“straight”) motion to recommit (without54
instructions)....
The change to House rules was not debated when the House considered its rulesth
for the 104 Congress. In the rules analysis inserted in the Congressional Record by
Representative Gerald B.H. Solomon, who subsequently became chair of the Rules
Committee, there was the following explanation:
It is the intent of this rule to restore the original purpose of clause 4(b) when it
was adopted in 1909 to give the minority a final opportunity to offer an
amendment of its choosing in a motion to recommit prior to the final passage of55
a bill.
Vote by Yeas and Nays if Vote by Electronic Device. In adopting its rules
for the 105th Congress (1997-1999), the House amended Rule I, cl. 5(a) to add a
sentence on the status of a vote taken by electronic device pursuant to this paragraph:
“A recorded vote taken pursuant to this paragraph shall be considered a vote by the
53 See CRS Report RL33610, A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th
Congress, by Michael L. Koempel and Judy Schneider.
54 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 104th Congress, H.Doc. 103-342, 104th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Charles W. Johnson (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995), p. 498.
All of the citations in the parliamentarian’s notes to Speaker’s and Speaker pro
tempore’s rulings after 1934 were for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. For example, Speaker
Foley ruled on a point of order that a special rule did not protect “the right to offer a motion
to recommit with amendatory instructions”:
...the Committee on Rules may, without violating clause 4(b) of rule XI,
recommend a special order that limits but does not wholly preclude a motion to
recommit.... ...Clause 4 of rule XVI does not guarantee that a motion to
recommit...may always include instructions.
Speaker Thomas S. Foley, “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1, Civil Rights and
Women’s Equity in Employment Act of 1991,” Congressional Record, vol. 137, part 9 (June
55 Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part
yeas and nays.”56 The purpose for this change was explained as avoiding “a possible
second vote on the same question if someone should demand the Yeas and Nays.”57
Committee of the Whole. One of the most consequential procedural changes
of the LRA of 1970 was to allow record votes in the Committee of the Whole. When
the change took effect, 20 Members were required to support a request for a recordedth
vote. In the 96 Congress (1979-1981), a rules change increased this number to 25
(where it stands today).
Number Required for Record Vote. In the 93rd Congress (1973-1975), the
House Rules Committee reported a resolution (H.Res. 998) containing several rules
changes. One change proposed to increase from 2058 the number of Members
supporting a request for a recorded vote in the Committee of the Whole in a specific
circumstance. The provision of the resolution stated:
Sec. 3. Clause 2 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
amended —
...(2) by adding at the end of such clause the following new paragraph:
(b) In the Committee of the Whole, the Chair shall order a recorded vote on the
request supported by at least twenty Members, except that support of at least
forty Members shall be required to obtain a recorded vote whenever the Chair,
on request of any Member at the time the recorded vote is requested, determines
that more than two hundred Members are present.”
The committee of jurisdiction, the Rules Committee, had considered options ranging
from leaving the number supporting a request for a recorded vote in the Committee
of the Whole at 20 to increasing it to as high a number as 44. The committee reported
the resolution providing that, if 200 or more Members were present when a vote was
requested — twice the quorum for the Committee of the Whole — then the number
of Members required to support the request for a recorded vote would also be
doubled, to 40 from 20. If fewer than 200 Members were present, the existing
requirement of 20 Members supporting the request would operate.
When H.Res. 998 was considered on the House floor, Representative H.R.
Gross offered an amendment to strike this section. The section and Mr. Gross’s
amendment consumed nearly all of the time set aside to consider the resolution.59
House Rules Committee members of both parties generally supported the provision
as a reasonable compromise to curtail recorded votes from being used in the
56 Sec. 24(a) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 7, 1997.
57 “Section-by-Section Analysis of Resolution Adopting House Rules for the 105th
Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 1 (January 7, 1997), p. 128.
58 One-fifth of a quorum of the Committee of the Whole, as provided in Rule I, cl. 5.
59 Rep. H.R. Gross, “House Resolution 998, Changes in Certain House Procedures,”
Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 8 (April 9, 1974), pp. 10197-10199. While Mr. Gross
offered his amendment near the end of House debate on H.Res. 998, the section his
amendment struck from the resolution, and alternatives to it, was the subject of discussion
as soon as debate began on H.Res. 998, on p. 10181.
Committee of the Whole as a part of “frivolous and dilatory tactics.”60 In explanation,
Representative B.F. Sisk, a Rules Committee member who had chaired an ad hoc
subcommittee to examine proposed rules changes, cited the amending process on an
energy bill that occurred in December 1973: a group of Members numbering slightly
more than 20 impeded House proceedings by offering consecutive amendments and
obtaining roll-call votes on them. Under the parliamentary conditions prevailing for
considering that measure, the amendments could be offered but not debated.61
Members opposed to the proposed change argued that it would return votes on
important amendments in the Committee of the Whole to the secrecy that existed
before recorded teller votes were allowed. Representative Robert E. Bauman argued:
I think the 20-Member rule is a valuable right of the minority, any minority.
When many Members seek to avoid a rollcall vote on a hot issue, such as a
congressional pay raise, at least 20 Members can force a rollcall....Under this
new proposal I predict what will happen; a quorum will be established and then
the Chair will require 40 Members to get a vote on any given issue, and we will62
never get a rollcall if it is on a very unpopular matter....
After agreeing 252-147 to the Gross amendment, the House agreed to the resolution
as amended.63
However, a change included in the rules adopted by the House for the 96th
Congress (1979-1981) increased the number of Members needed to support a request
for a recorded vote in the Committee of the Whole. The number was increased to 25
from 20 with the addition of a new paragraph (b) to Rule XXIII, cl. 2. Together with
new restrictions on quorum calls incorporated into clause 2, the change was justified64
as a means to “expedite the voting procedures in the Committee of the Whole....”
60 Rep. Spark M. Matsunaga, “House Resolution 998, Changes in Certain House
Procedures,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 8 (April 9, 1974), p. 10185.
61 Rep. B.F. Sisk, “House Resolution 998, Changes in Certain House Procedures,”
Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 8 (April 9, 1974), p. 10198.
62 Rep. Robert E. Bauman, “House Resolution 998, Changes in Certain House Procedures,”
Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 8 (April 9, 1974), p. 10194.
63 “House Resolution 998, Changes in Certain House Procedures,” Congressional Record,
vol. 120, part 8 (April 9, 1974), pp. 10181-10200. Prior to Mr. Gross offering his
amendment, Rep. G.V. “Sonny” Montgomery offered an amendment to set the number of
Members needed to support a request for a recorded vote in the Committee of the Whole at
64 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 1 (January 15, 1979), p. 9.
Excerpts from the debate concerning rules changes to quorums and voting in both the House
and the Committee of the Whole appear below in the part Postponed and Clustered
Votes/Five-Minute Votes.
In addition, the House changed its rules over the years covered by this report toth
eliminate or restrict some opportunities for a recorded vote. For example, in the 98
Congress (1983-1985), the House added a new subparagraph (b) to clause 1 of Rule XXIII,
Of Committees of the Whole House, to allow the Speaker to “declare the House resolved
(continued...)
Demand for Record Vote vis-à-vis Division Vote or Quorum. In the 94th
Congress (1975-1977), during the counting of a division vote, the chairman of the
Committee of the Whole responded to a Member demanding a recorded vote, “The
Chair is counting, and a division vote in progress cannot be interrupted by a demand
for a recorded vote.”65
Later in the 94th Congress, a demand for a recorded vote was refused. The
demand was made a second time, and a chairman of the Committee of the Whole
stated that a recorded vote had been refused. In response to a parliamentary inquiry,
the chairman explained, “A recorded vote had already been refused, and it is not
possible on the same amendment to have a second request for a recorded vote.”66 In
that same Congress, a chairman of the Committee of the Whole ruled that the chair’s
count in support of a recorded vote was not subject to appeal.67
In the 95th Congress (1977-1979), after the result of a division vote was
announced, a Member made a point of order that a quorum was not present. A chair
sustained the point of order, and, under procedures in place at that time requiring the
committee to rise in the absence of a quorum, Members recorded their presence by
electronic device in the House. The committee resumed its sitting, and a recorded
vote was demanded and ordered.68 The parliamentarian’s notes to Rule XXIII, cl. 2
explained:
While an “automatic” roll call (under Rule XV, cl. 4) is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole, a point of order of no quorum may intervene between
the announcement of a division vote result and prior to transaction of further
64 (...continued)
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of
that measure [made in order by the House’s agreeing to a special rule] without intervening
motion....” Previously, the House used unanimous consent or a motion to resolve into the
Committee of the Whole, the latter of which could occasion a recorded vote. Para. (8) of
H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 3, 1983. While Majority Leader Jim Wright stated
the change “would simply obviate the need at each juncture for the whole House to vote,
which now is largely a perfunctory matter...,” Rep. David Dreier argued that the change
would “unquestionably reduce the time we spend in this Chamber...it will be all but
impossible to prevent bad legislation from slipping onto the floor....” Reps. Jim Wright and
David Dreier, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 1 (January 3,
65 “National Energy Conservation and Conversion Program,” Congressional Record, vol.
66 “Federal Coal Leasing Amendments of 1975,” Congressional Record, vol. 122, part 1
(January 21, 1976), p. 508.
67 “Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 1977,” Congressional Record, vol. 122, part 16 (June 24, 1976), p.
68 “Marine Fisheries Conservation Act of 1975,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 25
(October 9, 1975), pp. 32598-32599.
business, and a demand for a recorded vote following the quorum call is not69
thereby precluded.
A ruling by the chair in the 96th Congress further defined the relationship
between a point of order that a quorum was not present and a request for a recorded
vote. A chair ruled that a request for a recorded vote on an amendment, which had
been denied, could not be renewed although the absence of a quorum was disclosed70
immediately following the refusal.
However, a different sequence of events resulted in a different outcome in the
97th Congress (1981-1983). Before a chairman of the Committee of the Whole
completed counting to determine if a sufficient number of Members supported a
request for a recorded vote, a Member made a point of order that a quorum was not
present. The chair ruled that the count was “inoperative,” directed Members to record
their presence by electronic device for a quorum call, vacated further proceedings
under the call once a quorum was present, and finally stated that the pending business
was the demand for a recorded vote. The request for a recorded vote remained71
pending under this sequence.
Dispense with Reading an Amendment. In adopting rules for the 97th
Congress (1981-1983), the House amended Rule XXIII, cl. 5 to add a new paragraph
(b) to allow a nondebatable motion to dispense with the reading of an amendment in
69 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 95th Congress, H.Doc. 94-663, 94th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Wm. Holmes Brown (Washington, DC: GPO, 1977), p. 593.
70 “Housing and Community Development Act of 1979,” Congressional Record, vol. 125,
part 11 (June 6, 1979), p. 13648. The same result was reached in a ruling in the 98th
Congress (1985-1987). “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983,” Congressional
Record, vol. 129, part 21 (October 25, 1983), p. 29227.
71 “Salaries and Expenses Limitation Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 128, part 14 (August
Congress (2003-2005). “Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004,” Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 14 (July
A different sequence produced a different result in the 107 Congress (2001-2003). A
Member demanded a recorded vote. The chairman counted and said, “An insufficient
number has apparently arisen.” (Emphasis added.) The Member then made a point of order
that a quorum was not present. The chairman counted and stated, “Evidently a quorum is not
present.” The chairman ordered a quorum call. After the quorum call, the chairman said,
“The Chair did not finally announce that a recorded vote had been refused. Therefore, under
the circumstances, the gentleman’s request is pending. The Chair will count for a recorded
vote.” A sufficient number arose and a recorded vote was taken. This outcome seemed to
turn on use by the chairman of the word “apparently.” “Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002,”
Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 14 (October 11, 2001), pp. 19385-19386. See also
Brown and Johnson, House Practice, p. 920.
Additional information on quorums appears at footnote 79.
the Committee of the Whole if the amendment had been printed in the bill as reported
by a committee or had been printed in the Congressional Record.72
Appeal the Ruling of the Chair. In the 101st Congress (1989-1991), a
chairman of the Committee of the Whole sustained a point of order against an
amendment offered to a general appropriations bill, ruling that the amendment
constituted legislation. The amendment’s proponent, Representative Tom Ridge,
appealed the ruling of the chair. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the chair
stated that he would put the question in the same form that it would be put in the
House: “Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?” He
responded to another inquiry that the consequence of the chair’s decision not being
sustained would be that the amendment would be debatable on its merits under the
five-minute rule. Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt demanded a recorded vote,
and the decision of the chair was sustained.73
Withdraw Demand for Record Vote. During the 105th Congress (1997-1999),
a chairman of the Committee of the Whole entertained a unanimous consent request,
which the House granted, to allow a Member to withdraw a demand for a recorded
vote. 74
Timely Demand for Record Vote. Members seeking recorded votes in the
Committee of the Whole made untimely demands on two occasions in the 109th
Congress (2005-2007). In the first session, a Member demanded a recorded vote after
a chairman announced the result of a voice vote and that the next amendment was
now in order. The chairman informed the Member that the request was not timely.75
In the second session, in the words of the parliamentarian’s notes in the House Rules
and Manual, a “considerable time ha[d] elapsed” between the chairman’s
announcement of the result of a voice vote and a Member’s demand for a recorded
vote. The chairman informed the Member that the request was not timely.76
72 Para. 16 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 5, 1981.
73 “Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,”
Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 13 (August 1, 1989), pp. 17154-17156.
74 “Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999,”
Congressional Record, vol. 144, part 14 (September 17, 1998), p. 20845.
A request to withdraw the demand for a recorded vote was also granted by unanimousth
consent in the 108 Congress. “Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (June 25, 2004), p. H5104. In that same
Congress, by unanimous consent, a demand for a recorded vote was withdrawn and the
request to have the chairman put the question de novo was granted. “Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 150 (September 22, 2004), p. H7340.
75 “Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (December 15, 2005), pp. H11847-H11848.
76 “Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District
of Columbia and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007,” Congressional Record,th
daily edition, vol. 152 (June 13, 2006), p. H3855. House Rules and Manual, 110 Congress,
pp. 34-35.
(continued...)
Postponed and Clustered Votes/Five-Minute Votes. If a major
procedural change of the LRA of 1970 was to allow record votes in the Committee
of the Whole, thus increasing the opportunities to obtain a record vote, another
important change to House rules since then has been to allow votes to be postponed
and clustered and to allow voting time on clustered votes after the first 15-minute
vote to be reduced to five minutes or even two minutes. In several Congresses, the
House added to the list of questions that could be postponed and clustered and on
which voting times could be reduced. Such changes benefitted Members by
increasing predictability in the House’s schedule and by allowing debate on measures
to occur at different times or even on different days from votes on those measures.
Voting could also take less time away from processing legislation since debate on
one or multiple measures would not be interrupted.
The Speaker was first authorized in House rules to postpone and cluster votesrd
in the 93 Congress (1973-1975) on motions to suspend the rules. The Speaker was
first authorized in House rules to reduce voting time to five minutes in the 96th
Congress (1979-1981).
Rules Changes through 100th Congress. The House Rules Committee
in the 93rd Congress (1973-1975) reported a resolution (H.Res. 998) containing
several rules changes. One provision of this resolution allowed recorded votes on
measures considered pursuant to a motion to suspend the rules to be postponed and
clustered. The provision added a new paragraph to Rule XXVII, cl. 3:
(b)(1) On any legislative day (other than during the last six days of a session) on
which the Speaker is authorized to entertain motions to suspend the rules and
pass bills or resolutions, he may announce to the House, in his discretion, before
entertaining the first such motion, that he will postpone further proceedings on
each of such motions on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays is ordered
or on which the vote is objected to under clause 4 of Rule XV, until all of such
motions on that legislative day have been entertained and any debate thereon
concluded, with the question having been put and determined on each such
motion on which the taking of the vote will not be postponed.
(2) When the last of all motions on that legislative day to suspend the rules and
pass bills or resolutions has been entertained and any debate thereon concluded,
with the question put and determined on each such motion on which further
proceedings were not postponed, the Speaker shall put the question on each
motion, on which further proceedings were postponed, in the order in which that
motion was entertained.
(3) At any time after the vote on the question has been taken on the first motion
on which the Speaker has postponed further proceedings under this paragraph,
the Speaker may, in his discretion, reduce to not less than five minutes the period
of time within which a recorded vote on the question may be taken on any or all
of the additional motions on which the Speaker has postponed further
proceedings under this paragraph.
(4) If the House adjourns before the question is put and determined on all
motions on which further proceedings were postponed under this paragraph,
then, on the next following legislative day on which the Speaker is authorized to
76 (...continued)
See also precedents that occurred in the House at footnotes 47 and 48.
entertain motions to suspend the rules and pass bills and resolutions, the first
order of legislative business after the call of bills and resolutions on the Private
Calendar as provided in clause 6 or Rule XXIV shall be the disposition of all
such motions, previously undisposed of, in the order in which those motions77
were entertained.
The proposed change generated little discussion during debate on H.Res. 998,
although it institutionalized two departures from common practice in allowing votes
to be postponed and clustered and in allowing the time for voting to be reduced to
five minutes, subject to certain conditions but at the discretion of the presiding
officer. Members of the Rules Committee defended the provision as one that would
save Members’ time and allow them to do other important work without frequent
interruptions. Some Members expressed concern over the potential loss of Members’
attention to the substance of legislation considered under suspension of the rules
procedures. 78
On a day when suspension motions were in order, Speaker Carl Albert
announced, before recognizing any Member to move to suspend the rules, he would
...postpone further proceedings today on each motion to suspend the rules on
which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote is
objected to under clause 4 or rule XV.
After all motions to suspend the rules have been entertained and debated, and
after those motions to be determined by “nonrecord” votes have been disposed
of, the Chair will then put the question on each motion on which the further79
proceedings were postponed.
77 Sec. 3 of H.Res. 998, agreed to in the House April 9, 1974.
78 “House Resolution 998, Changes in Certain House Procedures,” Congressional Record,
vol. 120, part 8 (April 9, 1974), p. 10192. Under the special rule (H.Res. 1018) governing
consideration of H.Res. 998, no amendments were allowed to the relevant section.rd
House Rule XXVII, cl. 1 had been amended earlier in the 93 Congress to increase
the number of days on which motions to suspend the rules were in order. In addition to the
first and third Mondays of each month, such motions were made in order on Tuesdaysth
following those Mondays. H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House January 3, 1973. In the 95
Congress, the rule was again amended to make in order such motions every Monday and
Tuesday. H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 4, 1977. The rule continued to make such
motions in order “during the last six days of a session.” For a history of motions to suspend
the rules, see CRS Report RL32474 (archived), Suspension of the Rules in the House of
Representatives, by Stanley I. Bach and revised by Thomas P. Carr.
79 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 120,
part 13 (June 4, 1974), p. 17521. In an earlier announcement of policies implementing
H.Res. 998, Speaker Albert indicated that questions would be put in the order in which they
were postponed, as provided in the resolution. Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the
Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 11 (May 13, 1974), pp. 14148-14149.
H.Res. 998 also added a new clause 6 to Rule XV to enumerate a list of instances when
a point of order was not available that a quorum was not present. “House Resolution 998,
Changes in Certain House Procedures,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 8 (April 9,
1974), p. 10195. Consequently, if a vote on a motion to suspend the rules was objected to
(continued...)
After debate concluded on all motions to suspend the rules and several motions had
been determined by “nonrecord” votes, the Speaker said,
...Pursuant to clause 3, rule XXVII, the Chair will now put the question on each
motion, on which further proceedings were postponed, in the order in which that
motion was entertained.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
S.J.Res. 40 (de novo).
S. 3373 (de novo).
H.R. 13595 (de novo).
S. 2844, by the yeas and nays.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic votes after the first80
such vote in this series.
The questions on which further proceedings were postponed were put de novo
(“anew” or “a second time”) if objection to the vote was made under Rule XV, cl. 4.
After the first vote, a 15-minute vote, and the announcement of the result, the
Speaker informed the House:
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b)(3), rule XXVII, the Chair announces he
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by
79 (...continued)
on the ground that a quorum was not present, the Speaker would ask if the proponent of the
point of order would withdraw it. If it was withdrawn, the Speaker would move to the next
item of business. If not, the Speaker would order a call of the House. “Coast Guard
Authorization for Fiscal Year 1975,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 13 (June 4,
A rules change in the 95 Congress (1977-1979) amended Rule XV, cl. 6 (adding para.
(e)) to disallow a point of order that a quorum is not present “unless the Speaker has put the
pending motion or proposition to a vote.” As a consequence of that change, when a Member
objected to a vote on a motion to suspend the rules on the ground that a quorum was not
present and the Speaker postponed further proceedings pursuant to Rule XXVII, cl. 3(b), the
Speaker would state that the point of order was considered withdrawn, the principle being
that a question, having been postponed, was no longer pending. “Authorization for the
National Advisory Committee on the Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA),” Congressional
Record, vol. 123, part 12 (May 16, 1977), p. 14785. Under the rules change, the Speaker
could in his discretion recognize a Member to move a call of the House. Rule XXIII, cl. 2
was also amended to apply the same procedure in the Committee of the Whole. H.Res. 5,
agreed to in the House January 4, 1977.
Additional changes to procedures related to quorums were made in subsequent
Congresses. th
Most recently, in the 108 Congress (2003-2005), the Speaker was authorized to adjust
the “whole number of the House” upon the “death, resignation, expulsion, disqualification,
or removal of a Member.” Rule XX, cl. 5(c), added by Sec. 2(l) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the
House January 7, 2003. (Renumbered as clause 5(d) by Sec. 2(h) of H.Res. 5, agreed to inth
the House January 4, 2005.) In the 109 Congress, the House amended its rules to provide
for “catastrophic circumstances” when the House would find itself “without a quorum.”
Rule XX, cl. 5(c), added by Sec. 2(h) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 4, 2005.
80 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 120,
part 13 (June 4, 1974), p. 17546.
electronic device may be taken on all the additional motions to suspend the rule81
on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
In the 95th Congress (1977-1979), the House adopted rules to authorize the
Speaker in his discretion to postpone and cluster votes on the previous question and
adoption of resolutions reported by the Rules Committee. Before consideration of a
resolution, the Speaker would announce his intention to postpone further proceedings
(for recorded votes) on the resolutions considered that day, and to put the questions
in the order in which the resolutions were considered. He was also authorized to
reduce to five minutes the duration of votes after the first 15-minute vote. If the
House adjourned without completing votes on the resolutions, votes on the
resolutions were, subject to several conditions, the first order of legislative business
the next day.82 This rules change was not substantively debated.83
In the 96th Congress (1979-1980), the House adopted new rules installing
procedures to postpone and cluster votes to pass bills and resolutions and agree to
conference reports, including allowing the time for votes in a cluster to be reduced
to five minutes after the first vote. Procedures could be invoked at the discretion of
the Speaker.84 The addition to Rule I, cl. 5 provided:
(b)(1) On any legislative day whenever a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are
ordered on the question of passing bills or resolutions or agreeing to conference
reports, or when a vote is objected to under clause 4 of Rule XV on the question
of passing bills or resolutions or agreeing to conference reports, the Speaker may,
in his discretion, postpone further proceedings on each such question to a
designated time or place in the legislative schedule on that legislative day or
within two legislation days.
(2) At the time designated by the Speaker for further consideration of
proceedings postponed under subparagraph (1), the Speaker shall put each
question on which further proceedings were postponed, in the order in which that
question was considered.
(3) At any time after the vote has been taken on the first question on which the
Speaker has postponed further proceedings under this paragraph, the Speaker
may, in his discretion, reduce to not less than five minutes the period of time
within which a rollcall vote by electronic device on the question may be taken
without any intervening business on any or all of the additional questions on
which the Speaker has postponed further proceedings under this paragraph.
(4) If the House adjourns before all of the questions on which further
proceedings were postponed under this paragraph have been put and determined,
81 Ibid., p. 17547.
82 Para. 27 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 4, 1977. The amendment created a
new clause 4(e) of Rule XI. This clause was amended in the 96th Congress (1979-1981) to
permit the Speaker to postpone votes on Rules Committee resolutions to later the same
legislative day or to the next legislative day. Para. 11 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House
January 15, 1979.
83 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 1 (January 4, 1977), pp. 53-
84 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 1 (January 15, 1979), pp. 7-
then, on the next following legislative day the unfinished business shall be the
disposition of all such questions, previously undisposed of, in the order in which85
the questions were considered.
The House also made three changes related to voting in other procedural
situations. First, the House amended Rule XV, cl. 5, pertaining to voting by
electronic device, to allow the Speaker in his discretion to reduce to five minutes a
vote on passage of a bill or resolution or adoption of a conference report following
a 15-minute recorded vote on a motion to recommit.86 Second, the House amended
Rule XXIII, cl. 2, relating to a quorum in the Committee of the Whole, to allow the
chairman to reduce to five minutes the duration of a vote following a regular quorum
call.87 Third, the House amended Rule XXVII, dealing with suspension of the rules,
to allow the Speaker to postpone votes on motions to suspend the rules until the next
legislative day.88
Majority Leader Jim Wright explained the intent of the changes as follows:
...I must conclude that most of the Members, both Democratic and Republican,
would approve any such system that would save them from the repeated
harassment and inconvenience [of dilatory tactics] to which the entire
membership have been subjected by one or two dissident or disgruntled Members
who want all the others to have to come over here and be recorded on a matter
frequently — frequently in which there are two or three objections at the most.
During past Congresses...almost one-third of the entire time of this House was
consumed in rollcall votes and quorum calls. Now surely that is an excessive use89
of the time of the Members....
Minority Members, however, argued against concentrating more power in the
hands of the Speaker and forsaking legislative deliberation in the name of legislative
efficiency. Minority Whip Robert H. Michel argued:
85 Para. (2) of H.Res 5, agreed to in the House January 15, 1979.
86 Para. (12) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 15, 1979.
87 Paras. (14) and (15), respectively, of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 15, 1979.
88 Para. (18) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 15, 1979. This paragraph
reorganized and added to clause 1 of Rule XXVII and inserted a new clause 3 to make these
changes.
An amendment to Rule XXVII, cl. 2 limited the requirement for a second on a motion
to suspend the rules. (While precedent held that a right to the yeas and nays on the second
did not exist, a vote could be triggered under certain circumstances when the second was
sought on a motion to suspend the rules. For an explanation, see U.S. Congress, House,
Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the Unitedththnd
States, 95 Congress, H.Doc. 94-663, 94 Cong. 2 sess., prepared by Wm. Holmes Brown
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1977), pp. 29 and 627.) The amendment stated that a second “shall
not be required” if the measure that was the subject of the motion was available for one
legislative day. Para. (17) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 15, 1979. Ultimately,nd
in the 102 Congress (1991-1993), clause 2 was deleted from the Rule XXVII. Para (13) of
H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 3, 1991.
89 Rep. Jim Wright, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 1 (January
...the clustering of votes at the end of the day or on the following day may
expedite the business of this House, but that practice certainly will not lead to
better legislation. It will actually encourage absenteeism...and will tend to inhibit90
open debate and discussion.
In the 97th Congress (1981-1983), the House adopted rules that consolidated in
Rule I, cl. 5(b) the Speaker’s authority to postpone votes. The changes moved there
the authority contained in Rule XI, cl. 4(e), related to reports from the Rules
Committee, and in Rule XXVII, cl. 3(b), related to motions to suspend the rules. Rule
I, cl. 5(b)(1) was reorganized, with amendments, as follows:
(b)(1) On any legislative day whenever a recorded vote is ordered or the yeas and
nays are ordered, or a vote is objected to under clause 4 of Rule XV on any of the
following questions, the Speaker may, in his discretion, postpone further
proceedings on each such question to a designated time or place in the legislative
schedule on that legislative day or within two legislative days:
(A) the question of passing bills;
(B) the question of adopting resolutions;
(C) the question of ordering the previous question on privileged resolutions
reported from the Committee on Rules;
(D) the question of agreeing to conference reports; and91
(E) the question of agreeing to motions to suspend the rules.
Practice through the 100th Congress. Precedents were established in theth
98 Congress (1983-1985) that allowed the Speaker to reschedule, within the limits
of the rule, postponed votes from a time previously designated;92 to cluster together
both votes to suspend the rules on which votes were postponed and votes on final
passage;93 to cluster together and in the order they were considered the previous day
both votes to suspend the rules on which votes were postponed and on final
passage;94 and to cluster votes from a preceding day following a recorded vote on the
90 Rep. Robert H. Michel, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 1
(January 15, 1979), p. 12.
91 Para. (2) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 5, 1981. H.Res. 5 also deleted Rule
XI, cl. 4(e) and Rule XXVII, cl. 3(b). Rule I, cl. 5(b)(1) was again amended in the 98th
Congress (1983-1985) to allow the Speaker to postpone to later that legislative day further
proceedings on the Speaker’s approval of the Journal. Para. (1) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the
House January 3, 1983.
92 “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 130, part 11
(June 6, 1984), p. 15080. th
This precedent was followed in 100 Congress. Speaker Jim Wright, “Announcement
by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 134, part 19 (October 3, 1988), p. 27782; and
Speaker Pro Tempore G.V. “Sonny” Montgomery, “Further Announcement by the Speaker
Pro Tempore,” p. 27878.
93 “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 10
(May 17, 1983), p. 12508. See also “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 16 (October 2, 1989), pp. 22724-22725.
94 “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 14
(July 19, 1983), p. 19774.
current day, but to reduce the time for voting on the first clustered vote to five
minutes only by unanimous consent.95
A precedent was also established that the Speaker could entertain a unanimous
consent request, while putting questions on postponed votes on motions to suspend
the rules, to allow consideration of a Senate measure similar to a House measure just
passed. After Representative Parren J. Mitchell obtained unanimous consent to take
a Senate measure from the Speaker’s table and move to its immediate consideration,
Mr. Mitchell moved to strike all after the enacting clause in the Senate bill and insert
the provisions of the just-passed House bill. In responding to a parliamentary inquiry,
the Speaker pro tempore stated that the unanimous consent request was in order. The
motion was then agreed to by voice vote.96
A response to a parliamentary inquiry in the 99th Congress (1985-1987)
explained that unanimous consent was required to postpone a vote on a motion to
instruct conferees, which was not at that time listed in Rule I, cl. 5(b)(1).97
Also in the 99th Congress, the Speaker declined to recognize a Member to
request unanimous consent to reduce to five minutes the first vote in a series of votes.
95 “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 10
(May 24, 1983), p. 13539, 13595. While the chair announced the reduction of voting time
to five minutes on May 24, 1983, a Member asked unanimous consent for this purpose inth
a similar parliamentary situation in the 104 Congress (1995-1997). “District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 1997,” Congressional Record, vol. 142, part 13 (July 22, 1996), p.
96 Reps. Parren J. Mitchell and Samuel S. Stratton and Speaker Pro Tempore Jim Wright,
“8(a) Pilot Program Extension,” Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 2 ( February 15,
Also in the 98 Congress, following an announcement by the Speaker pro tempore that
votes on motions to suspend the rules would be postponed and after debate had begun on
such motions, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee sent a privileged
resolution to the desk and asked for its immediate consideration. Since a resolution raising
a question of privileges of the House took precedence over a motion to suspend the rules,
the resolution was offered and voted on. “Privileges of the House — Insuring Continued
Expansion of International Market Opportunities and Investment,” Congressional Record,
vol. 129, part 10 (May 17, 1983), p. 12486.
97 Speaker Pro Tempore Jim Wright, “Permission to Postpone Debate and Vote on Motion
to Instruct Conferees with Respect to House Joint Resolution 738, Continuing
Appropriations, 1987,” Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 20 (October 6, 1986), pp.
The parliamentarian’s notes suggested a general application rather than one specific
to this occurrence. The notes indicated that the presiding officer’s response applied to
“questions not enumerated in this paragraph.” U.S. Congress, House, Constitution,th
Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, 100thnd
Congress, H.Doc. 99-279, 99 Cong. 2 sess., prepared by Wm. Holmes Brown
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1987), p. 318.
The Speaker indicated that he did not believe that Members who were not then in the
House chamber would have sufficient time to arrive in the chamber.98
In the 100th Congress (1987-1989), in the course of voting on a series of
postponed votes on motions to suspend the rules, the Speaker pro tempore
98 Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, “Food Security Act of 1985,” Congressional Record,
vol. 131, part 19 (October 8, 1985), p. 26666.rd
A Speaker pro tempore also responded to parliamentary inquiries in the 103 Congress
(1993-1995) that he would not entertain a unanimous consent request to reduce to five
minutes all votes in the House after the first 15-minute vote (a separate vote on an
amendment). He stated that there could be intervening business after separate votes on
amendments and it would “not be fair” to Members who left the chamber anticipating
intervening business and a 15-minute vote thereafter. Speaker Pro Tempore James L.
Oberstar and Reps. Joseph M. McDade and Kweisi Mfume, “ Department[s] of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
In another situation in the 103 Congress, however, a chairman of the Committee of
the Whole established a precedent in not treating a division vote as intervening business
precluding a five-minute vote in a series of votes on amendments. “Housing and Community
Development Act of 1994,” Congressional Record, vol. 140, part 12 (July 22, 1994), p.th
17609. In the 107 Congress (2001-2003), a Speaker pro tempore established a precedent
that a voice vote did not constitute intervening business precluding a five-minute vote in a
series of votes. “The Journal,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 13 (September 26,
In the 106 Congress (1999-2001), however, a discussion of the House’s schedule and
an extended one-minute address were treated as intervening business, with the next
postponed vote in each instance made a five-minute vote by unanimous consent.
“Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 9 (June 22, 2000), pp.
2000), pp. 12584-12586. A Speaker pro tempore in the 106 Congress declined to entertain
a unanimous consent request to reduce all votes in a series to five-minute votes when
Members had left the chamber with the expectation that the next vote would be a 15-minute
vote. Speaker Pro Tempore Ray LaHood, “Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 11 (July 14, 1999), p.th
16008. When a one-minute speech interrupted five-minute voting in the 107 Congress
(2001-2003), a Speaker pro tem followed these precedents. “Announcement by the Speaker
Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 8 (June 25, 2002), p. 11211. A Speakerth
pro tempore declined in the 108 Congress (2003-2005) to entertain a unanimous consent
request to reduce a vote in the House after the Committee of the Whole rose. Speaker Pro
Tempore Johnny Isakson, “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (June 23, 2004), p. H4876. A Speaker proth
tempore similarly declined in the 109 Congress (2003-2005). Speaker Pro Tempore Adam
H. Putnam, “Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005,” Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (September 15, 2005), p. 8056. The same precedent wasth
again followed in the 110 Congress (2007-2009) when the House observed a moment of
silence for a deceased former Member during a series of two-minute votes. “Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
entertained a unanimous consent request to reduce to two minutes the time for
subsequent votes, after the next five-minute vote. No objection was made.99
Rules Changes, 101st through 105th Congresses. In the 101st Congress
(1989-1991), the House addressed the question of postponing votes on certain
motions to instruct conferees. In adopting its rules for that Congress, the House
amended Rule I, cl. 5(b)(1) to allow the Speaker to postpone further proceedings on
the question of agreeing to motions to instruct conferees after 20 calendar days in
conference, under the same conditions applicable to the other questions listed. It
added one proviso, however, that the “question shall not be put if the conference100
report on that measure has been filed in the House.”
The House also amended Rule XV, cl. 5 to allow the Speaker to reduce to five
minutes so-called separate votes on amendments reported to the House by the
Committee of the Whole. If the Committee of the Whole reported amendments to a
measure, and Members demanded separate votes in the House on more than one of
the amendments reported, the vote on the first amendment would be a 15-minute
vote. The Speaker could reduce to five minutes the time for voting on any subsequent101
amendment.
nd
In the 102 Congress (1991-1993), the House amended its rules to add a new
paragraph (c) to Rule XXIII, cl. 2 to authorize the chairman of the Committee of the
99 Minority Leader Robert H. Michel and Speaker Pro Tempore John P. Murtha, “Reducing
Time for Votes on Suspensions to 2 Minutes,” Congressional Record, vol. 134, part 19
(October 4, 1988), p. 28126.
The practice of seeking unanimous consent to reduce time to two minutes from five
minutes for taking a series of votes has continued. For example, the majority leader madeth
such requests for voting in the Committee of the Whole in the 109 Congress (2005-2007),
giving notice that later votes may be two-minute votes and seeking unanimous consent in
the House for authority of the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to reduce voting
time. See, for example, “Announcement of Intention to Limit Voting Time” and “Permission
to Reduce Time for Electronic Voting During Further Consideration of H.R. 4939,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152 (March 16,
2006), pp. H1069, H1074, and H1093; and “Permission to Reduce Time for Electronic
Voting During Further Consideration of H.R. 5384, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007” and
“Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.th
152 (May 23, 2006), pp. H3097 and H3116. Examples in the 110 Congress included one
where a chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced the reduction on his own
initiative, “National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 153 (May 2, 2007), p. H4405; and one where the majority leader asked
unanimous consent for the reduction, “Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
Act, 2008,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (June 15, 2007), p. H6487 and
H6516.
100 Para. (1) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 3, 1989.
101 Para. (11) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 3, 1989.
Whole to reduce to “not less than five minutes” the time to vote on clustered
amendments after the first 15-minute vote.102
In adopting rules for the 103rd Congress (1993-1995), the House reorganized
Rule XV, cl. 5 so that a new paragraph (a) continued to make the electronic voting
system the customary method of conducting a roll call or a quorum call and to allow
Members a minimum of 15 minutes to vote. A new paragraph (b) continued the
existing provisions to allow the presiding officer to reduce subsequent votes to five
minutes after the first 15-minute vote.103
The House also adopted a rules change to provide a process in Rule IX for
considering and voting on questions of privileges of the House. If such a resolution
was offered from the floor by the majority leader or minority leader, or reported from
committee, the resolution would have precedence over other questions except a
motion to adjourn. If offered by a Member other than the majority leader or minority
leader, the Speaker could designate a time within two legislative days, at which time
the resolution will have precedence over questions other than a motion to adjourn.104
When the Republican majority organized the House in the 104th Congress
(1995-1997), the House amended Rule I, cl. 5(b)(1) to reorder the list of questions
on which the Speaker could postpone further proceedings, and to add to this list a
vote to move the previous question on questions listed in this subparagraph (except
a motion to suspend the rules).105 Another rules change to Rule XV, cl. 5(b) allowed
102 Para. (11) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 3, 1991. This authority, however,
did not allow the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to entertain a unanimous consent
request to postpone votes. See, for example, “Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 13 (July 13,
1995), p. 18872; and “Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995,” Congressional
Record, vol. 141, part 19 (September 27, 1995), p. 26611.
103 Para. (10) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 5, 1993.
104 Para. (4) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 5, 1993. Later in the 103rd Congress,
the Speaker established the precedent that the House could proceed immediately on a
resolution alleging a question of the privileges of the House without designating a
subsequent time for its consideration. Speaker Thomas S. Foley, “Privileges of the House
— Request to Delay Implementation of Provisions of House Rules Relating to Votes of
Resident Commission and Delegates in the Committee of the Whole,” Congressional
Record, vol. 139, part 2 (February 3, 1993), p. 1974.rd
It had been established prior to the 103 Congress and was validated in proceedingsrd
in the 103 Congress that a Member could appeal a decision by the Speaker sustaining a
point of order against a resolution alleging a question of the privileges of the House. See,
for example, Rep. John B. Anderson and Speaker Carl Albert, “A Question of Privileges of
the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 16 (June 27, 1974), p. 21598. See also
Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon and Speaker Thomas S. Foley, “Privileges of the House —
Request to Delay Implementation of Provisions of House Rules Relating to Votes of
Resident Commissioner and Delegates in the Committee of the Whole,” Congressional
Record, vol. 139, part 2 (February 3, 1993), p. 1974.
105 Sec. 223(a) of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House January 4, 1995.
the Speaker to reduce to five minutes a roll-call vote occurring after a 15-minute vote
on a motion to recommit.106
In adopting its rules for the 105th Congress (1997-1999), the House added to the
list of votes that could be postponed. It amended Rule I, cl. 5(b) to include certain
questions occurring during the consideration of bills called from the Corrections
Calendar (Rule XIII, cl. 4) — agreeing to an amendment, ordering the previous
question on a motion to recommit, and agreeing to a motion to recommit.107
Practice, 101st through 105th Congresses. A Speaker pro tempore in thend
102 Congress (1991-1993) established a precedent on clustering votes that
amplified the Speaker’s discretion. The Speaker pro tempore designated separate108
times for votes on postponed questions.
In the 103rd Congress (1993-1995), a Speaker pro tempore established the
precedent that it was not necessary for the Speaker to announce his intention to
postpone votes at the beginning of consideration of a motion to suspend the rules.
The parliamentarian’s notes indicated that it is “customarily the courtesy” to make
such an announcement, but that the Speaker “may postpone further proceedings after
a record vote is ordered or an objection is raised under clause 4 of rule XV....”109
In the 104th Congress (1995-1997), on two occasions in one day, Members
moved to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered. Other
Members then moved to table these motions, and the House voted to table. In each
case, the Speaker pro tempore ordered a recorded vote on the underlying measure. He
also announced that the vote would be a five-minute vote, establishing a precedent
that the tabling motion did not constitute intervening business preventing the
presiding officer from reducing to five minutes the length of the vote.110
106 Sec. 223(e) of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House January 4, 1995.
107 Sec. 1 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 7, 1997. The House repealed the
Corrections Calendar in the 109th Congress. Sec. 2(f) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House
January 4, 2005.
108 Speaker Pro Tempore Romano L. Mazzoli, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro
Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, part 3 (March 3, 1992), p. 4072.
109 Speaker Pro Tempore Kweisi Mfume, “Federal Employees’ Political Activities Act of
Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House ofrdndnd
Representatives of the United States, 103 Congress, H.Doc. 102-405, 102 Cong. 2 sess.,
prepared by Wm. Holmes Brown (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993), pp. 330-331.
110 Speaker Pro Tempore Jack Kingston, “Conference Report on House Concurrent
Resolution 67, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Years 1996-2002” (special
rule), Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 13 (June 29, 1995), pp.17899-17900; and
Speaker Pro Tempore Joel Hefley, “Conference Report on House Concurrent Resolution 67,
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Years 1996-2002,” pp. 17923-17925.th
In the 105 Congress, the Speaker pro tempore reduced to five minutes votes on
questions after a vote to table the motion to reconsider the vote to move the previous
question and a vote to table the motion to reconsider the motion to recommit. Speaker Pro
(continued...)
In the 105th Congress, the House adjourned, without having voted, on the second
legislative day after the postponement of votes on motions to suspend the rules. By
unanimous consent, the questions were postponed to the next meeting of the House.
The parliamentarian’s notes indicated that the questions remained “the unfinished
business on the next legislative day.”111
Rules Changes, 106th Congress to Present. In the changes agreed to in
adopting rules for the 106th Congress (1999-2001), the House added authority for the112
Speaker to postpone a vote on the original motion to instruct conferees. As
described earlier, the House in the 101st Congress allowed the Speaker to postpone
further proceedings on the question of agreeing to motions to instruct conferees after
Congress also recodified its rules, authority to postpone proceedings formerly
codified as Rule I, cl. 5(b) was now codified as Rule XX, cl. 8.114
The House also allowed the Speaker to reduce to five minutes a vote on a
“question incidental thereto” a record vote on a motion to recommit a bill, resolution,
or conference report, and on passage or adoption, under the provisions of the rule on115
five-minute votes. Under recodification, authority to conduct five-minute votes
formerly found at Rule XV, cl. 5(b) was codified as Rule XX, cl. 9.116
110 (...continued)
Tempore Jim Nussle, “Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 11 (July
111 “Postponement of Motions to Suspend Rules Consider by the House on Monday,
September 29, 1997 to Monday October 6, 1997,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, Part 14
(October 1, 1997), p. 20922; and U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual,th
and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, 105 Congress, H.Doc. 104-thnd
p. 334. th
In the 108 Congress (2003-2005), the House gave its unanimous consent to a request
that authorized the Speaker to postpone votes on motions to instruct conferees beyond two
legislative days. “Authorizing Speaker to Postpone Votes on Motions to Instruct Conferees
Considered Today until Tuesday, September 23, 2003,” Congressional Record, vol. 149,
part 16 (September 17, 2003), p. 22272.
112 Sec. 1 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 6, 1999.
113 During the 106th Congress, a Speaker pro tempore announced two motions to instruct
conferees, made after 20 days, on which proceedings had been postponed, were vitiated. The
Speaker pro tempore stated that a conference report had been filed. Speaker Pro Tempore
Paul Ryan, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 145,
part 18 (October 19, 1999), p. 25961.
114 Technical corrections to this clause were made in the 108th Congress (2003-2005). Sec.
115 Sec. 1 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 6, 1999.
116 In adopting its rules for the 108th Congress (2003-2005), the House amended Rule XX,
cl. 2(a) to refer to clauses 8 and 9. Clause 2(a) mistakenly referred to clauses 9 and 10.
The House added a new paragraph (g) to Rule XVIII, cl. 6 in the 107th Congress
(2001-2003) to authorize the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone
a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and to resume proceedings at any
time. The chairman was also authorized to reduce to five minutes votes taken on a
series of questions after a 15-minute vote.117 Paragraph (f) of this clause already
allowed a chairman to conduct five-minute votes on series of pending amendments,
but neither it nor precedents allowed a chairman to postpone votes without
authorization by the House.118 Rather, special rules typically authorized a chairman
to cluster requests for recorded votes.119
The Speaker’s authority to conduct five-minute votes was further perfected in
the 108th Congress (2003-2005) to simplify the rule and to make it applicable to any
question arising “without intervening business” after another vote. As amended, Rule
XX, cl. 9 now read:
The Speaker may reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting
on any question arising without intervening business after an electronic vote on
another question if notice of possible five-minute voting for a given series of120
votes was issued before the preceding electronic vote.
The Speaker was authorized by a rules change in the 109th Congress (2005-
2007) to postpone votes on agreeing to a motion to reconsider, tabling a motion to
reconsider, and agreeing in the House to an amendment reported from the Committee
of the Whole.121
Practice, 106th Congress to Present. During the 109th Congress, the
majority leader gave notice during a series of votes in the Committee of the Whole
that he would ask unanimous consent when the committee rose that a vote on a
motion to recommit be a five-minute vote. The Speaker pro tempore allowed the
subsequent unanimous consent request, and no Member objected.122
117 Sec. of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 3, 2001.
118 See, for example, “Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989,”
Congressional Record, vol. 133, part 12 (June 18, 1987), p. 16764.
119 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 107th Congress, H.Doc. 106-320, 106th Cong. 2nd sess.,
prepared by Charles W. Johnson (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 742. (Precedents related
to postponing and clustering votes pursuant to a special rule are explained on pp. 742-743.)
See, for an example of such a rule and a chair’s explanation of the authority provided to theth
chair under the rule, H.Res. 442 (105 Congress), at “Providing for Consideration of House
Joint Resolution 119, Proposing Amendment to Constitution to Limit Campaign Spending,
and H.R. 2183, Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997,” Congressional Record, vol.
144, part 7 (May 21, 1998), pp. 10273-10274; and “Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of
120 Sec. 2(n) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 7, 2003.
121 Sec. 2(i) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 4, 2005.
122 Rep. Tom DeLay and Speaker Pro Tempore Mac Thornberry, “Departments of Labor,
(continued...)
In the 110th Congress (2007-2009), the majority leader gave notice during a
series of votes in the Committee of the Whole that he would ask unanimous consent
when the committee rose that the first vote in a series in the House be a five-minute
vote. After the committee rose, the majority leader made this request along with
further unanimous consent requests related to voting. He asked authority for the
presiding officer that
!the first vote in a series on both the bill under consideration and on
the next bill to be considered be a 15-minute vote in the Committee
of the Whole;
!the first vote in the House on either of these bills be a five-minute
vote; and
!subsequent votes in a series in either the Committee of the Whole or
the House be two-minute votes.123
Recorded Teller Votes. In agreeing to H.Res. 5 on January 22, 1971, thend
House adopted rules for the new, 92 Congress (1971-1973), including “all
applicable provisions of...the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970....” The
amendment to House Rule I added the provision on recorded teller votes:
If before tellers are named any Member requests tellers with clerks and that
request is supported by at least one-fifth of a quorum, the names of those voting
on each side of the question and the names of those not voting shall be recorded
by clerks or by electronic device, and shall be entered in the Journal. Members
shall have not less than twelve minutes from the naming of tellers with clerks to124
be counted.
The importance of recorded teller votes was short-lived. They were a voting
procedure that allowed the Committee of the Whole to take recorded votes pending
the deployment of an electronic voting system. Once the electronic voting system was
operating, by rule and choice it became the customary method of taking record votes.
122 (...continued)
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (June 24, 2005), pp. H5153 and
H5163-H5164. th
In the 107 Congress (2001-2003), after a 15-minute vote to approve the Journal,
which had been postponed, the House then voted on motions to suspend the rules, where
further proceedings had also been postponed. A Speaker pro tempore reduced voting time
to five minutes on these questions. Speaker Pro Tempore Michael K. Simpson, “The
Journal” and “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol.
148, part 15 (October 16, 2002), pp. 20749 and 20750. In the Speaker’s exercise of his
authority under Rule XX, cl. 8 to postpone and cluster votes and to reduce time to vote on
specified questions, “These categories are not mutually exclusive.” Brown and Johnson,
House Practice, p. 931.
123 Rep. Steny H. Hoyer and Speaker Pro Tempore Michael R. McNulty, “Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
124 House Rule I, cl. 5 (92nd Congress). Journal of the House of Representatives of the United
States, 92nd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1972), p. 1651.
The first recorded teller vote was taken March 3, 1971, on an amendment to a
bill to increase the debt ceiling, pursuant to procedures for recorded teller votes that
Speaker Albert had announced in February. Under direction from the chair, the clerk
read the statement on these procedures to the Committee of the Whole before the
vote commenced.125 Members filled in their name, state, and district on what are
called ballot or well cards — green cards for “aye,” red cards for “no,” and amber
cards for “present,” which were available on a table in the well of the House
chamber. The chair of the Committee of the Whole appointed tellers. Two Members,
one from each party, and a clerk with a wooden ballot box took their place at the rear
of the chamber to collect the green “aye” cards, and two other Members, one from
each party, and a clerk with a wooden ballot box took their place at the rear of the
chamber to collect the red “no” cards. Twelve minutes after the chair had directed the
tellers and clerks to take their places, 391 Members had voted, and the amendment
was defeated, 180-211. The roll was tabulated overnight, and the names of Members
voting “aye” and “no” were printed in Congressional Record for March 3.126
Two changes were made in 1972, to take effect in 1973, related to recorded
tellers. First, the House discontinued the role of Members in conducting teller votes,
leaving the conduct of the vote to clerks only. Second, tellers did not need to be
ordered before a Member could request a recorded teller vote. Rather, a Member
could directly request a recorded teller vote.127
In the 103rd Congress (1993-1995), the House repealed the general provision for
demanding a vote by tellers in Rule I, cl. 5(a). The opportunity for a recorded teller
vote remained.128
Electronic Voting System. As already noted, in agreeing to H.Res. 5 on
January 22, 1971, the House adopted rules for the new, 92nd Congress (1971-1973),
including “all applicable provisions of...the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970....” The amendment to House Rule XV added a new clause 5. This new clause
allowed, but did not require, a roll call or a quorum call to be recorded by electronic
125 Speaker Carl Albert, “Recorded Teller Votes,” Congressional Record, vol. 117, part 4
(March 3, 1971), p. 4880. The Speaker had made his announcement previously: Speaker
Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker with Regard to Teller Votes,” Congressional
Record, vol. 117, part 3 (February 25, 1971), pp. 3383-3844.
126 “Public Debt and Interest Rate Limitations,”Congressional Record, vol. 117, part 4 (July
27, 1971), pp. 4879-4881. See also Marjorie Hunter, “First Recorded Teller Vote Is Taken
in the House,” The New York Times, March 4, 1971, p. 21.
127 Para. (a) of H.Res. 1123, agreed to in the House October 13, 1972. Rep. B.F. Sisk,
“Electronic Voting in the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part
Changes to recorded tellers included in this resolution, and specifically related to
voting by electronic device, are explained in the next section, Electronic Voting System.
128 Para. (1) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 5, 1993. See also Rep. Louise M.
Slaughter, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993),
p. 53.
device.129 An electronic voting system, however, was not implemented until the 93rd
Congress (1973-1975).
Just prior to the electronic voting system becoming operational, the House
adopted additional rules changes to make voting by electronic device the customary
form of conducting record votes and quorum calls. In addition, Speakers beginning
with Speaker Albert and continuing through Speaker Nancy Pelosi have made policy
announcements regarding voting by electronic device. A principal challenge that
Speakers since Speaker Thomas S. Foley have attempted to meet has been to take
advantage of the efficiency of the electronic voting system. A vote could presumably
be conducted in little more than 15 minutes, but some Members might not arrive to
vote until some time after all other Members had voted. Closely related to this
challenge has been the matter of Members changing their votes. The policies of
Speaker Albert and Speaker O’Neill on changing votes are still followed.
This part of this section should be read with the parts on Allowing Late-Arriving
Members to Vote/Changing an Outcome and Members Changing Their Vote.
Rules Changes Anticipating the Electronic Voting System. During
the 92nd Congress, in anticipation of inauguration of the new electronic voting system
in the next Congress, the House on October 13, 1972, agreed to H.Res. 1123,
changing Rules I, VIII, XV, and XXIII, to make voting by electronic device the130
customary method for conducting a roll call or quorum call and to make
conforming changes in related rules clauses.131
129 For a history of the electronic voting system, see CRS Report RL34366, Electronic
Voting System in the House of Representatives: History and Evolution, by Jacob R. Straus.
“Today roll call votes ordinarily are taken only during the process of electing a Speaker —
where Members respond by surname — or in the event of a malfunction of the electronic
voting system. Brown and Johnson, House Practice, p. 924.
130 In summarizing the changes contained in H.Res. 1123, House Rules Committee member
B.F. Sisk, who had chaired an ad hoc subcommittee to consider options, stated, “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.... In almost all cases I think the electronic system will be used.” Rep. B.F. Sisk,
“Electronic Voting in the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part
At the beginning of debate on H.Res. 1123, House Administration Committee
Chairman Wayne L. Hays demonstrated the display boards, voting machines, voting cards,
and monitors of the electronic voting system. The committee had jurisdiction over the design
and installation of the system. Members today would feel very familiar with the system
Chairman Hays demonstrated. Chairman Hays also announced that the House’s electronic
bill status and summary system would be operative as early as January 1973. Rep. Wayne
L. Hays, “Electronic Voting in the House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol.
131 H.Res. 1123 established an effective date for changes of January 3, 1973, immediately
before noon. This timing was chosen to make the changes part of the rules of the outgoingndrd
(continued...)
H.Res. 1123 amended Rule I, cl. 5 to replace the two sentences, quoted in the
immediate preceding part, Recorded Teller Votes. The amendment provided:
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 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 not have less than
fifteen minutes to be counted from the ordering of the recorded vote or the132
ordering of clerks to tell the vote.
The importance of this change was to make voting by electronic device the
customary method of taking recorded votes in the House and the Committee of the
Whole. It also increased the time to vote to a minimum of 15 minutes from a
minimum of 12 minutes, the time beginning “from the ordering of the recorded vote
or the ordering of clerks to tell the vote.”133 As explained by Representative H. Allen
Smith, the ranking Republican member of the Rules Committee:
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 a134
recorded vote with clerks.
House Administration Committee Chair Wayne L. Hays, whose committee had
jurisdiction over the design and installation of the electronic voting system, also
explained that Members not carrying a card to insert into a voting machine in order
to vote would still be able to cast a vote. He stated that a Member could go to the
Speaker’s dais and obtain a “red or green or amber ballot [card], just like we do now
for a [recorded] teller vote.” After the Member completed the ballot, a clerk would
enter the Member’s vote in the electronic voting system and the vote would be
displayed in the chamber with the votes of other Members.135
The House also changed Rule VIII, cl. 2 related to the announcement of pairs.
The existing rule provided that pairs be announced after the second call of the roll.
131 (...continued)
H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House January 3, 1973, adopted the rules of the 92ndrd
Congress as the rules of the 93 Congress. Changes to House rules included in H.Res. 6 did
not affect rules related to the electronic voting system.
132 The text of H.Res. 1123 can be found at “Electronic Voting in the House of
Representatives,” vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), pp. 36005-36006.
133 Rep. H. Allen Smith, “Electronic Voting in the House of Representatives,” Congressional
Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), p. 36008.
134 Ibid.
135 Rep. Wayne L. Hays, “Electronic Voting in the House of Representatives,”
Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), p. 36006.
With voting by electronic device, there would not be a call of the roll as anticipated
by the clause. H.Res. 1123 changed the rule so that pairs would be announced
immediately before the presiding officer’s announcement of the result of a vote.136
(See Pairs, below, in this section.)
With regard to Rule XV, “On Calls of the Roll and House,” H.Res. 1123 made
the first four clauses of Rule XV subject to clause 5 of Rule XV. As already
explained, this clause had been added by enactment of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1970 and approval of H.Res 5 at the beginning of the 92nd Congress. H.Res.
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 or137
quorum call to have their vote or presence recorded.
Like the change to Rule I, cl. 5, this clause made voting by electronic device the
customary system for conducting a recorded vote or a quorum call, and applied a 15-
minute minimum time period to quorum calls as well as roll calls. The change also
left it to the discretion of the Speaker whether to invoke a different, authorized
manner of conducting a recorded vote or quorum call.
Another change made by H.Res. 1123 altered Rule XXIII, cl. 2 to direct that a
quorum call in the Committee of the Whole be conducted by electronic device “under
clause 5 of Rule XV,” unless the chair of the Committee of the Whole invoked
another procedure authorized under Rule XV.138 The change conformed the quorum
clause of this House rule governing the Committee of the Whole to Rule XV, as
amended.
During debate, Members anticipated some of the problems and potential uses
that could arise with use of an electronic voting system as designed by the House
Administration Committee. Representative Margaret M. Heckler asked about the
confusion of the same or similar last names, which House Administration Committee
Chairman Hays indicated was an issue still being worked on before the electronic139
voting system’s use began. Delegate Walter E. Fauntroy asked about Members
using voting cards to vote on behalf of other Members, to which Rules Committee
136 Para. (c) of H.Res. 1123, agreed to in the House October 13, 1972.
137 Para. (c) of H.Res. 1123, agreed to in the House October 13, 1972.
138 Para (d) of H.Res. 1123, agreed to in the House October 13, 1972.
139 Reps. Margaret M. Heckler and Wayne L. Hays, “Electronic Voting in the House of
Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), p. 36007.
member Sisk responded, “Members of the Congress work on their own honor....it
gets down to a matter of the integrity of each Member.”140
Rules Committee member John B. Anderson asked about the availability of
printouts (reports) showing various voting patterns. Chairman Hays indicated that
could be done in the future.141 Representative John M. Ashbrook made a related
observation in a colloquy with Chairman Hays:
Mr. Hays:...Mr. Speaker, someone facetiously asked me a minute ago if we
would have a system for retrieval of Members who voted and rushed out of the
Chamber before the respective leadership on either side can latch onto them. I
can say to the gentleman there is no plan for such a retrieval system.
Mr. Ashbrook:...I think what is going to happen is that we are going to see the
passage of one of the most time-honored traditions around this House. That is the
system of putting pressure on Members to change their votes in the well. I think
we have to be aware of the fact that a Member can vote and instantly leave the
Chamber. I just asked the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays] whether something
can be done to equip the leadership with the proper tools, maybe a tracking
device.
Mr. Hays: That is really a leadership problem. It will be possible for Members
to come into the back of the room and vote and go on their way.
Mr. Ashbrook: That might help our processes.142
Representative Barber B. Conable Jr. stated that the current system discouraged
Members from changing their votes, since the changes were reported. He asked
whether the new system would lead to “strategic maneuvering” on close votes to
allow a party’s leadership to cloak from the other side “where the votes are.”
Chairman Hays acknowledged the possibility and suggested several potential
responses, including programming changes and having Members announce changes
in the well of the House that would then be recorded. Mr. Conable also asked about
the recording of Members’ transactions with the electronic voting system. Chairman
Hays responded that “all actions,” including changed votes, would be recorded, but
that only a Member’s final vote would be reported.143
Representative John F. Seiberling asked whether Members’ names could be
displayed so that Democrats’ names were closest to the Democratic side of the
140 Del. Walter E. Fauntroy and Rep. B.F. Sisk, “Electronic Voting in the House of
Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), pp. 36007-
141 Reps. John B. Anderson and Wayne L. Hays, “Electronic Voting in the House of
Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), p. 36008.
142 Reps. John M. Ashbrook and Wayne L. Hays, “Electronic Voting in the House of
Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), pp. 36009-
143 Reps. Barber B. Conable Jr. and Wayne L. Hays, “Electronic Voting in the House of
Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), p. 36009.
chamber and Republicans’ names were closest to the Republican side of the aisle.
Chairman Hays indicated that it was indeed possible, but that it would be up to the
Rules Committee and the House to make the decision to use a system different from
the alphabetization of the House membership.144 Representative Richard C. White
inquired about procedures related to a vote by division. Chairman Hays responded
that a Member dissatisfied with the result of a division vote could ask for a recorded
teller vote.145
Representative Melvin Price, who had chaired the Standards of Official Conduct
Committee investigation into ghost voting in the 90th and 91st Congresses, counseled
his colleagues as the last speaker in debate. Although Mr. Price supported the
electronic voting system as a “giant stride toward greater efficiency and enlarged
confidence in the work of the House,” he admonished his colleagues:
...I must caution my colleagues that the installation of this system opens other
doors, which are not necessarily desirable. There is always the possibility the
new system could be abused or misused. For example, it could lead to the
practice of “ghost voting,” such as happened recently in the State government of
Pennsylvania where votes were cast for members of the general assembly who
were not on the floor or, in one instance, even the country. I urge my colleagues
to support this improvement in House procedure, but emphasize we must guard
against any misuse of the new system which could tend to destroy the credibility146
of Congress in the eyes of the public.
Speaker’s Announcements Anticipating Electronic Voting. On
January 3, 1973, Speaker Albert announced that there would be a delay in
implementing the electronic voting system, noting the need to prepare voting cards
for each Representative, referred to at that time as “personalized Vote-ID Cards.” The
Speaker directed that the forms of roll call and quorum call used previously continue
in the 93rd Congress until further notice.147
On January 15, the Speaker announced his policy on electronic voting, and
stated that the electronic voting system would be operational January 23. In his policy
statement, the Speaker announced:
!how the electronic voting system operated, and what information
would be available on the consoles at the party tables;
!how Members were to use their Vote-ID Cards at the voting stations
to cast, change, or check their votes or to register their presence on
a quorum call;
144 Reps. John F. Seiberling and Wayne L. Hays, “Electronic Voting in the House of
Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), p. 36010.
145 Reps. Richard C. White and Wayne L. Hays, “Electronic Voting in the House of
Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), p. 36010.
146 Rep. Melvin Price, “Electronic Voting in the House of Representatives,” Congressional
Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), p. 36012.
147 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker Concerning Electronic Voting,”
Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 1 (January 3, 1973), p. 27.
!that the presiding officer would instruct Members to “record their
presence or votes by means of the electronic device,” and that this
instruction would initiate a 15-minute voting period, with time on
the summary displays decreasing to 0:00 minutes from 15:00
minutes;
!that Members could cast, change, or check their votes until the
presiding officer “declare[d] the vote to be closed and announce[d]
the final result”;
!that voting stations would remain open until the presiding officer
“declare[d] the vote to be closed and announce[d] the final result,”
at which time the voting stations would be closed and the summary
panel would indicate “FINAL”;
!how a Member without his or her Vote-ID Card could vote by
picking up in a cloakroom or the well a green (“yea”), red (“no”), or
amber (“present”) ballot card, filling in his or her name, state, and
district, and handing the card to the tally clerk, who would then enter
the Member’s vote and deactivate use of the Member’s Vote-ID
Card on that vote;
!how a Member may pair (see Pairs, below); and
!that the presiding officer in his or her discretion would determine
that recorded votes or quorum calls be taken by another procedure
than electronic device.148
The electronic voting system was first used January 23, 1973, when House
Administration Chairman Hays made a point of order that a quorum was not present
and moved a call of the House. The call of the House was ordered, and Members’
presence was recorded by electronic device.149
Practice in the 93rd Congress. Presiding officers in the 93rd Congress
(1973-1975) established a number of practices and precedents related to the
electronic voting system. On March 7, 1973, the Speaker announced that the
electronic voting system was “not operable,” and that until further notice votes and150
quorum calls would be “taken by standby procedures.” Two months later, knowing
that the electronic voting system was not operating when a point of order against a
vote was made, the Speaker directed the clerk to call the roll for the vote in lieu of
148 Speaker Carl Albert, “Electronic Voting,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 1
(January 15, 1973), pp. 1055-1057. Appended to the Speaker’s statement in the
Congressional Record was a committee print of the House Administration Committee, “The
Electronic Voting System for the U.S. House of Representatives.”
149 Rep. Wayne L. Hays, “Call of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 2
(January 23, 1973), p. 1793. Just prior to making his point of order, House Administration
Committee Chairman Hays instructed Members on use of their voting cards.
150 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 119,
part 5 (March 7, 1973), p. 6699.
taking the vote by electronic device.151 (Instances of failures in the electronic voting
system in 1973 appear in Table 2, below.)
On June 6, 1973, a call of the House was ordered to establish a quorum. While
Members were responding to the call, a Member demanded regular order. The
Speaker responded:
The regular order is the establishment of a quorum and the rule provides a
minimum of 15 minutes for Members to respond. Clause 5 of rule XV states that152
Members have “not less than 15 minutes to have their presence recorded.”
Since this clause was also incorporated by reference in Rule XXIII, pertaining
to the Committee of the Whole, chairman of the Committee of the Whole established
the same precedent in ruling on a point of order on July 17, 1974. Representative
Robert E. Bauman made a point of order that fewer than 100 Members had responded
to a quorum call (a “notice quorum”) at the expiration of 15 minutes and that a
“regular quorum call must then be called....” After the Member’s further explanation,
the chairman stated:
The Chair understands the rule, and clause 5, rule XV provides a minimum, not
a maximum, of 15 minutes for Members to respond on any quorum call. The
Chair can exercise his discretion to continue the quorum call if the Chair desires153
to do so.
Finally, the Speaker established one more precedent concerning voting by
electronic device. Despite Members’ explanations that their votes had been wrongly
recorded by the electronic voting system, Speaker Albert ruled that the presiding
officer was without authority to entertain a unanimous consent agreement to make
a correction. The statements appeared in the Congressional Record.154
94th - 105th Congresses. For the reader’s convenience, this subpart is divided
topically.
151 Speaker Carl Albert, “Hobby Protection Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 13
(May 16, 1973), p. 15860. See also footnote 172.
152 Speaker Carl Albert, “The Special Constitutional Power and Duty of Impeachment by the
House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 14 (June 6, 1973), p.
153 “Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974,” Congressional Record, vol. 120,
part 18 (July 17, 1974), p. 23673. See also footnote 186.
154 Rep. Robert O. Tiernan and Speaker Carl Albert, “Personal Announcement,”
Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 10 (April 18, 1973), p. 13081; and Rep. Ray J. Madden
and Speaker Carl Albert, “Personal Announcement,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part
A Member raised this issue again in the 99 Congress, and a Speaker pro tempore
similarly refused the Member’s request for a change in a vote conducted by electronic
device. Rep. Fernand J. St. Germain and Speaker Pro Tempore G.V. “Sonny” Montgomery,
“Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 10 (June 17, 1986), p. 14038.
Recapitulation. In the 94th Congress (1975-1977), following a Member’s
demand for the recapitulation of a vote, Speaker Albert stated, “Under the rules, a
recapitulation of an electronic vote is not in order.”155 Later in the same Congress, in
the course of the Speaker announcing new procedures for a Member to change his or
her vote, Representative Bauman, made a parliamentary inquiry whether a
recapitulation of the vote would now be in order since it would be “beneficial” in
close votes. The Speaker responded:
...there is no change in the 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 or voting from the well, will appear on the voting panel for156
verification.
In the 97th Congress (1981-1983), the Speaker allowed a correction to a vote
taken by electronic device, which had resulted from an error in identifying the157
signature on a voting card.
Constitutionality. A Member made a parliamentary inquiry in the 99th Congress
(1985-1986) concerning the constitutionality and authority under House rules of
conducting votes by electronic device. He asserted that the Constitution and House
rules required that “Members of Congress, when casting their vote, do so wholly in
public so that the Member’s vote is in fact known to the public at the time he or she
casts that vote.” The Speaker responded,
The Constitution requires that the yeas and nays be spread upon the Journal, and
that is what the rules of the House have always guaranteed, both prior to and
subsequent to electronic voting. Consequently, the Chair believes that the proper158
method is being used and that there are precedents therefor.
Following this exchange, the same Member objected to the voice vote on the
ground that a quorum was not present, and the Speaker ordered the vote to be taken
by electronic device. Having been notified that the display panels were not working
but that the voting stations were operational, the Speaker exercised his discretion to
continue using the electronic voting system, and suggested that Members verify their
vote by re-inserting their voting cards in the same or a different voting station. The
155 Speaker Carl Albert, “Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 2559, Amending Title 39,
United States Code, To Apply Certain Provisions of Law Providing for Federal Agency
Safety Programs to the U.S. Postal Service,” Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 20 (July
156 Rep. Robert E. Bauman and Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,”
Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 22 (September 17, 1975), p. 28903.
157 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 98th Congress, H.Doc. 97-271, 97th Cong. 2nd sess.,
prepared by Wm. Holmes Brown (Washington, DC: GPO, 1983), p. 491.
158 Rep. Robert S. Walker and Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., “Amtrak
Authorization,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, part 18 ( September 19, 1985), p. 24245.
voting stations then failed, and the Speaker initiated voting by the standby procedures
of Rule XV.159
Malfunction of the Electronic Voting System. In the 100th Congress (1987-
1989), the electronic voting system malfunctioned. The chairman of the Committee
of the Whole vacated a recorded vote on an amendment, and ordered the clerk to call
the roll pursuant to Rule XV, cl. 1. After the chairman announced the result of the
vote, he stated:
The Chair will announce that prior to the next vote Members will be advised
whether or not the electronic voting system is operating. The technicians are
working on the system and hopefully by the time we complete debate on the next160
amendment the system will be operational.
When the next vote was taken, the electronic voting system was used.161
Malfunctions of the voting system are examined in the next section, Issues Related
to Voting since 1970: Inoperative Electronic Voting System.
Speakers’ Policies on Voting by Electronic Device. In the 94th Congressth
(1975-1977) and 95 Congress (1977-1979), the Speakers announced policies related
to Members changing their vote when voting by electronic device. These policies are
described in the part below, Members Changing Their Vote.
159 Ibid. See also footnote 281. See also U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s
Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, 100th Congress,thnd
H.Doc. 99-279, 99 Cong. 2 sess., prepared by Wm. Holmes Brown (Washington, DC:
GPO, 1987), p. 512.
160 “National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989,” Congressional Record, vol.
In the 106 Congress (1999-2001), when a portion of the display boards failed, the
Speaker pro tempore continued the vote using the electronic voting system, and stated,
“...the Chair has been advised that those votes are indeed being recorded. Those that are in
that panel, from Danner to Doyle, should recheck your vote on the electronic voting
device....” Speaker Pro Tempore Doc Hastings, “Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000,”
Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 1 (February 10, 2000), p. 1021.
The Speaker pro tempore made a similar statement when some voting stations failedth
in the 107 Congress (2001-2003). Speaker Pro Tempore Judy Biggert, “The Journal,”th
Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 3 (April 9, 2002), p. 4054. Later in the 107 Congress,
when display panels failed, the Speaker pro tempore made a similar statement. Speaker Pro
Tempore Michael K. Simpson, “Recognizing the Teams and Players of the Negro Baseball
Leagues for Their Contributions to Baseball and the Nation,” Congressional Record, vol.th
148, part 12 (September 19, 2002), p. 17237. When a display panel failed in the 108
Congress (2003-2005), a Speaker pro tempore made a similar statement. Speaker Pro
Tempore Michael K. Simpson, “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2989, Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004,” Congressional Record, vol.
161 “National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989,” Congressional Record, vol.
134, part 7 (May 4, 1988), pp. 9848-9849. See also the action taken by the Speaker
following a malfunction of the electronic voting system in the section Issues Related tost
Voting since 1970: Inoperative Electronic Voting System, 101 Congress.
During the 1980s, Speakers routinized the custom of announcing policies on
aspects of the legislative process on the day, or in the first days, of a new Congress’s
convening. When the 102nd Congress (1991-1993) convened, the Speaker pro
tempore, in behalf of Speaker, announced eight policies, including one on the
conduct of votes by electronic device. The policy on voting was as follows:
As Members are aware, clause 5 of rule XV provides that “Members shall have
not less than 15 minutes from the ordering of the rollcall or quorum call to have
their vote or presence recorded.”
While the rule obviously states a minimum, rather than maximum, time
requirement for electronic votes, and while no occupant of the chair would
attempt to prevent a Member who is in the Chamber at the expiration of that time
from casting his or her vote, the Chair has noticed that in the past session
inordinate delays in concluding electronic votes or quorum calls would occur
when Members would notify the Chair through the Cloakrooms that they were
on their way to the Chamber from a variety of locations.
The Chair would encourage all Members to depart for the Chamber promptly
upon the appropriate bell and light signal, since there is no guarantee that
Members can rely upon telephoned notice to the Cloakrooms in order to have
votes held open. As indicated by his remarks on this subject on October 13, 1990,
the minority leader joins the Chair in urging all Members to help avoid the162
unnecessary loss of time in conducting the business of the House.
The Speaker continued this policy in the 103rd Congress (1993-1995), with the
addition of a proscription:
...the Speaker is advising the Cloakrooms that they should not forward to the
Chair individual requests to hold open a vote by electronic device, but should163
simply apprise inquiring Members of the time remaining on the voting clock.
When the new Republican majority organized the House in the 104th Congress
(1995-1997), Speaker Newt Gingrich placed increased emphasis on conducting votes
within a 15-minute time frame. The new policy provided, in part:
...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
162 Speaker Pro Tempore Dan Glickman, “Policies of the Chair,” Congressional Record, vol.
163 Speaker Pro Tempore Kweisi Mfume, “ Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), p. 106.
not rely on signals relayed from outside the chamber to assume that votes will be164
held open until they arrive in the chamber.
The two substantive departures from Speaker Foley’s policy were, first, that
Members in the well, not simply in the chamber, would not be prevented from
voting, and, second, the Speaker would support the presiding officer in “striving to
close” a vote at “the earliest opportunity.”
In addition, in his address to the House upon his election as Speaker, Speaker
Gingrich mentioned the importance of schedules, referring to a bipartisan task force
on the family that had been established earlier. The task force had recommended
limiting votes to 17 minutes. The Speaker stated,
I hope all of my colleagues are paying attention because we are in fact going to
work very hard to have 17 minute votes and it is over. So, leave on the first bell,165
not the second bell.
164 Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Policies of the Chair,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1
(January 4, 1995), p. 552. The Speaker also announced this policy prior to the first recorded
vote of that day. Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Making in Order Immediate Consideration ofth
House Resolution Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 104
Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), p. 457.th
The Speaker reiterated this policy at the beginning of the 105 Congress. Speaker Pro
Tempore Ray LaHood, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore on Procedures for theth
reiterated it during the 105 Congress. Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Announcement by the
Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, part 8 (June 10, 1998), pp. 11848-11849.
Speaker Dennis Hastert included Speaker Gingrich’s policy on voting by electronicth
device in his announced policies for the 106 Congress. Speaker Pro Tempore Ed Pease,
“Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1
(January 6, 1999), p. 249. He included the policy as well in his announced policies for theththth
107, 108, and 109 Congresses. Speaker Pro Tempore Heather Wilson, “Announcement
by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 1 (January 3, 2001), p.
Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 1 (January 7, 2003), p. 24; and Speaker Pro Tempore
Stevan Pearce, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 151 (January 4, 2005), p. H34-H35.th
Speaker Nancy Pelosi also continued the policy, making modifications for the 110
Congress. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 153 (January 5, 2007), p. H60. The modifications are provided below in
the part, Allowing Late-Arriving Members to Vote/Changing an Outcome. Speaker Pelosi’s
policy on voting by electronic device appears in Appendix A.
165 Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Election of Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1
(January 4, 1995), p. 444.
In response to a parliamentary inquiry the next month after a vote had been held open
for approximately 20 minutes, a Speaker pro tempore stated that the vote had been
conducted “in conformity with the Speaker’s advisement,” and that the presiding officer
“would not stop a Member from voting who is in the well.” Speaker Pro Tempore Bill
Barrett and Rep. Ronald D. Coleman, “Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995,”
Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 3 (February 10, 1995), p. 4385.th
In the 108 Congress (2003-2005), the Speaker made another attempt to shorten the
duration of votes. After exhorting Members to cooperate in voting within the minimum 15
(continued...)
Speaker Gingrich’s policy was put to the test in a dispute over a vote on June
21, 1995, as explained in the next part, Allowing Late-Arriving Members to
Vote/Changing an Outcome, and also in the section below, Issues Related to Voting
since 1970: Members Attempting to Vote.166
Illuminating Display Boards Other than when a Vote Is Being
Conducted. In the 105th Congress (1997-1999), a Member asked unanimous consent
to have the display boards showing all the Members to be turned on in order to have
a list of Members. The Speaker pro tempore stated that such a request was not in167
order.
106th Congress to Present. This subpart concludes the evolution of rules
and precedents related to the electronic voting system following the recodification
of House rules in the 106th Congress. (See Table 1.)
Recodification and Amendment of Rules. The House adopted ath
recodification of its rules in adopting rules for the 106 Congress (1999-2001). Rules
provisions formerly found in Rule XV and other rules related to voting and quorums
were recodified in a new Rule XX. The House also added a new provision, clause
When the electronic voting system is inoperable or is not used, the Speaker or
Chairman may direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call as168
provided in clause 3 or 4 [of Rule XX].
The parliamentarian’s notes in the House Rules and Manual stated that this new
provision was added as a “cross reference” to backup procedures found in clauses 3
and 4 of Rule XX, and to “clarify the Chair’s discretion to choose either backup
procedure.”169
165 (...continued)
minutes available for a vote, the Speaker pro tempore stated, “The Chair will remind
Members when two minutes remain on the clock.” Speaker Pro Tempore Michael K.
Simpson, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 149,
part 1 (January 8, 2003), p. 172.
166 In the course of allowing Members to speak June 22 on the dispute, the Speaker reiterated
his policy on voting by electronic device and his intention to limit votes to 17 minutes.
Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Permission for Sundry Members to Address the House for 5
Minutes Each,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 12 (June 22, 1995), p. 16815.
167 Rep. David R. Obey and Speaker Pro Tempore Charles Bass, “Making Further
Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999,” Congressional Record, vol. 144, part 18
(October 12, 1998), p. 25770.
168 Sec. 1 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 6, 1999.
169 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 106th Congress, H.Doc. 105-358, 105th Cong. 2nd sess.,
prepared by Charles W. Johnson (Washington, DC: GPO, 1999), p. 761. See also “Proposed
New Rules [Recodification Committee Print].” Rep. Dick Armey, “Rules of the House,”
Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1 (January 6, 1999), p. 188.
Malfunction of Electronic Voting System. A Speaker pro tempore vacated
a vote in the 106th Congress (1999-2001) when the electronic voting system
malfunctioned and the clerk was unable to certify to the Speaker pro tempore the
accuracy of the vote. A series of parliamentary inquiries by a Member displayed the
specific issues and precedents that led the Speaker pro tempore to seek to announce
a result based on the vote by electronic device before vacating the vote. The clerk
was ultimately directed to call the roll.170 Some of the exchange was as follows:
The Speaker pro tempore. ...The Speaker has the discretion, in the event of a
malfunction of the electronic voting system, to, one, continue to utilize the
electronic voting system, even though the electronic display panels are
inoperative, where the voting stations continue in proper operation and Members
are able to verify their votes; or, number two, to utilize a backup voting
procedure, such as calling the roll....
Mr. Dingell: ...Could the Chair inform the Chamber what the Clerk has done to
assure that the vote is reliable and correct? I have great respect for the Clerk, but
we have a malfunction in the electronic system. My question is, who do we
believe, the malfunctioning electronic system or the Clerk of the House?
The Speaker pro tempore. The Clerk has responded to every Member and
checked every Member’s vote of any Member who has come forward to question
the recording of their vote....
The Speaker pro tempore. The chair will further state there have been cases in
the past where the displays on the boards before the media gallery have been
inoperative, but that the votes recorded by the Clerk have been accurate. There
is precedent for relying on the running totals.
...Mr. Dingell. Mr. Speaker, is it the practice of the Chair, then, or would it be the
practice of the Chair to inform us of whether the Clerk’s certification is 100
percent correct when that process has been completed?
The Speaker pro tempore. The House will be informed of the accuracy of the
vote, and the Chair just asks Members’ indulgence.
...The Speaker pro tempore. The Chair has been informed that the accuracy of the
vote cannot be established with 100 percent accuracy. On this occasion, the Chair
will direct the Clerk to call the roll to record the yeas and nays, as provided in171
clause 2(b) of rule XX.
Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Administration Committee,
addressed the House after the result of the vote was announced to explain the cause
of the malfunction (a technical problem compounded by a human error), which
170 Rep. John D. Dingell and Speaker Pro Tempore Henry Bonilla, “Providing for
Consideration of H.R. 2990, Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999, and H.R. 2723,
Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999,” Congressional Record,
vol. 145, part 17 (October 6, 1999), pp. 24198-24200.
171 Ibid., p. 24199.
resulted in an error in what Members could see on the display board rather than an
error in how Members’ votes were recorded.172
The parliamentarian’s notes in the House Rules and Manual referred to this
event thus: “The question whether the electronic voting system is functioning reliably
is in the discretion of the Chair, who may base a judgment on certification by the
Clerk.”173
In the 107th Congress (2001-2003), the electronic voting system failed during
a vote, and a Speaker pro tempore held the vote open for nearly 3-1/2 hours. He
announced that the votes Members had cast at voting machines and the votes
Members had cast by filling out a green, red, or amber ballot card, which the clerks
entered into the electronic voting system, would be combined. “Together this will
constitute a valid vote.” He encouraged Members to fill out a ballot card to verify
their vote, and he stated that the vote would be held open until Members who had
gone to a memorial service returned and had an opportunity to verify their votes.174
When the electronic voting system failed twice during the conduct of votes in
the 108th Congress (2003-2005), the presiding officer chose a different path in each
instance. On March 25, 2004, a Speaker pro tempore announced to the House, “...that
some of the voting stations may have been reset during this vote.” The Speaker pro
tem continued the vote, requested Members to confirm their vote, and stated that the
voting machines would be kept open so that Members would have the opportunity
to cast or confirm a vote.175
Later, on July 13, a chairman of the Committee of the Whole first announced
that there were “technical difficulties,” and that Members should confirm their vote
“from the well.” He then announced that Members should stop voting since the
electronic voting system was “inoperable and the clerk has no way of tallying the
votes.” He stated that the clerk was attempting to reboot the system and, if that
occurred, Members would need to “cast their votes a second time.” The chairman
finally announced a new vote on the same question,
The Chair is advised that the electronic voting system has been restarted, and the
electronic vote will be conducted anew, a totally fresh start. Members must recast
their votes even if they previously cast votes under the earlier, defective
172 Rep. Bill Thomas, “Malfunctions with Voting Machine Not Unprecedented,”
Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 17 (October 6, 1999), p. 24200. See also footnote 287.
173 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 107th Congress, H.Doc. 106-320, 106th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Charles W. Johnson (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 774.
174 Speaker Pro Tempore John Cooksey, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 12 (September 14, 2001), p. 17103. See also footnotes
175 Speaker Pro Tempore Ray LaHood, “Providing for Further Consideration of House
Concurrent Resolution 393, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (March 25, 2004), pp. H1492-H1493. See also
footnote 290.
electronic vote. The bells will be rung to indicate a 15-minute vote on176
the...ame ndment....
These occurrences of electronic voting system malfunction are examined in the
section below, Issues Related to Voting since 1970: Inoperative Voting System, and
Inoperative Display Boards.
Allowing Late-Arriving Members to Vote/Changing an Outcome. By
the 102nd Congress (1991-1993), leaders and Members were frustrated by the
duration of some votes. The electronic voting system had promised efficiency in the
conduct of record votes and quorum calls, but Members often lagged in getting to the
floor and recording or changing their votes. A practice grew up whereby Members
would alert their cloakroom of their future arrival on the floor. The presiding officer
could then continue to hold open a vote until the Members appeared and voted. In the
102nd Congress, Speaker Foley announced a policy to attempt to close votes shortly
after the 15-minute minimum time to vote. Speaker Gingrich tightened the policy,
which has been continued by subsequent Speakers.
A different issue has arisen on other occasions, where votes have been held open
for a period of time well past 15 minutes. Minority Members, in particular, whether
the Democrats or the Republicans organized the House, have complained over certainth
of these events. The 110 Congress made an attempt to provide the presiding officer
with guidance in the form of a new House rule to prevent votes from being held open
“for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome” of a vote.
Prior to Voting by Electronic Device. Prior to the 91st Congress (1969-
1971), a Member was not allowed to vote after the clerk had called the roll and then
called the names of Members not voting a second time. House Rule XV, cl. 1
provided, in part, at that time:
...and after the roll has been once called, the Clerk shall call in their alphabetical
order the names of those not voting; and thereafter the Speaker shall not entertain177
a request to record a vote or announce a pair....
However, under certain conditions, a Member was nonetheless allowed to vote after
his or her name had been called twice. In notes on Rule XV, cl. 1, the parliamentarian
explained:
A Member who has failed to respond when his name was called may not as a
constitutional right demand that his vote be recorded before the announcement
of the result.... But when a Member declares that he was listening when his name
should have been called and failed to hear it, he is permitted to record his vote....
In order to qualify to vote the Member must have been within the Hall...and
176 “Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2005,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (July 13, 2004),
pp. H5579-H5580. See also footnote 291.
177 House Rule XV, cl. 1 (90th Congress). Journal of the House of Representatives of the
United States, 90th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1967), p. 1489. Rule XV was
titled, “On Calls of the Roll and House.”
listening...when his name was called, and it is the duty of the Speaker to qualify
a Member asking to vote at the end of the roll, but it is for the Member and not
the Speaker to determine whether he was in the Hall and listening when his name
was called, and unless he answer categorically in the affirmative he may not178
vote....
With the approval of H.Res. 7 on January 3, 1969, the House amended Rule
XV, cl. 1. The phrase disallowing the Speaker from recording a vote after a
Member’s name had been called twice was replaced as follows:
...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, but179
before the result is announced, may vote or announce a pair.
Therefore, “Members appearing after their names are called but before the
announcement of the result may vote or announce a pair.”180
Following the change in House rules to allow recorded teller votes, effective in
the 92nd Congress (1971-1973), Speaker Albert announced a policy to explain how
a late-arriving Member could vote. The Speaker stated that, after the second teller
had reported the “noes” on a vote, Members who arrived
within the allotted time — which under the rule must be at least 12 minutes from
the naming of tellers with clerks — will be permitted to fill in the card, be
counted, and recorded.... The Chair will then announce the vote, but not before
the expiration of at least 12 minutes from the naming of tellers with clerks, nor
until the chair ascertains that no further Members are present who desire to be181
recorded.
The Speaker also explained how a Member could vote present: “Immediately
after the Chair has announced the vote and before any further business is conducted,
Members wishing to be recorded as “present” will announce their presence to the182
Chair.”
Advent of the Electronic Voting System. In the course of House debate
in the 92nd Congress on H.Res. 1123, inaugurating voting by electronic device, House
178 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 90th Congress, H.Doc. 529, 89th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Lewis Deschler (Washington, DC: GPO, 1967), p. 387.
179 House Rule XV, cl. 1 (91st Congress). Journal of the House of Representatives of the
United States, 91st Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1969), p. 1438.
180 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 91st Congress, H.Doc. 402, 90th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Lewis Deschler (Washington, DC: GPO, 1969), p. 387.
181 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker with Regard to Teller Votes,”
Congressional Record, vol. 117, part 3 (February 25, 1971), pp. 3383-3844.
182 Ibid.
Administration Committee Chairman Hays explained the relationship between the
electronic voting system and Members’ opportunity to vote:
When [the electronic voting system’s clock] 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 do183
so, and then he will lock the machine out, and that is the end of it.
On January 15, 1973, as noted above, Speaker Albert announced his policy on
electronic voting, and stated that the electronic voting system would be operative
eight days later. In his policy statement, the Speaker announced that, when the time
to vote had reached “0:00,” vote stations would remain open “until the Chair declares
the vote to be closed and announces the final result.” He added that vote stations
would be closed at this point to the “acceptance of further votes.”184
During the 93rd Congress (1973-1975), following inauguration of voting by
electronic device, presiding officers established practices and precedents related to
the electronic voting system and affecting the duration of a vote. While Members
were responding to a quorum call (an example mentioned earlier), a Member
demanded regular order. The Speaker responded:
The regular order is the establishment of a quorum and the rule provides a
minimum of 15 minutes for Members to respond. Clause 5 of rule XV states that185
Members have “not less than 15 minutes to have their presence recorded.”
183 Rep. Wayne L. Hays, “Electronic Voting in the House of Representatives,”
Congressional Record, vol. 118, part 27 (October 13, 1972), p. 36006.
184 Speaker Carl Albert, “Electronic Voting,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 1
(January 15, 1973), p. 1055.
185 Speaker Carl Albert, “The Special Constitutional Power and Duty of Impeachment by the
House of Representatives,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 14 (June 6, 1973), p.
In the 105 Congress (1997-1999), when a Member demanded regular order after a
vote had continued beyond 15 minutes, the Speaker stated that 15 minutes was a minimum,
that the presiding officer “has the option of keeping the vote open longer,” and that “this is
regular order.” Rep. Steny H. Hoyer and Speaker Newt Gingrich, “District of Columbia
Appropriations, Medical Liability Reform, and Education Reform Act of 1998,”
Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 15 (October 9, 1997), p. 22017. th
A Member made a parliamentary inquiry in the 108 Congress (2003-2005) about the
duration of a vote past 17 minutes. The Speaker pro tempore responded, “...the Chair has
the discretion either to close a vote and to announce the result at any time after 15 minutes
have elapsed or to allow additional time for Members to record their votes before
announcing the result.” Rep. Steny H. Hoyer and Speaker Pro Tempore Mac Thornberry,
“District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2004,” Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 16th
(September 9, 2003), p. 21556. Several Members in the 108 Congress inquired about the
duration of a five-minute vote that lasted more than five minutes, and the Speaker pro
tempore responded, “There is no House rule that limits the time. Rule XX provides a
minimum time,” and that the vote would be held open, “[u]ntil all the Members wishing to
vote have voted.” Speaker Pro Tempore Michael K. Simpson, “Motion to Instruct Conferees
(continued...)
Since this clause was also incorporated by reference in Rule XXIII, cl. 2 pertaining
to the Committee of the Whole, a chairman of the Committee of the Whole, as
mentioned earlier, established the same precedent in ruling on a point of order that
fewer than 100 Members had responded to a quorum call. The chairman stated:
The Chair understands the rule, and clause 5, rule XV provides a minimum, not
a maximum, of 15 minutes for Members to respond on any quorum call. The
Chair can exercise his discretion to continue the quorum call if the Chair desires186
to do so.
In the 94th Congress (1975-1977), Speaker Albert announced a procedure that
affected Members seeking to vote after the 15-minute voting period. He stated that
the voting machines would be turned off and that Members who had not yet voted
could continue to vote but only by submitting a ballot card. While the purpose of
turning off the voting machines was principally aimed at Members wishing to change
a vote (as explained in the next part, Members Changing Their Vote), any late-187
arriving Member who had not yet voted was also affected.
In the 96th Congress (1979-1981), a Member made a point of order after a
Speaker pro tempore stated that all time had expired. One or more Members
apparently had not voted or had not yet changed their vote. Representative John M.
Ashbrook cited precedents that a Member who failed to vote could insist that his or
her vote be recorded, even if the presiding officer had declared the result of a vote.
The Speaker pro tempore responded, “Those precedents apply only to rollcalls
185 (...continued)
on S.Con.Res. 95, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, remarks in the House, vol. 150 (March 30, 2004), p.
H1661. The Speaker pro tempore reiterated the minimum duration of a 15-minute vote inth
response to parliamentary inquiries on another vote in the 108 Congress. Speaker Pro
Tempore Steven C. LaTourette, “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2828, Water Supply,
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
150 (July 9, 2004), p. H5409. A similar response was made to a parliamentary inquiry in the
Committee of the Whole. “Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150
(July 8, 2004), p. H5374.
186 “Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974,” Congressional Record, vol. 120,
part 18 (July 17, 1974), p. 23673. See also footnote 153.th
In the 108 Congress (2003-2005), several Members made parliamentary inquiries
about the duration of a 15-minute vote after more than 15 minutes had passed. The chairman
of the Committee of the Whole responded that the “minimum” time to vote was 15 minutes
and, “...if there are Members in the well attempting to vote, the vote will remain open.”
“Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2005,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (July 8, 2004), p.
H5374.
187 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 121,
part 22 (September 17, 1975), p. 28903.
preceding the installation of the electronic device and are not a precedent for holding
the vote by electronic device open indefinitely.”188
A Member in the 100th Congress (1987-1989) made a parliamentary inquiry
about voting after a Speaker pro tempore announced on a vote, “All time has
expired.” The Member asked whether, after the announcement, Members could cast
votes. The Speaker pro tempore responded, “The Chair will state that the rules of the
House state that the rollcall will be open for a minimum of 15 minutes, and that
beyond that it is at the discretion of the Chair.”189
A motion to adjourn and a record vote on it followed. Representative Mickey
Edwards made a parliamentary inquiry into the length of votes:
Mr. Speaker, you have now announced that all time has expired. I am quite
familiar with the policy of this Chair. Under the rules of the House could the
Parliamentarian instruct us whether under the rules at this point additional votes
may be cast now that the Chair has announced that time has expired?
Speaker Jim Wright responded that the chair “will state that the rules of the House
state that the rollcall will be open for a minimum of 15 minutes, and that beyond that190
it is at the discretion of the Chair.”
This specific situation is discussed more below in the section Issues Related to
Voting since 1970: Holding Votes Open.
Speakers’ Policies, 102nd - 105th Congresses. Speaker Foley announcednd
a new policy on voting by electronic device in the 102 Congress (1991-1993).
Regarding late-arriving Members, the Speaker’s policy was exhortatory. He indicated
that the presiding officer would not “attempt to prevent a Member who is in the
Chamber at the expiration of [the minimum 15 minutes] from casting his or her
vote....” Rather, the Speaker “would encourage” all Members to leave their locations
for the floor “promptly” when the bells were sounded to indicate a vote.191 Therd
Speaker continued this policy in the 103 Congress (1993-1995), but added that he
was “advising the Cloakrooms that they should not forward to the Chair individual
requests to hold open a vote by electronic device, but should simply apprise inquiring
Members of the time remaining on the voting clock.”192
188 Rep. John M. Ashbrook and Speaker Pro Tempore Lloyd Meeds, “The Journal,”
Congressional Record, vol. 124, part 6 (March 14, 1978), p. 6839.
189 Rep. Mickey Edwards and Speaker Pro Tempore Brian J. Donnelly, “Adjournment,”
Congressional Record, vol. 133, part 21 (October 29, 1987), p. 30239.
190 Rep. Mickey Edwards and Speaker Jim Wright, “Parliamentary Inquiry,” Congressional
Record, vol. 133, part 21 (October 29, 1987), p. 30239.
191 Speaker Pro Tempore Dan Glickman, “Policies of the Chair,” Congressional Record, vol.
192 Speaker Pro Tempore Kweisi Mfume, “ Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), p. 106.
In the 104th Congress (1995-1997), Speaker Gingrich made a firmer policy
announcement. The two substantive departures from Speaker Foley’s policy were,
first, that Members in the well, not simply in the chamber, would not be prevented
from voting, and, second, the Speaker would support the presiding officer in “striving
to close” a vote at “the earliest opportunity.”193 He also indicated in remarks to the
House following his election as Speaker that the House would attempt to hold votes
to a 17-minute duration.194
Speaker Gingrich’s policy was put to the test in a dispute over a vote on June
21, 1995. The ayes and noes stood at 213-214 when the chairman of the Committee
of the Whole announced the result of a vote.195 Two Democratic Members, who
reportedly intended to vote “aye,” were apparently rushing down the aisles into the
well when the chairman announced the result. Pursuant to the Speaker’s policy on the
duration of votes, this vote had been open for about 17 minutes: the Republican
leader the next day said 17 minutes and 10 seconds; two Democratic Members who
had been prevented from voting said 16 minutes and 45 seconds; and the Democratic
leader said other votes, including the vote following the disputed tally, were held
open longer than 17 minutes to accommodate Members.196
The next day, June 22, Majority Leader Dick Armey stated that, after reviewing
the videotape of the vote, “it is quite clear that the Chair...was on solid parliamentary
ground when he called the vote....” He said the chairman had already stopped the
announcement of the result to allow a Democratic Member to vote, that the well was
empty of Members, and that a Republican Member subsequently arrived too late to
vote and was unable to do so. Nonetheless, prior to asking unanimous consent in the
House to vacate the June 21 vote in the Committee of the Whole and to allow a vote
de novo, Mr. Armey explained why he was pursuing this course:
...I know all too well that once the perception of unfairness and arbitrariness has
set in, it is difficult to undo regardless of the facts of the matter. ...we should all,
in each and every act of conduct, no matter how small, always put the honor and
the dignity of this body ahead of the politics or even, for that matter the political197
subtlety of the moment.
193 Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Policies of the Chair,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1
(January 4, 1995), p. 552.
194 Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Election of Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1
(January 4, 1995), p. 444. See also footnote 165 regarding a Speaker pro tempore’s
response, a month after Speaker Gingrich’s announcement, to a parliamentary inquiry on
holding a vote open for approximately 20 minutes to allow late-arriving Members to vote.
195 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 12
(June 21, 1995), p. 16683.
196 Reps. Dick Armey, Thomas M. Foglietta, Earl F. Hilliard, and Richard A. Gephardt,
“Fairness in House Voting Procedures,” “Vacation of Rollcall 405 and Making in Order De
Novo Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. Fazio of California, As Amended,” and
“Permission for Sundry Members to Address the House for 5 Minutes Each,” Congressional
Record, vol. 141, part 12 (June 22, 1995), pp. 16814-16816.
197 Rep. Dick Armey, “Fairness in House Voting Procedures,” Congressional Record, vol.
(continued...)
Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt stated that the Democrats’ “version of the
facts is different” from the majority leader’s, but that what the majority leader was
seeking to do was “right.” He stated that the Members “were in the Chamber, were
trying very much to get into the well....”198 Representative Thomas M. Foglietta, one
of the Democratic Members who sought to vote, said that a Member had cried out,
“One more vote, one more vote!” as Mr. Foglietta passed him.199
Since there was no objection to the majority leader’s unanimous consent request
for a vote de novo in the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker ordered it and then
reiterated his policy on voting by electronic device.200 The House later resolved into
the Committee of the Whole and the amendment was agreed to, 220-204.201 (More
information on the dispute over this vote appears below in the section Issues Related
to Voting since 1970: Members Attempting to Vote.)
At the convening of the 105th Congress (1997-1999), Speaker Gingrich
reiterated his policy.202 Later in the 105th Congress, after consultation with the
minority leader, the Speaker announced a “reaffirmation” of the policy, stating as
well that the presiding officer would seek to close votes “after no more than 17
minutes.” The Speaker continued:
Although no occupant of the chair will prevent a Member who is visible to the
Chair before the announcement of the result from casting or changing his or her
vote, each occupant of the chair will have the full support of the Speaker in203
striving to close each electronic vote at the earliest opportunity.
197 (...continued)
198 Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, “Vacation of Rollcall 405 and Making in Order De Novo Vote
on Amendment Offered by Mr. Fazio of California, As Amended,” Congressional Record,
vol. 141, part 12 (June 22, 1995), pp. 16814-16815.
199 Rep. Thomas M. Foglietta, “Permission for Sundry Members to Address the House for
200 Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Permission for Sundry Members to Address the House for 5
Minutes Each,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 12 (June 22, 1995), p. 16815.
201 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 12
(June 22, 1995), pp. 16823-16825.
202 Speaker Pro Tempore Ray LaHood, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore on
Procedures for the 105th Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 1 (January 7,
203 Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol.
In the 109 Congress (2005-2007), a Speaker pro tempore in response to a
parliamentary inquiry concerning the duration of a vote indicated that a vote would be held
open until “he believes that Members have finished voting.” Speaker Pro Tempore Lee
Terry, “Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151
(continued...)
106th Congress to the Present. In the 108th Congress (2003-2005), a vote
in the House was held open for approximately three hours. The Congressional
Record does not show any parliamentary inquiries occurring during the conduct of
the vote, although after the vote Members coupled criticism of the duration of the
vote with parliamentary inquiries that ultimately resulted in a record vote on the
motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on agreeing to a conference204
report.
Subsequently, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi raised a question of the privileges
of the House and submitted a resolution that recited certain facts concerning the
duration of the vote and House policies and practices and allegations about pressures
brought to bear to influence one Member’s vote. The resolve clause of the resolution
stated:
That the House denounces this action in the strongest terms possible, rejects the
practice of holding votes open beyond a reasonable period of time for the sole
purpose of circumventing the will of the House, and directs the Speaker to take205
such steps as necessary to prevent any further abuse.
The Speaker pro tempore ruled that the resolution constituted a question of the206
privileges of the House. While after debate the House voted to table the resolution,
the parliamentarian’s notes cited the Speaker’s ruling for its precedential value.207
203 (...continued)
(November 17, 2005), p. H10530.
204 “Conference Report on H.R. 1, Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (November 21,
205 Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Privileges of the House — Circumventing the Will of the House by
Holding Votes Open beyond a Reasonable Period,” Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 149 (December 8, 2003), p. H12846.
206 Ibid. (Speaker Pro Tempore Steven C. LaTourette.) Debate and voting on the resolution
appear in the Congressional Record on pp. H12486-H12854.
Minority Leader Pelosi called up a second, similar privileges of the House resolutionth
in the 109 Congress (2005-2007), noting the “recurring practice” of holding votes open and
reciting additional assertions over the events surrounding the November 21, 2003,
prescription drug conference report vote. The Speaker pro tempore ruled that Rep. Pelosi’s
resolution presented a question of the privileges of the House. After the reading of the
resolution and the Speaker pro tempore’s ruling, a motion to table was made, which was
agreed to. “Privileges of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151
(December 8, 2005), pp. H11264-H11266.
“[N]o point of order lies against the decision of the Chair in his discretion to close a
vote taken by electronic device after 15 minutes have elapsed.” Brown and Johnson, House
Practice, pp. 926-927.
207 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 109th Congress, H.Doc. 108-241, 108th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by John V. Sullivan (Washington, DC: GPO, 2005), p. 799.
This matter is discussed more fully in the section below, Issues Related to Voting
since 1970: Exchanging a Vote for a Benefit.208
When Democrats organized the House after winning the majority in the 110th
Congress (2007-2009), a widely publicized change209 was made to House Rule XX,
cl. 2, the clause that makes voting by electronic device the customary method of
voting and that establishes a minimum voting time of 15 minutes. The rules change
to this clause added the sentence:
A record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of210
reversing the outcome of such.
208 An incidence of a quorum call being closed too early occurred in the 106th Congress
(1999-2001). A chairman of the Committee of the Whole apparently announced the result
of a quorum call while several Members were in the well with cards to record their presence.
After announcing the result of the quorum, the chair immediately put the question on an
amendment. After the result of the vote was announced, a Member asked what remedy there
was for the Members who were in the well for the quorum call. The chair stated, “There is
no remedy under the rules to reopen the quorum call.” The Member then moved that the
committee rise, and a recorded vote was demanded and ordered. After the result of this vote
was announced — the motion was defeated — the chair made this statement:
The Chair would apologize to Members for failing to notice them in the Chamber
attempting to record their presence until after he had announced the result of
quorum call No. 285. The Chair mistakenly believed that he had embarked on a
subsequent vote and that it was too late to permit Members to record their
presence. The Chair specifically apologizes to the following members: Mr.
Bishop, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Doggett, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms.
McKinney, and Mr. Abercrombie, and if any other Member feels similarly
afflicted, if they would notify the Chair, the Chair would be happy to include
them in a subsequent announcement.
Two Democratic Members thanked the chair for his “wonderful” performance in the
chair, and the House moved on with the amendment process. “Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001,” Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 8
(June 15, 2000), pp. 11096-11098. (Rep. Steven C. LaTourette was in the chair.)
The parliamentarian’s notes concerning this incident explained, “...a recorded vote or
quorum call may not be reopened once the Chair has announced the result....” U.S.
Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House ofththnd
Representatives of the United States, 107 Congress, H.Doc. 106-320, 106 Cong., 2 sess.,
prepared by Charles W. Johnson (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 773.th
In the 100 Congress (2007-2009), the manner by which a vote was terminated resulted
in the creation of a temporary committee, the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting
Irregularities of August 2, 2007. The dispute over this vote is explained in the section
Investigations Related to Votes and Voting.
209 See, for example, Susan Ferrechio, “House Democrats Keep Term Limits,” CQ Today,
January 4, 2007, pp. 1, 4; “Pelosi Elected Speaker, First Woman to Lead House,” Fox News,
January 4, 2007 (available online at
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241535,00.html]); and Susan Davis, “GOP Sees
Hypocrisy in Rules,” Roll Call, January 4, 2007, pp. 1, 31.
210 Added by Sec. 302 of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House January 4, 2007.
In furtherance of this rule, when Speaker Pelosi announced the policies of the
chair for the 110th Congress, she modified the policy on voting by electronic device.
One phrase was deleted: “each occupant of the chair will have the full support of the
Speaker in striving to close each electronic vote at the earliest opportunity.” In its
place, Speaker Pelosi announced: “Members will be given a reasonable amount of
time in which to accurately record their votes.”211
Parliamentary inquiries early in the 110th Congress sought to clarify the
operation of this new rules provision. One inquiry asked whether the outcome of the
vote was the tally when voting time expired after 15 minutes. A Speaker pro tempore
stated that 15 minutes was a minimum period and that on the first vote of the day “a
longer time may be necessary to complete the vote.”212
In response to a different parliamentary inquiry, a Speaker pro tempore
reiterated that 15 minutes was the minimum duration of a vote and that it was the
“responsibility of the Chair to see to it that each and every Member...who responds
to the vote has a chance to record his or her vote.” He said, “After [15 minutes], it is
in the discretion of the Chair in order to allow all Members a reasonable opportunity
to vote.” The Speaker pro tempore specifically addressed the new rules provision as
follows:
It is true under clause 2(a) of rule XX, a vote by electronic device “shall not be
held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.” In
conducting a vote by electronic device, the Chair is constrained to differentiate
between activity toward the establishment of an outcome on the one hand, and
activity that might have as its purpose the reversal of an already-established
outcome, on the other. The Chair also must be mindful that, even during a vote
by electronic device, Members may vote by card in the well. So long as Members
are recording their votes — even after the minimum period prescribed for a given
question — the Chair will not close a vote to the disenfranchisement of a district213
whose representative is trying to vote.
The language of this response, concerning the establishment as opposed to the
reversal of an outcome, was used again in response to a parliamentary inquiry
concerning the prevailing side. The inquiry occurred at a point some time after the
minimum 15 minutes for voting. Members subsequently changed their vote, and the
other side prevailed.214
211 Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 153 (January 5, 2007), p. H60. Speaker Pelosi’s policy on voting by electronic
device appears in Appendix A.
212 Speaker Pro Tempore Michael E. Capuano, “Motion to Adjourn,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 153 (January 18, 2007), p. H678.
213 Speaker Pro Tempore Michael R. McNulty, “Parliamentary Inquiries,” Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (March 14, 2007), pp. 2515-2516.
214 Speaker Pro Tempore Nick J. Rahall II, “Department of Homeland Security
Authorization Act fo Fiscal Year 2008,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (May
Representative Lynn A. Westmoreland twice raised a point of order based on
the new rule. On June 27, 2007, a chairman of the Committee of the Whole
responded, “The vote was kept open to do the numerical calculation to see if the
votes of the Delegates would change the outcome.”215 On May 8, 2008, Mr.
Westmoreland received a more extensive response from a chairman of the
Committee of the Whole to his point of order:
The Chair has considered whether the new sentence in clause 2(a) of rule XX
should be enforceable in real time. The black letter of the rule is not dispositive.
It uses the mandatory “shall.” It might just as well say “should,” inasmuch as it
is setting a standard of behavior for presiding officers. For this reason the Chair
thinks it more sensible to enforce the rule on collateral bases, as by a question of
the privileges of the House. A set of “whereas” clauses in the preamble of a
resolution could allege the facts and circumstances tending to indicate a violation
more coherently than they could be articulated in argument on a point of order
or in debate on an appeal. The resolving clause of a resolution could propose a
fitting remedy, rather than requiring the instant selection of a remedy in the face
of competing demands for vitiation of the putative result, reversal of the putative
result, or admonishment of the presiding officer. The Chair finds that the new
sentence in clause 2(a) of rule XX does not establish a point of order having an
immediate procedural remedy. Rather than contemplating a ruling from the Chair
in real time, the language should be understood to establish a standard of216
behavior for presiding officers that might be enforced on collateral bases.
A number of points of order and parliamentary inquiries in the 110th Congress
related to the new rule appear in Appendices C and D, respectively.
Members Changing Their Vote. The parliamentarian’s notes in the House
Rules and Manual prior to the use of the electronic voting system explained when
Members could change their vote:
Before the result of a vote has been finally and conclusively pronounced by the
Chair, but not thereafter, a Member may change his vote..., and a Member who217
has answered”present” may change it to “yea” or “nay”....
When voting by electronic device began in 1973, Speaker Albert announced that
voting stations would remain open until the presiding officer “declare[d] the vote to
be closed and announce[d] the final result,” at which time the voting stations would
be closed and the summary panel would indicate “FINAL”.218
215 “Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
216 “Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154
(May 8, 2008), p. 3193.
217 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 91st Congress, H.Doc. 402, 90th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Lewis Deschler (Washington, DC: GPO, 1969), p. 388.
218 Speaker Carl Albert, “Electronic Voting,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 1
(January 15, 1973), pp. 1055-1057.
By the 94th Congress (1975-1977), the Speaker implemented a new policy, to
take effect September 22, 1975, disallowing Members from changing their votes by
electronic device. The Speaker explained he had consulted with leadership and
others, such as Members serving on the House Administration Committee, but did
not explain what had occasioned the change. Press reports noted that the leadership
of both parties wished to keep better track of Members’ votes and to reduce the
number of position changes during a vote.219
The Speaker announced that, after the 15-minute voting period, he would
continue the practice of asking if there were Members wishing to vote. He would
then ask if there were Members wishing to change their vote. A Member wishing to
change a vote would come to the well of the House, announce the change when his
or her name was called, and submit a green (“yea” or “aye”), red (“no”), or amber
(“present”) ballot card to the tally clerk showing the changed vote. The tally clerk
would enter the change in the electronic voting system, and the change would be
shown on the display panels.220
Subsequently, Speaker Albert modified the procedure for Members to change
their votes, effective March 22, 1976. He announced that Members would be able,
during the first 10 minutes of a vote, to change their vote at the voting stations. To
change a vote after the first 10 minutes, a Member would need to go to the well of
the House and follow the procedures previously outlined. The Speaker also stated
that a Member would need to go to the well to change a vote cast during a five-
minute vote.221
When the 95th Congress (1977-1979) convened, Speaker O’Neill announced that
the voting policies announced by Speaker Albert in the previous Congress would
continue in effect, with one change. Speaker O’Neill stated that, effective
immediately, Members could change their vote at voting stations throughout a five-
minute vote. Once the voting machines were turned off at the completion of the five-
minute voting period, a Member wishing to change a vote would need to go to the
well and follow procedures for changing a vote.222
In response to a parliamentary inquiry in the 109th Congress (2005-2007), a
Speaker pro tempore reiterated that, once the electronic voting machines were turned
off, a Member must go to the well to change a vote.223
219 See, for example, “House Vote Changes,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol.
XXXIII, no. 38, September 20, 1975, p. 1994.
220 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 121,
part 22 (September 17, 1975), p. 28903.
221 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker — Change in Electronic Voting
System,” Congressional Record, vol. 122, part 6 (March 22, 1976), p. 7394.
222 Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional
Record, vol. 123, part 1 (January 4, 1977), pp. 73-74.
223 Speaker Pro Tempore Lee Terry, “Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006,” Congressional Record,
(continued...)
Absence, Failure to Vote, Recusal from Voting, and Proxy Voting.
Rule III, cl. 1 (Rule VIII, cl. 1 before recodification) has its origin in the First
Congress.224 It states:
Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the House during its sitting,
unless excused or necessarily prevented, and shall vote on each question put,
unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question.
The parliamentarian’s notes in the House Rules and Manual have stated throughout
the time frame of this report, “It has been found impracticable to enforce the
provision requiring every Member to vote....”225 Leaves of absence — permission
formally granted to be absent during proceedings — are normally given for “‘official
business,’ personal illness, illness in the member’s family, or military service in
wartime.”226
Regarding a “personal or pecuniary interest,” the parliamentarian’s notes in the
House Rules and Manual comment, “The weight of authority also favors the idea that
there is no authority in the House to deprive a Member of the right to vote.... ...The
Speaker has held that the Member himself and not the Chair should determine this
question....”227
In addition, throughout the time frame of this report, even before the adoption
of a specific rule, Members could not vote by proxy in the House.228
Rules and Precedents after the LRA. In the 94th Congress (1975-1977),
Speaker Albert recognized Representative Robert E. Bauman for a parliamentary
inquiry, which dealt with issues related to voting and a Member’s “direct personal
or pecuniary interest” under Rule VIII, cl. 1. The inquiry was posited in anticipation
of House consideration of the New York City “bailout” legislation (H.R. 10481; P.L.
94-143). Representative Bauman asked whether a vote on this legislation, by a
Member who personally or whose spouse held a financial interest in New York City
such as bonds or pensions, would be a conflict of interest for the Member. The
measure to be considered authorized guarantees of the city’s obligations.
The Speaker divided his response into two parts. In the first part, he referred to
precedents, such as a ruling by Speaker Nicholas Longworth, that “the personal
223 (...continued)
daily edition, vol. 151 (November 17, 2005), p. H10530.
224 Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1st Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1
(Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 9.
225 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, p. 376.
226 Walter Kravitz, American Congressional Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press,
227 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, p. 376.
228 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 91st Congress, H.Doc. 402, 90th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Lewis Deschler (Washington, DC: GPO, 1969), p. 319.
interest of Members who belong to the class is not such as to disqualify them from
voting.” Speaker Albert noted the general nature of the “bailout” legislation: “While
it...in its present form would have an immediate effect on only one State, the reported
bill comprehends all States and territories.” In the second part, Speaker Albert
pointed to other precedents indicating that a Member himself must decide what is a
disqualifying interest and that the presiding officer lacks “authority to deprive the
constitutional right of a Member to vote....”229
Speaker O’Neill made a similar ruling on a point of order in the 96th Congress
(1979-1981) that a Member named in a resolution to expel him from the House
should not vote on questions related to the resolution. The Speaker stated:
Because the Chair severely doubts his authority to deprive the constitutional right
of a Member to vote, and because of the overwhelming weight of precedent, the
Chair holds that each Member should make his or her own determination
whether or not a personal or pecuniary interest in a pending matter should cause230
him to withhold his vote.”
Also in the 96th Congress, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
undertook an investigation of “ghost” voting. Although the Members investigated
were not charged, the committee found House rules to be ambiguous and
recommended amendment of the rules. (See the section on Issues Related to Voting
since 1970: “Ghost” Voting.) In adopting its rules for the 97th Congress, the House
added a new clause 3 to House Rule VIII. The new provision was as follows:
3. (a) A Member may not authorize any other individual to cast his vote or record
his presence in the House or Committee of the Whole.
(b) No individual other than a Member may cast a vote or record a Member’s
presence in the House or Committee of the Whole.
(c) A Member may not cast a vote for any other Member or record another231
Member’s presence in the House or Committee of the Whole.
Members’ Announcement of Their Position after a Vote. Following
the inauguration of the electronic voting system in the 93rd Congress, Speaker Albert
ruled that the presiding officer was without authority to entertain a unanimous
consent agreement to make a correction to the record, despite Members’ explanations
229 Rep. Robert E. Bauman and Speaker Carl Albert, “Parliamentary Inquiries,”
Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 29 (December 2, 1975), p. 38135.th
A parliamentary inquiry made in the 104 Congress was similar. The chairman of the
Committee of the Whole was asked whether a Member with “substantial” business interests
could vote on amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act “since obviously this would
affect very much their bottom line on their balance sheet.” The chairman responded, “Rule
VIII commends questions of that sort to individual Members.” “Working Families
Flexibility Act of 1996,” Congressional Record, vol. 142, part 14 (July 30, 1996), p. 19952.
230 Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, “Privileges of the House — Proceedings against
Charles C. Diggs Jr.,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 3 (March 1, 1979), p. 3748.
231 Para. 4 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 5, 1981.
that their votes had been wrongly recorded by the electronic voting system. The
statements nonetheless appeared in the Congressional Record.232
In the 106th Congress (1999-2001), the House adopted its rules for the new
Congress and thereby deleted the previous rule on pairing in favor of a practice of
Members announcing their positions. As explained by Representative David Dreier,
Members could place a statement in the Congressional Record showing how they
would have voted. If a statement was submitted to the clerk within “1 to 2 hours” of
a vote, it would not need to be read, and would appear immediately after the vote. If
a statement was submitted later, a Member could ask unanimous consent to have his
or her statement appear immediately after the vote.233 Additional discussion of
position announcements appears in the section Issues Relating to Voting since 1970:
Members’ Personal Explanations on Votes.
Pairs. Pairing was a procedure allowing Members who were absent to
voluntarily agree to offset their votes and thus not affect the outcome of a vote.234 The
parties had staff — pairing clerks — who facilitated these agreements. In a general
pair, the Members’ positions were unknown. In a specific pair, Members had made
their position known to a pairing clerk and requested that their position be offset. In
the Congressional Record, the Members’ positions were noted. In a live pair, one
Member was present, voted, then announced that he or she had a live pair with a
Member who was absent and withdrew the vote, and stated the two Members’
positions. Live pairs were reported in the Congressional Record. Live pairs are
permitted in limited circumstances today, as explained below.235
Two principles worth keeping in mind were that a pair on a vote requiring two-
thirds required three Members, two on one side of the question and one on the other,
and that there was no recourse in the House to a Member breaking a pair (not236
following through on a previous commitment to make a pair).
The House, in agreeing to H.Res. 1123 on October 13, 1972, changed Rule VIII,
cl. 2 related to the announcement of pairs. This clause had directed that pairs be
announced after the second call of the roll. With voting by electronic device, there
would not be a roll call as anticipated by the clause. H.Res. 1123 changed the rule so
232 Rep. Robert O. Tiernan and Speaker Carl Albert, “Personal Announcement,”
Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 10 (April 18, 1973), p. 13081; and Rep. Ray J. Madden
and Speaker Carl Albert, “Personal Announcement,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part
233 Rep. David Dreier, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1
(January 6, 1999), p. 77.
234 Walter Kravitz, American Congressional Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press,
235 For additional information on pairing, see CRS Report 98-970, Pairing in Congressional
Voting: The House, by Christopher M. Davis.
236 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 91st Congress, H.Doc. 402, 90th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Lewis Deschler (Washington, DC: GPO, 1969), p. 320.
that pairs would be announced immediately before the presiding officer’s
announcement of the result of a vote.237
On January 15, 1973, Speaker Albert announced in his policies on electronic
voting that the practice of not allowing pairs in the Committee of the Whole would
continue. He also announced that a Member in the chamber wishing to be paired with
a Member not present should record himself as present, and, then, at the “conclusion
of the voting period” seek recognition to state his desire to create a pair.238
In agreeing to H.Res. 5, adopting rules for the 94th Congress (1975-1977), the
House amended Rule VIII, cl. 2 to allow pairs in the Committee of the Whole as well
as the House.239
106 Congress (1999-2001), the House ended the practice of pairing except for live
pairs. The previous rule that allowed pairing, clause 2 of Rule VIII, was deleted.
Most House rules related to voting and quorums were recodified in a new Rule XX,
and Rule XX, cl. 3 now pertained to the conduct of a record vote or quorum call by
call of the roll. A new last sentence to this clause provided: “Members appearing
after the second call [of the roll], but before the result is announced, may vote or240
announce a pair.”
Representative David Dreier explained the change as follows:
The practice of pairing, which involves absent Members arranging with other
absent Members on opposite sides of a specific question the ability to stipulate
how they would have voted, would be eliminated in favor of the more certain
system of putting a statement in the Record as to how the Member would have
voted, which appears immediately after the vote. The headings for these
statements will read “stated yea” or “stated nay.” These statements do not have
to be read from the floor if they are submitted in a timely fashion to the clerks,
generally 1 to 2 hours after the vote. If a significant time has elapsed since the
vote, a Member can ask unanimous consent on the floor that his statement of how241
he might have voted appear immediately after the vote.
In a section-by-section analysis of changes to House rules contained in H.Res.
5 that Mr. Dreier inserted in the Congressional Record, the option of a live pair was
explained:
237 Para. (c) of H.Res. 1123, agreed to in the House October 13, 1972.
238 Speaker Carl Albert, “Electronic Voting,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 1
(January 15, 1973), p. 1055.
239 Para. (2) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 14, 1975.
240 Sec. 1 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 6, 1999. While the sentence on a live
pair appears in Rule XX, cl. 3, pertaining to a call of the roll, a live pair was allowed on a
vote taken by electronic device. See “Medicare Prescription drug and Modernization Act of
241 Rep. David Dreier, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1
(January 6, 1999), p. 77.
12. Abolishment of pairs other than “live pairs.” The practice of pairing, which
involves absent Members arranging with other absent Members on opposite sides
of a specified question the ability to stipulate how they would have voted, would
no longer be permitted. However, “live pairs,” which involved an agreement
between one Member who is present and voting and another on the opposite side242
of the question, who is absent, would continue to be permitted.
Correction of a Member’s Vote. On the advent of voting by electronic
device in the House, the parliamentarian’s notes in the House Rules and Manual
explained the prevailing parliamentary understanding for a Member to correct his or
her vote:
When a vote actually given fails to be recorded...the Member may, before the
approval of the Journal, demand as a matter of right that correction be
made....But statements of other Members as to alleged errors in a recorded vote
must be very definite and positive to justify the Speaker in ordering a change of243
the roll....
Within months of the first use of the electronic voting system on January 23,
1973, Members sought to correct their positions on recorded votes. Despite
Members’ explanations that their votes had been wrongly recorded by the electronic
voting system, Speaker Albert ruled that the presiding officer was without authority
to entertain a unanimous consent agreement to make a correction. The statements
appeared in the Congressional Record.244 The parliamentarian’s notes explained:
The Speaker declines to entertain requests to correct the Journal and Record on
votes taken by electronic device, based upon the technical accuracy of the
electronic system if properly utilized and upon the responsibility of each Member245
to correctly cast and verify his vote....”
242 “Section-by-Section Summary of Substantive Changes Contained in H.Res. 5 —
Adopting House Rules for the 106th Congress.” Rep. David Dreier, “Rules of the House,”
Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1 (January 6, 1999), p. 80.
243 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 91st Congress, H.Doc. 402, 90th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Lewis Deschler (Washington, DC: GPO, 1969), p. 388.
244 Rep. Robert O. Tiernan and Speaker Carl Albert, “Personal Announcement,”
Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 10 (April 18, 1973), p. 13081; and Rep. Ray J. Madden
and Speaker Carl Albert, “Personal Announcement,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part
A Member raised this issue again in the 99 Congress, and a Speaker pro tempore
similarly refused the Member’s request for a change in a vote conducted by electronic
device. Rep. Fernand J. St. Germain and Speaker Pro Tempore G.V. “Sonny” Montgomery,
“Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, vol. 132, part 10 (June 17, 1986), p. 14038.
245 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 95th Congress, H.Doc. 94-663, 94th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Wm. Holmes Brown (Washington, DC: GPO, 1977), p. 501.
In the 97th Congress (1981-1983), however, the Speaker allowed a correction to
a vote taken by electronic device, which had resulted from an error in identifying the
signature on a voting card.246
In the 106th Congress (1999-2001), a correction was made by unanimous
consent to the Journal and the Congressional Record to deal with an apparent
anomalous malfunction of the electronic voting system. Representative Lucille
Roybal-Allard was absent from the House on June 21, 2000, and had her voting card
in her possession. Nonetheless, the voting system recorded a vote for her on one roll
call. As explained more fully below (in the section Issues Related to Voting since
1970: Inoperative Display Boards), the House Administration Committee
investigated the operation of the electronic voting system. In obtaining unanimous
consent on June 26 to correct the vote, the Speaker pro tempore explained:
...As stated in volume 14, Section 32 of Deschler-Brown Precedents:
Since the inception of the electronic system, the Speaker has resisted attempts to
permit corrections to the electronic tally after announcement of a vote. This
policy is based upon the presumptive reliability of the electronic device and upon
the responsibility of each Member to correctly cast and verify his or her vote.
Based upon the explanation received from the Chairman of the Committee on
House Administration and from the Clerk, the Chair will continue to presume the
reliability of the electronic device, so long as the Clerk is able to give that level247
of assurance which justifies a continuing presumption of its integrity....
This situation is discussed more fully in the section Issues Related to Voting
since 1970: Absent, But Displayed as Voting. Additional discussion of position
announcements appears in the section Issues Relating to Voting since 1970:
Members’ Personal Explanations on Votes.
Delegate Voting. In adopting its rules for the 103rd Congress (1993-1995), the
House allowed the Delegates and Resident Commissioner a new power: to vote in
the Committee of the Whole. Two changes were made to effect this privilege. First,
Rule XII was amended to contain a new clause 2:
In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Resident
Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico and each Delegate to the248
House shall possess the same powers and privileges as Members of the House.
246 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 98th Congress, H.Doc. 97-271, 97th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Wm. Holmes Brown (Washington, DC: GPO, 1983), p. 491.
247 Speaker Pro Tempore Ray LaHood, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 9 (June 26, 2000), p. 12371.
248 Para. 9 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 5, 1993.
Second, a new paragraph (d) was added to Rule XXIII, cl. 2:
Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided by a margin within
which the votes cast by the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner have been
decisive, the Committee of the Whole shall automatically rise and the Speaker
shall put that question de novo without intervening debate or other business.
Upon the announcement of the vote on that question, the Committee of the249
Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening motion.
During debate on the House rules package, Democratic Members portrayed this
change as a matter of fairness and democracy in action, and pointed out the services
of citizenship undertaken by residents of the territories, Puerto Rico, and the District
of Columbia. They argued that allowing the Delegates and Resident Commissioner
to vote in the Committee of the Whole did not flout constitutional requirements since
their votes could not affect the outcome of votes in the House.250
Republican Members’ arguments against the change were based on a
constitutional objection that only Representatives of states are Members of the
House;251 the matter that the constitutionality of Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner voting on committees had not been established; the disparity in
population among the territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia and
between the territories and congressional districts; and the return of federal income
tax receipts to the territories and Puerto Rico. Some Members also argued that,
practically, the votes of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner would be sought
to build a majority and, politically, the change reduced the Republicans’ election252
gains by half since the Delegates and Resident Commissioner were all Democrats.
During the 103rd Congress, an amendment was rejected in the Committee of the
Whole by a vote of 208-213, with three Delegates and the Resident Commissioner
voting and all voting in the negative. After the chairman announced the result,
Members made a series of parliamentary inquiries. After stating that the result would
have been the same — rejection of the amendment — had the Delegates and Resident
249 Para. (14) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 5, 1993.
250 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), pp. 49-
251 The Constitution states: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State
shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State
Legislature.” U.S. Const. art. I, §2, cl. 1. The Constitution also states: “No person shall be
a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been
seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant
of that State in which he shall be chosen.” U.S. Const. art I, §2, cl. 2.
Several Republican Members challenged in court the granting of voting rights in the
Committee of the Whole to Delegates and the Resident Commissioner. The court found the
rule valid since the votes were rendered “meaningless” in instances where they would be
decisive in a vote’s outcome. Michel v. Anderson, 817 F. Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1993), aff’d,
252 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), pp. 49-
Commissioner not voted, a chairman propounded a test of whether their votes would
be “decisive” under the rule: “But for the votes of the Delegates, the outcome would
have been different.”253
As part of the rules package for the 104th Congress (1995-1997) that the new
Republican majority agreed to, the two provisions described above were deleted from
House rules.254 While some Delegates addressed the change and argued on bases of
fairness and democratic principle, no Member argued another side during debate on
the House rules package.255
At the conclusion of the 105th Congress (1997-1999), District of Columbia
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton sought to raise the issue of Delegate voting through
a privileges of the House resolution (H.Res. 613). In anticipation of a vote on articles
of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, Delegate Norton sought a right to
vote in the House on “any resolution impeaching the President,” relying in part on
the Twenty-third Amendment, which provided three electoral votes to the District of
Columbia. The Speaker pro tempore allowed Ms. Norton to be heard on the matter
of whether her resolution constituted a question of the privileges of the House. She
argued for the resolution “to perfect the rights of District residents under the 23rd
amendment,” noting that Congress under the Amendment had the authority to
enforce it through legislation. The Speaker pro tempore, after citing the law giving
a seat but not voting rights to a District of Columbia Delegate and Rule XII confining
a Delegate’s voting rights to committee, ruled:
A question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to effect a change
in the rules or standing orders of the House. Altering the right to vote of a
Delegate is tantamount to a change in the rules of the House and is not a proper256
question of privilege.
The parliamentarian’s notes to the rules of the 106th Congress (1999-2001)
stated, “At the organization of the House, the Delegates and Resident Commissioner
are sworn...; but the Clerk does not put them on the roll....”257
253 “National Competitiveness Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 7 (May 19, 1993),
p. 10409.
254 Sec. 212 of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House January 4, 1995.
255 See, for example, Delegates Eleanor Holmes Norton and Robert A. Underwood, “Making
in Order Immediate Consideration of House Resolution Adopting the Rules of the Houseth
of Representatives for the 104 Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January
256 Speaker Pro Tempore Ray LaHood and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, “Privileges of
the House — Providing Vote for the Delegate to Congress from the District of Columbia in
Consideration of Presidential Impeachment Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 144,
part 19 (December 18, 1998), pp. 27825-27827.
257 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 106th Congress, H.Doc. 105-358, 105th Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Charles W. Johnson (Washington, DC: GPO, 1999), p. 362. The
parliamentarian’s notes cited as a contemporary reference “Official Roll of the
(continued...)
In the 110th Congress (2007-2009), a rules change again allowed Delegates and
the Resident Commissioner to vote in the Committee of the Whole, with the
possibility of an immediate revote in the House where their votes were decisive in
the outcome of a question.258
Rule III, cl. 3 was amended in part to provide:
(a) In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, each Delegate
and the Resident Commissioner shall possess the same powers and privileges as
Members of the House. ...
Rule XVIII, cl. 6 was amended to add a new paragraph:
(h) Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided by a margin
within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner
have been decisive, the Committee of the Whole shall rise and the Speaker shall
put such question de novo without intervening motion. Upon the announcement
of the vote on that question, the Committee of the Whole shall resume its sitting
without intervening motion.
Debate in the House was reminiscent of debate in the 103rd Congress.
Proponents of the change argued on the bases of fairness and democratic principle
and emphasized, since a revote in the House would occur if the Delegates’ votes were
decisive in the Committee of the Whole, the symbolic nature of the voting right
extended to the Delegates and Resident Commissioner. Opponents of the rules
change argued constitutionality, pointing to representation by states in the House and
the solely procedural differences between the House and the Committee of the
W hole. 259
Early in the 110th Congress, responses to parliamentary inquiries interpreted the
rules changes. On February 8, 2007, the colloquies excerpted here occurred:
The Speaker pro tempore. Rule XVIII contemplates automatic, immediate review
in the House of certain recorded votes in the Committee of the Whole.
...Mr. Price of Georgia. Under what circumstances will a separate vote not be
allowed?
The Speaker pro tempore. The Committee will not automatically rise for such an
immediate review in the case where votes cast by Delegates were not decisive.
257 (...continued)
Representatives-elect,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1 (January 6, 1999), pp. 41-42.
258 H.Res. 78, agreed to in the House January 24, 2007.
259 “Providing for Consideration of H.Res. 78, Permitting Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner to Cast Votes in the Committee of the Whole,” and “Permitting Delegates
and the Resident Commissioner to Cast Votes in the Committee of the Whole,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (January 24, 2007), pp. H891-H902 and
H903-H913.
...Mr. Price of Georgia. When a vote is not decisive, but a question put loses, is
there any opportunity for any Member, certified Member of the House, to ask for
a separate vote?
The Speaker pro tempore. Under clause 6(h) of rule XVIII, immediate review in
the House occurs automatically when recorded votes cast by Delegates were
decisive, without regard to whether the question was adopted or rejected. In
ordinary proceedings of the House on the ultimate report of the Committee of the
Whole, the House considers only matters reported to it by the Committee of the
Whole, which would not include propositions rejected in Committee.
...Mr. Price of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, since the House is sitting as the
Committee of the Whole, are the Delegates and Resident Commissioner
permitted to vote on all matters in the Committee of the Whole House?
The Chairman. Under clause 3(a) of rule III, the Delegates and Resident
Commissioner possess the same powers and privileges as Members in the
Committee of the Whole.
...Mr. Price of Georgia. ...on any matter in which the votes of the Delegates are
decisive in the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole, that those votes shall
be retaken in the full House and that the Delegates and Resident Commissioner
shall not be permitted to vote in the full House. Is that correct?
The Chairman. On recorded votes, yes, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. Price of Georgia. How is the Chair going to determine if the votes of the
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are decisive?
The Chairman. The test for determining whether the votes of the Delegates and
Resident Commissioner are decisive under 6(h) of rule XVIII is a “but for” test,
that is, would the outcome have been different had the Delegates and Resident
Commission not voted. The absence of some Members is irrelevant to this
determination.
...Mr. Price of Georgia. ...If the Chair determines that the votes of the Delegates
and the Resident Commissioner are not decisive, but a Member believes that in
fact they are, is it appropriate for a Member to lodge a point of order against the
Chair’s determination?
The Chairman. The Chair’s decision on a question of order is not subject to an
appeal if the decision is one that falls within the discretionary authority of the
Chair ...the Chair’s count of the votes of the Delegates and Resident
Commissioner is not subject to appeal.
...Mr. Price of Georgia. If the Chair determines that in fact the votes of the
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are not decisive, will the Chair include
those numbers when reporting the tally of the vote?
The Chairman. The gentleman is correct.
...Mr. Price of Georgia. ...is it correct that the number of individuals allowed to
vote in the Committee of the Whole shall be 440, and the number in the full
House shall be 435?
The Chairman. The gentleman is correct.
...Mr. Price of Georgia. Do the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner count
for the purposes of establishing and maintaining a quorum of the Committee of
the Whole House?
The Chairman. The gentleman is correct.
...Mr. Price of Georgia. If the Delegates and Resident Commissioner are allowed
to vote on everything in the Committee of the Whole and they vote on procedural
issues that may in fact affect the substantive nature of a bill, and if a procedural
vote is lost within a decisive margin, is there a mechanism to have a separate vote
in the full House on that procedural vote?
The Chairman. Under clause 6(h), an immediate vote in the House is
contemplated under those circumstances, given a recorded vote.
Mr. Price of Georgia. On that procedural vote?
The Chairman. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Blunt. Mr. Chairman, on the vote just taken, the Chair announced the vote
as 422-3. Should the Chair not have delineated the vote to properly reflect that
the vote was 418-3 of those Representatives representing the several States as
specified in the Constitution, and that the vote of those Delegates not
representing States was 4-0?
The Acting Chairman. No.260
Speaker’s Vote. The Speaker’s discretion to vote can be traced to the First261
Congress. Rule I, cl. 7 today provides: “The Speaker is not required to vote in
ordinary legislative proceedings, except when his vote would be decisive or when the
House is engaged in voting by ballot.” In addition, the parliamentarian’s notes in the
House Rules and Manual explain:
The Speaker may vote to make a tie and so decide a question in the negative, as
he may vote to break a tie and decide a question in the affirmative.... The duty
of giving a decisive vote may be exercised after the intervention of other
business, or after the announcement of the result or on another day, if a262
correction of the roll shows a condition wherein his vote would be decisive....
260 Reps. Tom Price and Roy Blunt, Speaker Pro Tempore Michael E. Capuano, Chairman
Michael R. McNulty, and Acting Chairman John F. Tierney, “Advanced Fuels Infrastructure
Research and Development Act,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (February
261 Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1st Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1
(Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 9.On a call of the roll, the Speaker’s name isth
called only at his request at the end of the roll. House Rules and Manual, 110 Congress,
p. 349.
262 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, p. 349.
In response to a parliamentary inquiry after the Speaker had cast a tie-breaking
vote in the 101st Congress (1989-1991), the Speaker explained that he announced his
vote and it was entered into the electronic voting system prior to his announcement
of the result.263 The parliamentarian’s notes in the House Rules and Manual
explained, “On an electronic vote, the Chair directs the Clerk to record him and
verifies that instruction by submitting a vote card....”264
Interruption of the Conduct of a Vote. The parliamentarian’s notes in the
House Rules and Manual explain:
When once begun the roll call may not be interrupted even by a motion to
adjourn..., a parliamentary inquiry...except in the discretion of the Chair and
related to the call..., a question of personal privilege..., the arrival of the time
fixed for another order of business...or for a recess..., or the presentation of a
conference report.... However, it is interrupted for the reception of messages and265
by the arrival of the hour fixed for adjournment sine die....
In the 98th Congress, a chair of the Committee of the Whole twice recognized
a Member for a parliamentary inquiry, following the announcement of a result of a
voice vote. In the first instance, he then ordered a recorded vote, indicating that the
parliamentary inquiry did not constitute intervening business that prevented a demand
for a recorded vote. In the second instance, a recorded vote was refused for lack of
support.266
An interruption of a vote of a very different nature occurred twice in the 109th
Congress (2005-2007). During two different votes, the Speaker in the first instance
and a chairman of the Committee of the Whole in the second declared the House in
an emergency recess. On each occasion, a plane had entered the restricted air space
of the Capitol. Using authority given the Speaker when the House adopted its rules
263 Rep. Henry J. Hyde and Speaker Thomas S. Foley, “Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991,” Congressional Record, vol. 136, part 21 (October 17, 1990), pp. 30321-
264 U.S. Congress, House, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of
Representatives of the United States, 102nd Congress, H.Doc. 101-256, 101st Cong., 2nd sess.,
prepared by Wm. Holmes Brown (Washington, DC: GPO, 1991), p. 326. A Member other
than the Speaker who is presiding votes by submitting a ballot card to the clerk. Brown and
Johnson, House Practice, p. 914.
265 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, p. 812. The parliamentarian’s notes at this
point also state: “Incidental questions arising during the roll call, such as the refusal of a
Member to vote..., are considered after the completion of the call and before the
announcement of the vote....”
266 “Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1985,” Congressional Record, vol. 130, part
Record, vol. 130, part 15 (July 26, 1984), pp. 21249-21250. In the 105 Congress (1997-
1999), a Speaker pro tempore stated that remarks made by a Member who had not been
recognized did not constitute intervening business after the announcement of the result of
a voice vote and before a Member demanded a recorded vote. Speaker Pro Tempore John
J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr., “Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998,” Congressional Record, vol. 144,
part 8 (June 10, 1998), pp. 11856-11857.
for the 108th Congress,267 the presiding officer declared an emergency recess while
a vote was being conducted. After the recess, the presiding officer allowed Members
an additional 15 minutes to record their votes.268
Also in the 109th Congress, Members were sworn in during the conduct of
record votes and cast their votes on those record votes.269
Bells and Lights. The parliamentarian’s notes in the House Rules and
Manual explain the purpose of this signal system: “The legislative call system was
designed to alert Members to certain occurrences on the floor of the House.”270 Thend271
Speaker revised the House’s bell and light signals once in the 92 Congress, twice
in the 93rd Congress,272 and once in the 96th Congress to accommodate changes in
House rules affecting voting and quorums. As a consequence of changes in House
rules made in the 96th Congress, the Speaker inserted an extensive explanation of the
changes in the Congressional Record, including the summary explanation that would
appear on a card to be distributed to the Members, as follows:
1 long bell and light (pause, followed by 3 bells and lights) — signals the start
or continuation of a notice quorum call.
2 bells and lights (pause, followed by 2 bells and lights) — Manual Roll Call
vote (the bells will be sounded again when the Clerk reaches the R’s).
2 bells and lights (pause, followed by 5 bells) — first vote under Suspension of
the Rules or on clustered votes (2 bells will be rung 5 minutes later) — the first
vote will take 15 minutes with successive votes at intervals of not less than 5
minutes. Each successive vote signaled by 5 bells.
267 Rule I, cl. 12(b), added by Sec. 2(c) of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 7, 2003.
268 Speaker Pro Tempore Michael K. Simpson, “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1279,
Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 151 (May 11, 2005), p. H3133; and “Transportation, Treasury, Housing and
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (June 29, 2005),
pp. H5433 and H5437.
269 “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (January 4, 2005),
p. H11; “Counting Electoral Votes — Joint Session of the House and Senate Held pursuant
to the Provision of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 (House of Representatives — January
6, 2005),” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (January 6, 2005), p. H127; and
“Congratulating People of Ukraine for Democratic, Transparent and Fair Runoff
Presidential Election,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (January 25, 2005),
p. H171.
270 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, p. 811.
271 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker with Regard to Teller Votes,”
Congressional Record, vol. 117, part 3 (February 25, 1971), pp. 3383-3844.
272 Speaker Carl Albert, “Electronic Voting,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 1
(January 15, 1973), p. 1056; and Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,”
Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 11 ( May 13, 1974), pp. 14148-14149.
3 bells and lights — Quorum call (either initially or after a notice quorum has
been converted to a regular quorum). The bells are repeated 5 minutes after the
first bell.
3 bells and lights (pause, followed by 3 bells and lights) — Manual Quorum Call
(the bells will be sounded again when the Clerk reaches the R’s).
3 bells and lights (pause, followed by 5 bells) — Quorum call in Committee of
the Whole, which may be followed by a 5 minute recorded vote.
One parliamentarian’s note on the bell and light system is important:
Failure of the signal bells to announce a vote does not warrant repetition of the
roll call...nor does such a failure permit a Member to be recorded following the274
conclusion of the call....
Issues Related to Record Voting Since 1970
Since the electronic voting system’s first use on January 23, 1973, it has been
utilized for almost all record votes in the House of Representatives. While the
electronic voting system has functioned with minimal disruption, it has failed to
operate properly on several occasions. The majority of these malfunctions were dealt
with procedurally and adapted to flexibly within the rules of the House by the
presiding officer.
Voting issues can be divided into five categories: inoperative electronic voting
system, inoperative display boards, Members’ personal explanations of votes,
Members attempting to vote, and holding votes open. There have also been four
occasions where voting issues were elevated to investigations conducted on three
occasions by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and on one occasion
by the specially created Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of
August 2, 2007. These investigations are discussed in the section, Investigations
Related to Votes and Voting.
273 Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional
Record, vol. 125, part 1 (January 23, 1979), pp. 701-702. When the House by unanimous
consent authorized the Speaker to reduce the time to each vote in a cluster of votes to twoth
minutes, two bells were rung. House Rules and Manual, 110 Congress, p. 811. The seventh
light (on the far right) indicates that the House is in session. Brown and Johnson, House
Practice, p. 928.
274 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, p. 812. However, in the 98th Congress (1983-
1985), a vote was vacated by unanimous consent and a new vote taken after Members
complained of missing the vote. The problem was blamed on erroneous timekeeping on
various clocks, including on television monitors. “Emergency Agricultural Credit Act of
Inoperative Electronic Voting System
If the electronic system is not functioning, the presiding officer historically has
used one of three options: vacated the results of the electronic vote and directed that
the record vote be conducted by call of the roll under Rule XX, cl. 3;275 continued the
vote with special instructions to the Members; or directed a new electronic vote with
a new 15-minute voting period.276 The following events represent instances in which
the electronic voting system was inoperative, showing the presiding officer’s
response.
93rd Congress. On March 7, 1973, Speaker Albert announced, before any
votes were taken that day, that the electronic voting system was inoperative and
“until further notice...all votes and quorum calls will be taken by the standby
procedures which are provided in the rules.”277 The electronic voting system was
operational for votes on March 8, 1973.
On December 21, 1973, during Roll Call No. 723, the electronic voting system
malfunctioned and repairs could not be finished before the end of the day.278 The
House finished the vote by a call of the roll and combined the votes of those who had
voted by electronic device with those who had voted orally.
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 have279
voted on this matter.
The Congressional Record account of the vote reflected only those who had voted280
yea, nay, or present and not the method of voting.
275 Prior to the recodification of House rules in the 106th Congress, Rule XX, cl. 3 was
codified as Rule XV, cl. 1. Another backup procedure available to the presiding officer is
a vote by tellers under Rule XX, cl. 4, formerly codified at Rule XV, cl. 2.
276 In addition, the House has also recessed when the electronic voting system has
malfunctioned to allow for the system to be repaired, such as it did on August 3, 2007. See
U.S. Congress, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Floor Summary, Legislative Day ofthst
August 3, 2007, 110 Congress, 1 Session
[http://clerk.hous e.go v/ f l oor s u mma r y/ f l oor .html?day=20070803&today= 20080409],
accessed April 8, 2008.
277 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 119,
part 6 (March 7, 1973), p. 6699.
278 Speaker Carl Albert, “Providing for Agreeing to Senate Amendment to House
Amendment with an Amendment to Amend S. 921, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,”
Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 33 (December 21, 1973), p. 43288.
279 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 119,
part 33 (December 21, 1973), p. 43292.
280 Lewis Deschler and William Holmes Brown, Deschler-Brown Precedents of the United
States House of Representatives, vol. 14, ch. 30, § 31 (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 244.
(continued...)
During the first session of the 93rd Congress, between the incidents of March 7
and December 21, the Committee on House Administration identified, in an
unpublished report, five additional instances of failures by the electronic voting
system, ranging in duration from one hour to three days. Table 2 lists all instances
in the first session when the electronic voting system malfunctioned, the amount of
time the electronic voting system was unavailable for voting, and the number of roll-
call votes missed, if any.
Table 2. Electronic Voting System Failures, 1973
DateDuration of FailureRoll-Call Vote Nos. Missed
March 7, 1973 aEntire day35, 36, 37, and 38
March 19, 1973Entire dayNone
May 16, 1973 b1 hour148
July 11, 1973 cRemainder of day after 1st roll-call329, 330, 331, and 332
July 16, 1973 d3 days except one roll-call338 through 352
September 17, 1973 eEntire day458
December 21, 1973 fLast 2 roll-calls of day723 and 724
Source: U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Review of the Contract with Control
Data Corporation for the Design, Construction, Delivery, and Installation of Electronic Voting
System for the House of Representatives, unpublished, Oct. 1, 1974, p. 9, located at the Center for
Legislative Archives, National Archives and Records Administration.
No tes:a
Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 6
(March 7, 1973), p. 6699. b
Speaker Carl Albert, “Hobby Protection Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 13 (May 16,
1973), p. 15860.c
“Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 18 (July
11, 1973), p. 23156.d
“Recorded Vote,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 19 (July 16, 1973), p. 23971; Speaker Carl
Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 19 (July 17, 1973), p.
24171; and Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 119,
part 19 (July 18, 1973), p. 24653.e
Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement of the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 23 (Sept.
17, 1973), p. 29907.f
Speaker Carl Albert, “Providing for Agreeing to Senate Amendment to House Amendment to Amend
S. 291, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 119, part 33 (Dec. 21, 1973), p.
43288.
99th Congress. On September 19, 1985, the electronic voting system’s display
boards malfunctioned as voting began on Roll Call No. 313. Consistent with previous
practice, the presiding officer ordered the vote to continue, as the electronic voting
system itself was operational. The electronic voting system then failed and the
presiding officer ordered the clerk to call the roll. “The Chair has now been informed
280 (...continued)
(Hereafter, Deschler-Brown.)
that the voting stations are not working. The House will revert to a standby
procedure. The Clerk will call the roll.”281
100th Congress. On May 4, 1988, during Roll Call No. 99, the electronic
voting system malfunctioned. At that time, the presiding officer announced that the
vote would be vacated and that the clerk would call the roll. The presiding officer
also announced that “Members will be advised whether or not the electronic voting
system is operating. The technicians are working on the system and hopefully by the282
time we complete debate on the next amendment the system will be operational.”
The electronic voting system was repaired before Roll Call No. 100.283
101st Congress. On October 3, 1989, the electronic voting system
malfunctioned during Roll Call No. 264. The presiding officer vacated the vote and
initiated a new vote on the same question:
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. The Chair would like to advise the House that the 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 Members284
an opportunity to vote.
The next day, Speaker Foley announced that five Members who had voted in the
vacated proceedings had not voted on the new vote, and that he had directed the clerk
to record those Members’ votes:
The Chair has an announcement concerning rollcall 264 of October 3, 1989. Two
votes by electronic device were conducted on that question. Due to an
irregularity in the electronic voting system, the first vote was aborted. The chair
vacated that first vote and initiated another 15-minute vote by electronic device.
However, five Members who had been recorded on the first, aborted vote were
not recorded on the second vote on the same question. The irregularity in the
electronic voting system should not prejudice the Members concerned.
Therefore, the Chair will direct the Clerk to record the Members concerned on
281 Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional
Record, vol. 131, part 18 (September 19, 1985), p. 24245.
282 “Announcement by the Chair,” Congressional Record, vol. 134, part 7 (May 4, 1988),
p. 9847.
283 Ibid, p. 9849.
284 Speaker Pro Tempore William J. Hughes, “Inadvertently Omitted From the Congressional
Record of Tuesday, October 3, 1989,” Congressional Record, vol. 135, part 16 (October 4,
rollcall 264 in conformity with the first, aborted vote and to enter those285
proceedings in the Journal and Record.
106th Congress. On October 6, 1999, a malfunction occurred in the electronic
display panel during Roll Call No. 483 and the presiding officer could not obtain
verification from the Clerk that the vote would be recorded with 100 percent
accuracy. The presiding officer, therefore, vacated the results of the electronic vote286
and directed that the record vote be taken by call of the roll. Committee on House
Administration Chairman Thomas subsequently addressed the House to explain the
cause of the problem:
There was a Member who had a card, and we all know that these new cards are
much better than the old laminated ones but they do go bad. When that Member’s
name was adjusted on the visual screen, it was placed first, out of order
alphabetically, and so when the votes were recorded they skipped one. They did
not match up. I want to assure every Member that the computer is far more
sophisticated than that. These lights are for visual purposes only. The machine
records the vote according to a unique identifier number. Regardless of where a
Member might be placed alphabetically the unique number from the card records287
the vote.
107th Congress. On September 14, 2001, the electronic voting system became
inoperative during Roll Call No. 341. The presiding officer announced that 1) the
vote would be held open until all Members were recorded; 2) the Clerk would
retrieve the names of Members already recorded from the electronic display board;
3) the Clerk would combine the names of Members voting electronically and those
who signed tally cards to form a valid vote; and 4) the vote would remain open for
Members to confirm their vote until all Members had returned from a memorial
service at the National Cathedral.288
On April 9, 2002, during Roll Call No. 80, some voting stations became
temporarily inoperative. The presiding officer announced the voting station
malfunction and urged “all Members to verify their votes prior to the Chair’s
announcement of the result.”289
108th Congress. On March 25, 2004, some of the voting stations
malfunctioned during Roll Call No. 84. During the vote, a Speaker pro tempore
announced:
285 Speaker Thomas S. Foley, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol.
286 Speaker Pro Tempore Henry Bonilla, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 17 (October 6, 1999), pp. 24198-24199.
287 Rep. Bill Thomas, “Malfunctions with Voting Machine Not Unprecedented,”
Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 17 (October 6, 1999), p. 24200.
288 Speaker Pro Tempore John Cooksey, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 12 (September 14, 2001), p. 17103.
289 Speaker Pro Tempore Judy Biggert, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 3 (April 9, 2002), p. 4054.
The Chair is advised that some of the voting stations may have been reset during
this vote. Members should take care to confirm their vote, and the voting
machines will be kept open until Members have a chance to vote and to confirm290
their vote.
On July 13, 2004, the electronic voting system malfunctioned during Roll Call
No. 363. The presiding officer made three announcements on the status of the
electronic voting system with instructions to the Members on how to proceed. First,
the presiding officer announced that the electronic voting system may not be
operational and that Members should check their votes before leaving the Chamber.
The presiding officer later announced that the electronic voting system was
inoperable and that votes should not be cast, even in the well, as the Clerk had no
way of tallying votes and that the Clerk was working on “rebooting the voting
system, which would require everyone to cast their votes a second time if they have
already voted.” Finally, the presiding officer announced, “that the electronic voting
system has been restarted, and the electronic vote will be conducted anew, a totally291
fresh start. Members must recast votes under the earlier, defective electronic vote.”
Inoperative Display Boards
In the event that the electronic voting system’s display boards are inoperative,
the Speaker has the option to continue the vote and has recommended that Members
check their vote either by reinserting their voting card into another voting station, by
looking at one of the leadership computer monitors at the party tables on the House
floor, or by confirming their vote with the clerk. Instances of inoperative display
boards can be divided into two categories: when the display boards are not
functioning but the electronic voting system is fully functional, and when a Member
is absent but is displayed as having voted.
Display Board Malfunction. Since the electronic system was first used in
1973, there have been instances when the display boards in the chamber have
malfunctioned. The main display boards are located behind and above the Speaker’s
dais (over the press gallery), and list each Member’s name and his or her vote. In
addition, there are display boards beneath the visitors’ gallery, to the left and right of
the Speaker’s dais, that provide the bill number, running vote totals, and time
remaining during a roll-call. There are also monitors on the majority and minority
leadership tables to track vote totals and to obtain other vote information. The
following events represent instances in which the display boards or monitors have
malfunctioned and indicate the presiding officer’s response.
93rd Congress. On August 7, 1974, prior to Roll Call No. 457, the presiding
officer announced that the Republican monitor, used to track the progress of an
electronic vote, was inoperative. “While the Chair could order the vote taken by
rollcall, the Chair thinks that both sides can use the Democratic monitor and can
290 Speaker Pro Tempore Ray LaHood, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (March 25, 2004), p. H1493.
291 “Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore,” remarks in the House, Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (July 13, 2004), p. H5580.
alternate in the use of the monitor and save that much time. Therefore, the Chair will
ask the Democratic operator and monitor to alternate with the Republican operator
and monitor.”292
95th Congress. On June 6, 1977, the presiding officer announced before any
recorded votes were taken that the electronic voting system display board of
Member’s names, as well as the display board with vote totals, were not functioning,
but that the voting stations were operational. The presiding officer then directed that
all votes be taken by electronic device and that —
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 at293
the same or another voting station.
On June 21, 1978, prior to any recorded votes, the presiding officer announced
that —
the board displaying each Member’s name behind the Chair and the board
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 Member294
may go to any monitor and verify his or her vote.
96th Congress. On July 18, 1979, prior to any recorded votes, the presiding
officer announced that the boards displaying Members names behind the Speaker’s
dais and the boards displaying the bill number, vote totals, and time remaining on the
sides of the chamber were not operational. However, the voting stations were
operational and votes would be conducted using the electronic voting system. The
presiding officer also directed that “all vote monitoring stations be staffed with
personnel so any Member may go to any monitor and verify his or her vote.”295
99th Congress. On September 18, 1985, during Roll Call No. 310, the display
board listing Members’ names behind the presiding officer was inoperative. In
response to a parliamentary inquiry by Representative Trent Lott, the presiding
officer stated that the electronic voting system was operational and that Members’
votes were being correctly recorded:
292 Speaker Carl Albert, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol. 120,
part 20 (August 7, 1974), p. 27219.
293 Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional
Record, vol. 123, part 14 (June 6, 1977), p. 17484. Deschler-Brown (p. 241) notes that
similar announcements were made on June 21, 1978; July 18, 1979; September 18, 1985;
and December 4, 1985.
294 Speaker Pro Tempore Jim Wright, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 124, part 14 (June 21, 1978), p. 18256.
295 Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional
Record, vol. 125, part 15 (July 18, 1979), p. 19279.
It is the intention of the Chair to proceed with any further votes, and the Chair
is informed that everything is being done to restore the display portion of the
votes. The Chair would point out that on the last vote only six Members did not
vote, which indicates that the membership has a clear idea of what the procedure296
is.
106th Congress. On February 10, 2000, the panel displaying the names from
“Danner” to “Doyle” behind the Chair failed to illuminate when the system was used
for Roll Call No. 14. The presiding officer announced that “the Chair has been
advised that those votes are indeed being recorded. Those that are in that panel, from
DANNER to DOYLE, should recheck your vote on the electronic voting device, but the
Chair is advised those votes are being recorded.”297
107th Congress. On September 19, 2002, during Roll Call No. 402, one of the
display panels was inoperative. The presiding officer announced that while the panel
was not displaying votes, those Members were being recorded. The presiding officer
then reminded Members that they “may verify their vote by checking at the desk or
at the voting stations.”298
108th Congress. On September 4, 2003, during Roll Call No. 463 the
presiding officer announced that “the wall display for the electronic voting system
is not displaying lights in one column. The Chair would ask Members in the fourth
column of names to verify their votes at a voting station before the Chair announces
the results of the vote.”299
110th Congress. On August 3, 2007, the electronic voting system’s display
boards were not functioning during a vote that had yet to be assigned a roll-call
number.300 The presiding officer ruled that the vote could continue and that Members
could check their votes by reinserting their voting cards. After a number of
parliamentary inquiries, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer asked for unanimous
consent to vacate the vote until the voting machine could be fixed. After discussion,
the House gave its consent.301
296 “Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 131, part
297 Speaker Pro Tempore Doc Hastings, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 1 (February 10, 2000), p. 1021.
298 Speaker Pro Tempore Michael K. Simpson, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro
Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 148, part 12 (September 19, 2002), p. 17237.
299 Speaker Pro Tempore Michael K. Simpson, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro
Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 15 (September 4, 2003), p. 21151.
300 A roll-call number was not assigned to this vote before the system malfunctioned and the
vote was vacated by unanimous consent. See U.S. Congress, Clerk of the House ofthst
Representatives, Floor Summary, Legislative Day of August 3, 2007, 110 Congress, 1
Session [http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html?day=20070803&today=20080409],
accessed April 8, 2008.
301 Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, “Permission to Vacate Vote on Motion to Adjourn,” Congressional
(continued...)
Absent, but Displayed as Voting. In a few instances the electronic system
display boards showed a Member who is absent from the chamber as having voted.
These situations are different from instances of “ghost voting” that were investigated
by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 96th Congress (1979-1980)th
and 100 Congress (1987-1988). The instances of “ghost voting” are discussed in the
section, Investigations Related to Votes and Voting. The following examples are
instances of absent Members displayed as voting, showing the presiding officer’s
response.
chairman of the Committee on House Administration, announced on the floor that
a malfunction in the light next to the name of Representative Patricia Schroeder
occurred while she was away from the House of Representatives in Cambodia.
I would like to assure the Members that the gentlewoman’s name is not being
recorded as having voted “aye,” “nay,” or “present.” It is simply a light
malfunction caused by a faulty relay. I would like to assure my colleagues that302
this is the situation.
106th Congress. On June 21, 2000, Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard was
absent from the House but was shown as having voted on Roll Call No. 305. On June
announced that it was a “statistical anomaly” and not an instance where someone had
voted for Representative Roybal-Allard:
It is not analogous to any of the situations in the past about the confusion of “I
didn’t think I voted” or as we found, unfortunately, the potential of someone else
using the card. It is a true anomaly. Members might imagine the concerns that the
staff and we had about this. It was the fact that a 64-bit string of digital numerals
was somehow at a particular terminal read wrong, and ironically the wrong303
reading coincided with another set that was in fact a card set.
Chairman Thomas continued by discussing the steps taken to ensure it was an
anomaly and not a problem with the electronic voting system:
Since Wednesday, we have tried to re-create the event in terms of dirtying up the
cards, playing with the boxes, repeating a process. We have now gone through
create the anomaly. It is one of those situations in which you really have to say304
it is a statistically improbable anomaly, but it occurred.
301 (...continued)
Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (August 3, 2007), pp. H9669-H9671.
302 Rep. Frank Thompson Jr., “Malfunction in Electronic Voting System Light,”
Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 24 (November 13, 1979), pp. 32177-32178.
303 Rep. Bill Thomas, “Regarding the House Electronic Voting System,” Congressional
Record, vol. 146, part 9 (June 23, 2000), p. 12141.
304 Ibid.
On June 26, Representative Roybal-Allard inserted a personal explanation in the
Extension of Remarks of the Congressional Record:
Mr. Speaker, due to a family health emergency in Los Angeles, I was not present
during the House’s consideration of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations bill, last week. However, I was recorded as voting on an
amendment to this bill offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia. The mistake was
fortunately caught by the diligent staff of the Minority Leader. Nevertheless,
Members should be aware that although the digital voting system used by the
House of Representatives is very reliable, it is not perfect. I have been assured
by both the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration and the Clerk’s
Office that they are thoroughly investigating the incident and that it does appear
to be a true statistical anomaly which is unlikely to occur again. ...Finally, while
I was mistakenly recorded as voting “aye” on the amendment, had I been present,305
I would have voted “nay.”
Also on June 26, the presiding officer asked unanimous consent that the
Congressional Record be corrected to reflect that Representative Roybal-Allard was
not present and had not voted during Roll Call No. 305 on June 21, 2000:
As stated by the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration on Friday,
June 23, 2000, the Clerk has informed the Committee on House Administration
of a recent anomaly on a recorded vote. Representative Roybal-Allard was absent
on rollcall number 305 on June 21, 2000 and was in possession of her voting
card. The Clerk was made aware of the fact that she was recorded on that rollcall,
but on no others on that day, but due to the lateness of the hour, could not get
confirmation from her by the time the vote was made public that she was absent
and in possession of her voting card. Since then, the Clerk has received that
confirmation. For that reason and the statistical improbability of the recurrence
of that anomaly, the Chair and the Chairman of the Committee on House
Administration believe that it is proper to immediately correct the Record and the
Journal.
As stated in Volume 14, Section 32 of Deschler-Brown Precedents:
‘Since the inception of the electronic system, the Speaker has resisted attempts
to permit corrections to the electronic tally after announcement of a vote. This
policy is based upon the presumptive reliability of electronic device [sic] and
upon the responsibility of each Member to correctly cast and verify his or her
vote.’
Based upon the explanation received from the Chairman of the Committee on
House Administration and from the Clerk, the Chair will continue to presume the
reliability of the electronic device, so long as the Clerk is able to give that level
of assurance which justifies a continuing presumption of its integrity. Without
objection, the Chair will permit the immediate correction of the Record and306
Journal under the unique circumstances certified by the Clerk.
305 Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, “Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, vol. 146,
part 9 (June 26, 2000), p. 12387.
306 Speaker Pro Tempore Ray LaHood, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,”
(continued...)
Subsequently, on July 10, a correction was inserted in the Congressional Record
stating that Representative Roybal-Allard did not vote on Roll Call No. 305:
Pursuant to the order of the House of June 26, 2000, the Congressional Record,
of June 21, 2000, was ordered corrected to correctly reflect that Representative
Roybal-Allard did not vote on rollcall number 305.... The electronic voting
system had incorrectly attributed an “aye” vote to Representative Roybal-307
Allard.
Members’ Personal Explanations on Votes
Since at least the 29th Congress (1845-1847), Members have inserted “personal
explanations” in the Congressional Record to explain how they would have voted
had the Member been present for a roll-call vote.308 At the time, the Speaker ruled
that “[s]uch things are constantly tolerated by unanimous consent.”309
Members use personal explanations to explain how they would have voted
following an absence from the House or for Members to state their belief that they
were incorrectly recorded during a vote. In both instances, a Member may ask
unanimous consent to have a statement appear in the Congressional Record
following the vote,310 or may submit a signed statement through their cloakroom to
be printed in the Congressional Record. If the personal explanation is received in the
cloakroom the day of the vote, it is inserted in the Congressional Record immediately
after the vote. Otherwise, it is placed in the Extension of the Remarks.311
Absent Members’ Voting Explanations. Absent Members use personal
explanations to explain why they were absent from the floor and the position the
Member would have taken had he or she been present. The following statements are
examples of the vast majority of personal explanations:
Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 136, 137, and 140, I was at a subcommittee on
Appropriations hearing. Had I been present, I would have voted “nay” on 137,312
“nay” on 136, and “yea” on 140.
306 (...continued)
Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 9 (June 26, 2000), p. 12371.
307 “Correction to Congressional Record of June 21, 2000, Roll-Call Vote Number 305,”
Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 10 (July 10, 2000), p. 13620.
308 Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States:
Including References to Provisions of the Constitution, the Laws, and Decisions of thethst
United States Senate, 60 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1907), §§ 5064-5074.
309 Speaker John W. Davis, “The Secret-Service Fund,” Congressional Globe, vol. 15, 29th
Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: Blair & Rives, 1846), p. 729.
310 Deschler-Brown, ch. 30, §41.1, p. 317.
311 Brown and Johnson, House Practice, p. 935.
312 Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, “Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, part
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 4, I was in Kentucky, tending to official
business, and was not present for rollcall votes No. 602 and 603. The votes were
on House Concurrent Resolutions 176 and 94, respectively. Had I been present,313
I would have voted “yea” on both measures.
Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Friday, November 9, 2007, I was
unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on a number of rollcall votes.
Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall 1077 — “nay;” rollcall 1078 —314
“nay;” rollcall 1079 — “nay;” rollcall 1080 — “yea;” rollcall 1081 — “nay.”
Incorrectly Recorded Votes. Since the introduction of electronic voting inrd
the 93 Congress (1973-1975), Members have used personal explanations to correct
a recorded position on a vote when the Member believed the electronic voting system
incorrectly recorded his or her position.
If a Member believes his or her vote was incorrectly recorded, the Member may
use a personal explanation to indicate the Member’s position. However, the personal315
explanation does not change the official record of the vote. It only provides a
Member an opportunity to state how the Member intended to vote. The following
statements are examples of personal explanations where the electronic voting system
allegedly failed to properly record a vote:
Mr. Speaker, during today’s vote on the rule for the conference report on House
Resolution 402, rule No. 53, I inserted my card into the electronic voting device
to vote, but the vote did not register. I ask that my vote be recorded immediately
following this vote in the Record as a “no” vote. The clerk conducted a check,
and verified that my card had been inserted, but when the “no” button was
pushed, it did not register. If my vote had been recorded, it would have been316
“no.” Please amend the Record to reflect my “no” vote on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, on December 13, I was in Washington D.C. conducting official
government business. It was my intention to vote on Rollcall No. 498, H.Res.
314, which would have suspended the rules and allowed suspension bills on
Wednesday December 19. However, the electronic voting machine did not
properly record my vote. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had
my vote been properly recorded, I would have voted “nay” on Rollcall No.317
Mr. Speaker, I was present and voting during the series of rollcall votes that
included rollcall No. 226, final passage of the FY2007 Homeland Security
313 Rep. Harold Rogers, “Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 20
(November 5, 2003), p. 27382.
314 Rep. Devin Nunes, “Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153
(November 9, 2007), p. H13462.
315 Brown and Johnson, House Practice, pp. 934-935.
316 Rep. Dennis Hastert, “Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, vol. 138, part 5
(March 20, 1992), p. 6469.
317 Rep. Loretta Sanchez, “Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 20
(December 20, 2001), p. 27968.
Appropriations bill. While I believed that I had voted “yea” on the measure,
apparently the electronic voting system did not register this vote. I would like to
ensure that the record reflect that my vote, had it been recorded, would have been318
“yea” on rollcall No. 226.
Claims of irregularities by the electronic voting system are only a small faction
of the total number of personal explanations and mentions of voting clarifications in
the Congressional Record. Between the 95th Congress (1977-1979) and the 109th
Congress (2005-2007), Members inserted at least 9,698 personal explanations into
the Congressional Record. Of these personal explanations, the electronic voting
system was accused of inaccurately recording votes 60 times (0.62 percent of the
Table 3. Instances of Electronic Voting Issues in Personal
Explanations: 93rd Through 109th Congresses
Total RollPersonalElectronic% of total
Congress (Years)Call VotesExplanationsVoting Issuesexplanations
93rd (1973-1975) a1,078n/an/an/a
94th (1975-1977) a1,273n/an/an/a
95th (1977-1979)1,54034620.58 %
96th (1979-1981)1,27660400.00 %
97th (1981-1983)81226672.63 %
98th (1983-1985)89660771.15 %
99th (1985-1987)890556111.98 %
100th (1987-1989)93946251.08 %
101st (1989-1991)87947230.64 %
102nd (1991-1993)90144120.45 %
103rd (1993-1995)1,09446940.85 %
104th (1995-1997)1,32176550.65 %
105th (1997-1999)1,16683691.08 %
106th (1999-2001)1,20994820.21 %
107th (2001-2003)99079110.13 %
108th (2003-2005)1,2181,03600.00 %
109th (2005-2007)1,2101,09920.18 %
Total18,6929,698600.62 %
Source: Table compiled by authors from the indices of the Congressional Record for the years
covered. ardth
Note: The Congressional Record did not index personal explanations for the 93 and 94
Co ngr e sse s.
318 Rep. John B. Larson, “Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
Members Attempting to Vote
Under House Rule III, “Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the
House during its sittings, unless excused or necessarily prevented, and shall vote on
each question put, unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event
of such question.”319 In addition, while Speakers beginning in the 102nd Congress
have announced policies to expedite the conduct of votes, these policies and practice
have protected the right to vote of Members in the well attempting to vote.320
Speaker Gingrich sought to have votes conclude with the announcement of a result
as soon as possible after 15 minutes, and said in remarks to the House that he hoped
to conclude votes within 17 minutes. In his policy, the Speaker said that a presiding
officer would not prevent a Member from voting who “is in the well.”321
Enforcement of the Speaker’s policy to expedite the conclusion of votes resulted
in a dispute over a vote on June 21, 1995. In the course of votes immediately
preceding Roll Call No. 405, Members inquired about the duration of votes on the
floor and about votes being taken in committee at the same time votes were being
taken on the floor. Some Members, hearing the bells announcing a floor vote, left a
committee markup for the floor. After their departure, the committee chair apparently
conducted a roll-call vote. A chairman of the Committee of the Whole indicated that
Members’ priority should be floor votes. He said he had been informed of the
committee vote and had waited to close the floor vote until the committee’s chairman
appeared and voted, taking that as a sign that committee members had had sufficient
time to arrive on the floor and vote.322 After the result of Roll Call No. 405, Minority
Whip David E. Bonior used a parliamentary inquiry to say:
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, is323
not fair.
The presiding officer responded that Mr. Bonior had not made a parliamentary
inquiry.
319 House Rules and Manual, 110th Congress, p. 376. This rule was first adopted by the First
Congress (1789-1790). Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1stst
Cong., 1 sess., vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 9. See also Deschler-
Brown (ch. 30, § 3) for additional explanation.
320 Brown and Johnson, House Practice, p. 927.
321 Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Announcement by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, vol.
Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), p. 444.
322 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part
323 Ibid., p. 16683.
The next day, Majority Leader Dick Armey addressed the chamber. Mr. Armey
stated that he had reviewed the videotape of the vote and concluded that the presiding
officer had acted properly. He then stated:
I know all too well that once the perception of unfairness and arbitrariness has
set in, it is difficult 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 for that reason I am about to make a unanimous-consent request324
to revisit the vote on the Fazio amendment....
The House gave unanimous consent to vacate Roll Call No. 405 and re-vote the
question when the House next resolved into the Committee of the Whole. In the
Committee of the Whole, the chairman announced:
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...had been disposed of. ...Pursuant to the order of the House
today, the Chair will now put the question de novo. The question is on the325
amendment offered by the gentleman from California..., as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
Holding Votes Open
Votes using the electronic voting system do not usually conclude with the
announcement of a result at the end of the 15-minute minimum time for voting. The
announcement of a result, however, often occurs within several minutes. On
occasion, votes are held open longer for a well-identified reason, such as the failure
of the voting system and the absence of Members at a memorial service on
September 14, 2001, which was discussed above. Sometimes, Members can see other
Members continuing to arrive on the floor to vote. On other occasions, a reason is not
articulated or an ambiguous reason is given.
House Rule XX, cl. 2(a), making voting by electronic device the customary
method of voting, was amended in the 110th Congress to add a sentence: “A recorded
vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the
outcome of such a vote.”326
Speaker Jim Wright asked, “Are there other Members in the Chamber who desire to
vote? If there are other Members who desire to vote we will accommodate their
324 Rep. Dick Armey, “Fairness in House Voting Procedures,” Congressional Record, vol.
325 “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 12
(June 22, 1995), p. 16823.
326 Sec. 302 of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House January 4, 2007.
vote.” The Speaker continued to make similar announcements while holding open the
vote. 327
Following one of the presiding officer’s announcements, Representative Newt
Gingrich used a parliamentary inquiry to ask how a vote could be reopened “once the
Speaker has said the vote is closed and all time has expired.” The Speaker replied
that “the present occupant of the chair and in the Chair’s observation other occupants
of the chair have permitted Members to vote so long as those Members are in the
Chamber and obviously desiring to cast a vote. That is the policy of the Chair.” The
presiding officer announced that “the yeas are 206, and the nays are 205. The bill is
passed.”328
During the conduct of the vote, Representative Mickey Edwards used a
parliamentary inquiry to ask:
Mr. Speaker, you have now announced that all time has expired. I am quite
familiar with the policy of this Chair. Under the rules of the House could the
Parliamentarian instruct us whether under the rules at this point additional votes
may be cast now that the Chair has announced that time has expired?
The Speaker responded that “the rules of the House state that the rollcall will
be open for a minimum of 15 minutes, and that beyond that it is at the discretion of329
the Chair.”
108th Congress. On November 21, 2003, Roll Call No. 669 was held open
beyond the minimum 15 minutes, for a total of approximately three hours.330 The
circumstances surrounding the vote on the conference report on the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 are discussed in the
Investigations Related to Votes and Voting section of this report.
110th Congress. On March 11, 2008, the House adopted H.Res. 1031, a
special rule deeming H.Res. 895 adopted, which established a House Office of
Congressional Ethics. Following debate, Roll Call No. 121 was taken on the previous
327 Speaker Jim Wright, “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987,” Congressional
Record, vol. 133, part 21 (October 29, 1987), p. 30238. An article in the Congressional
Quarterly Weekly Report stated that the vote was 205-206 until Representative Jim
Chapman returned to the House floor and changed his vote, after which Speaker Wright
announced the result. Elizabeth Wehr, “Wright Finds a Vote to Pass Reconciliation Bill,”
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 45, no. 44, October 31, 1987, pp. 2653-2655.
328 Rep. Newt Gingrich and Speaker Jim Wright, “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
329 Speaker Jim Wright, “Parliamentary Inquiry,” Congressional Record, vol. 133, part 21
(October 29, 1987), p. 30239.
330 Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, “Parliamentary Inquiry,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
149 (November 21, 2003), p. H12296. See also U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on theth
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, 108 Cong.,nd
question on H.Res. 1031. After the initial 15-minute minimum time to vote, the
presiding officer held the vote open for approximately 15 additional minutes. The
presiding officer then announced that the previous question was ordered.
Representative Roy Blunt used a parliamentary inquiry, referencing Rule XX,
cl. 2(a), to ask, “Am I right that the rules of the House read, ‘A record vote by
electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome
of such vote?’” The presiding officer responded that Representative Blunt was
correct and that “[a]n alleged violation of clause 2(a) of Rule XX may give rise to a
collateral challenge in the form of a question of the privileges of the House pursuant
to Rule IX.”331
The next day, Minority Leader John A. Boehner raised a question of the
privileges of the House. Mr. Boehner’s resolution332 sought to denounce the
“practices” of holding open votes beyond a “reasonable” period of time, vacate votes
on H.Res. 1031, direct the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate
the Democratic leadership’s “violations of House rules,” and direct the Select
Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007 to investigate
and make recommendations on the previous question vote on H.Res. 1031. A motion
to table the resolution was agreed to.333
Investigations Related to Votes and
Voting Since 1970
Since the House began using the electronic voting system on January 23, 1973,
there have been four instances where voting anomalies were reported to the House
and resulted in investigations. The first three instances were investigated by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and occurred in 1979, 1987, and 2003.
The fourth investigation deals with Roll Call No. 814 taken on August 2, 2007, and
has been undertaken by a select committee.
331 Rep. Roy Blunt and Speaker Pro Tempore Earl Pomeroy, “Establishing an Office of
Congressional Ethics — Continued,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (March
332 H.Res. 1039 (110th Congress).
333 “Question of the Privileges of the House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154
(March 12, 2008), pp. H1543-H1544.
Representatives Neil Abercrombie and Ray LaHood have sent a letter to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct requesting an investigation of whether House
rules were broken during the vote on H.Res. 1031. The letter has not been made public. See
Susan Crabtree, “Rep. Abercrombie questions ethics of ethics bill handling,” The Hill, May
bill-handling-2008-05-01.html], accessed June 25, 2008; and Susan Crabtree, “LaHood
Backs Vote Inquiry,” The Hill, May 21, 2008, p. 6.
“Ghost” Voting
“Ghost” voting occurs when one Member votes for another Member on the
House floor, in violation of House rules. Since electronic voting began in 1973, there
have been two investigations of “ghost” voting allegations. The first investigation
occurred during the 96th Congress (1979-1981) and involved Representatives Morgan
Murphy and Tennyson Guyer. The second investigation occurred during the 100th
Congress (1987-1989) and involved Representative Austin Murphy. Both
investigations were conduced by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.334
96th Congress. On July 31, 1979, Representative Morgan Murphy inserted a
personal explanation into the Congressional Record, indicating that while he was in
his district on official business, he had been recorded on six votes and had requested
that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct investigate the matter:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was holding hearings in the city of Chicago of the
Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control for which I had official leave
of absence. I was, therefore, surprised to see the Record shows me recorded on
votes taken yesterday and I ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record
reflect the fact that I was not present and did not vote on Monday, July 30. I also
request that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct look into this mater
and, being a member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct I will335
step aside while they look into the matter.
334 Other instances of alleged “ghost” voting have been reported by the media. In the 103rd
Congress (1993-1995), staff members for Speaker Thomas S. Foley and Minority Leader
Robert H. Michel reviewed allegations of “ghost” voting that occurred in February and
March 1994. Following the review, Speaker Foley and Mr. Michel concluded that no
evidence of misconduct took place. See Paul M. Rodriguez, “‘Ghost voting’ in House
denied,” The Washington Times, May 19, 1994. th
In the 110 Congress (2007-2009), allegations were made that Representative Julia
Carson allowed others to vote on her behalf while she was ill and confined to a wheelchair.
In an article in The Hill, a statement by Representative Carson was quoted, “On those rare
days when I think I need a little help, I feel so blessed that there are 434 other members of
the House who are willing to lend a hand when I cast my vote. It is, however, my vote.”
Jonathan E. Kaplan, “Carson’s ‘ghost-voting’ raises health questions,” The Hill, September
335 Rep. Morgan Murphy, “Personal Explanation,” Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 17
(July 31, 1979), p. 21659.
On September 20, 1979, the chairman of the Standards of Official Conduct
Committee, pursuant to committee rules,336 designated Representatives John Murtha
and Bill Thomas to serve on an investigative subcommittee. In January 1980, the
subcommittee was additionally tasked with investigating three votes cast by
Representative Tennyson Guyer on May 14, 1979, while he was in his Ohio
district.337
The General Accounting Office (GAO)338 determined that the “ghost” votes of
Representatives Murphy and Guyer were not a result of equipment malfunction.339
Further, the committee found no evidence that would link either Member to a scheme
to vote by proxy.340 The committee declined to bring charges against the two
Members but did note that “[t]his results not from any view that willful and knowing
abuse of the Electronic Voting System is not serious misconduct, but rather from
ambiguities in the present rules when taken together with the need to rely solely on
statistical data, based on assumptions and unaided by other direct evidence of
wrongdoing.”341
100th Congress. On June 23, 1987, the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct voted to investigate allegations (among other actions) that Representative
Austin Murphy allowed others to vote for him on the floor of the House of
Representatives when he was not present. Pursuant to a committee resolution and
committee rules, the committee investigated six counts against the Member, three of
336 Rule 11(a) of the committee stated: “If the Committee determines under rule 10(b) that
the allegations of a violation in a complaint filed with the Committee merit further inquiry,
the Committee shall conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether such violation
occurred.” Rule 13 of the committee stated: “Notwithstanding the absence of a complaint
filed with the Committee under rule 10 of the Committee rules, the staff of the Committee
shall present to it any evidence available to the staff reasonably indicating that any Member,
officer, or employee may have committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any
law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to his conduct in the
performance of his duties or in the discharge of his responsibilities.” See U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Rules, Rules Adopted by the Committees of the House ofthst
Representatives, committee print, 96 Cong., 1 sess. (Washington: GPO, 1979), pp. 217-
337 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Study and Analysis
of the Voting Anomalies in the House of Representatives on May 14 and July 20, 1979, 96thnd
Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 96-991 (Washington: GPO, 1980), p. 3.
338 Now named the Government Accountability Office.
339 Letter from Elmer B. Staats, comptroller general of the United States, to Representative
Frank Thompson Jr., chair of the Committee on House Administration, August 31, 1979.
340 Proxy voting is prohibited in the House. It has been barred since the First Congress,
which adopted the rule, “No Member shall vote on any questions...in any case where he was
not present when the question was put.” Journal of the House of Representatives of thestst
United States, 1 Cong., 1 sess., vol 1. (Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton, 1826), p. 9.
341 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Study and Analysis
of the Voting Anomalies in the House of Representatives on May 14 and July 20, 1979, 96thnd
Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 96-991 (Washington: GPO, 1980), p. 13.
which directly related to allegations that other Members cast votes on his behalf.342
The committee held a disciplinary hearing and sustained two of the three voting-
related counts.
Following the disciplinary hearing, the committee also found that
Representative Murphy violated House rules on two of the three non-voting-related
counts. The committee sustained count four, which charged that Representative
Murphy diverted resources from his district office to his former law firm in violation
of 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) and paragraph 5 of the Code of Ethics of Government
Service,343 as then in effect; dismissed count five, which charged that the Member
permitted someone with whom he had a professional or legal relationship to benefit
from expenditure of official funds through his district office lease; and sustained
charge six that the Member retained an employee who did not perform duties
commensurate with pay received.344
In its report, the Committee on Standards and Ethics recommended a reprimand
of Representative Murphy and stated, “The Committee believes that a
recommendation of the sanction of reprimand is appropriate for the violations found
to have occurred.”345 The House agreed to H.Res. 335 adopting the report by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to reprimand Representative Murphy.346
Exchanging a Vote for a Benefit
108th Congress. On December 8, 2003, the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, pursuant to Committee Rule 18 (a),347 initiated informal fact
342 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representatives Austin J. Murphy, 100th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 100-485 (Washington:
GPO, 1987), pp. 1, 8-9.
343 U.S. Congress, Code of Ethics for Government Service, 86th Cong., 1st sess., July 11,
accessed April 2, 2008.
344 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representatives Austin J. Murphy, 100th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 100-485 (Washington:
GPO, 1987), pp. 4-5.
345 Ibid, p. 5.
346 H.Res. 335, agreed to in the House December 18, 1987.
347 Rule 18 (a) of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct stated: “Notwithstanding
the absence of a filed complaint, the Committee may consider any information in its
possession indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have committed a violation
of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct
applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance of his
or her duties or the discharge of his or her responsibilities. The Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member may jointly gather additional information concerning such an alleged
violation by a Member, officer, or employee unless and until and investigative subcommittee
has been established.” See, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Rules Adopted bythst
the Committees of the House of Representatives, committee print, 108 Cong., 1 sess.
(continued...)
finding into allegations linking Representative Nick Smith’s support for the
conference report on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act, with support for the congressional candidacy of his son.348
The investigative subcommittee was established in March 2004 and conducted
its investigation until September 2004.349 After receiving over 1,400 pages of
testimony and deposing 17 Members of the House, the committee concluded that —
no group, organization, business interest, or corporation of any kind, or any
individual affiliated with any such entities, offered $100,000 or any other
specific sum of money to support the congressional candidacy of Brad Smith in
order to induce Representative Nick Smith to vote in favor of the Medicare350
Prescription Drug Act.
The investigative subcommittee concluded that, while Representative Smith’s
conduct did not meet the standards of House Rule XXIII, cl. 1,351 its jurisdiction to
formally sanction Representative Smith should not be expanded pursuant to
Committee Rule 19 (d).352 “Such a step — required to obtain a formal sanction under
House and Committee rules — is not justified by the circumstances and facts
presented, and is outweighed by the interest in bringing this matter to closure.”353
Representative Candice S. Miller and Majority Leader Tom DeLay were also
implicated in the course of the investigation. The investigative subcommittee found
that Representative Miller’s “interaction with Representative Smith can fairly be
347 (...continued)
(Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 164-165.
348 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of
Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,thnd
and Modernization Act of 2003, 108 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 108-722 (Washington: GPO,
349 Ibid, p. 12.
350 Ibid., p. 36.
351 Rule XXIII, cl. 1 (108th Congress) required Members to conduct themselves at all times
in a manner that reflected credibly on the House. Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, andththnd
Rules of the House of Representatives, 108 Congress, H.Doc. 107-284, 107 Cong. 2
sess., prepared by Charles W. Johnson (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003), p. 882.
352 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Rules Adopted by the Committees of the
House of Representatives, 108th Cong. (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 166. Rule 19(d) states
that “upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the subcommittee members, and an
affirmative vote of a majority of the full Committee, an investigative subcommittee may
expand the scope of its investigation.”
353 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of
Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,thnd
and Modernization Act of 2003, 108 Cong., 2 sess., H.Rept. 108-722 (Washington: GPO,
characterized as a specific and unprovoked threat of retaliation against
Representative Smith....”354
The subcommittee made the following finding concerning Majority Leader
DeLay:
The Investigative Subcommittee concludes that the interaction between the
Majority Leader and Representative Smith, in significant part, precipitated the
public allegations by Representative Smith that ultimately led to this inquiry. At
the time the offer was made, Representative Smith believed that the endorsement
of his son by the Majority Leader, combined with the publicity and substantial
financial support for his son’s campaign that Representative Smith believed
would follow the Majority Leader’s endorsement, would greatly assist, if not
assure, his son’s election...355
The investigative subcommittee unanimously adopted its report on September
29, 2004. On September 30, the full committee unanimously adopted the report with
this statement:
By this act of adopting the Investigative Subcommittee’s Report, the Committee
approved and adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Investigative Subcommittee, including the recommendation in the Investigative
Subcommittee’s Report that the publication of its Report would serve as a public
admonishment by the Committee to Representative Nick Smith, Representative
Candice Miller, and Representative Tom DeLay regarding their conduct as356
described in the Report to the House.
Terminating a Vote
110th Congress. On August 2, 2007, Representative Jerry Lewis offered a
motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 3161, the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act of 2008.357 During the vote on the motion, the Speaker pro tempore first
announced that there were 214 yeas and 214 nays and that the motion was not agreed
to. The Speaker pro tempore subsequently announced that the vote was 212 yeas and
216 nays and that the motion was not agreed to. Some Members alleged that the
Speaker pro tempore’s first announcement of the vote was erroneous and that, since
the electronic voting display had read “FINAL 215-213,” the motion had been agreed
to.358
354 Ibid., p. 41.
355 Ibid., p. 42.
356 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Summary of
Activities One Hundred Eighth Congress, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 108-806
(Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 18-19.
357 Rep. Jerry Lewis, “Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (August 2, 2007), pp. H9649-H9652.
358 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August
(continued...)
Immediately after the vote, Majority Leader Hoyer asked unanimous consent
that the House vacate the vote.359 Minority Leader Boehner objected and Majority
Leader Hoyer then moved to reconsider Roll Call No. 814. The motion to reconsider
was agreed to (Roll Call No. 815). That vote was followed by a voice vote rejection
of Representative Lewis’s motion to recommit and a record vote on passage of H.R.
On August 3, Majority Leader Hoyer introduced a resolution directing the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to review the previous day’s events.
The resolve clause stated:
Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall
immediately review the regularity of events surrounding the vote on the motion
to recommit on H.R. 3161, which occurred on August 2, 2007, and report back361
to the House.
Mr. Boehner argued against referring the matter to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, asked that Mr. Hoyer withdraw his resolution, and proposed that
the two leaders work together. Mr. Hoyer received unanimous consent to withdraw
the resolution.362
Later that day, Minority Leader Boehner raised a question of the privileges of
the House (H.Res. 611), directing House officers to preserve records related to the
vote on the Lewis motion to recommit, establishing a select committee comprising
three Members appointed by the Speaker and three Members appointed by the
minority leader, authorizing the select committee to investigate “circumstances
surrounding the record vote” on the Lewis motion, and requiring the select committee
to report recommendations of changes to “rules and procedures of the House
necessary to protect the voting rights” of Members. The resolution was agreed to by
voice vote.363
The Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007
met publicly for the first time on September 27, 2007. In that meeting, the committee
358 (...continued)
p. 2.
359 Rep. Steny Hoyer, “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 153 (August 2, 2007), p. H9650.
360 Rep. Jerry Lewis et al., “Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (August 2, 2007), pp. H9650-H9652.
361 Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, “Ordering Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to
Immediately Review Events Surrounding Vote on H.R. 3161,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 153 (August 3, 2007), pp. H9659-H9660.
362 Reps. Steny H. Hoyer and John Boehner, “Ordering Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to Immediately Review Events Surrounding Vote on H.R. 3161,” Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (August 3, 2007), pp. H9660-H9661.
363 H.Res. 611, agreed to in the House August 3, 2007.
adopted its rules, adopted an interim report, and heard testimony from the clerk of the
House and her staff about the records preserved from the August 2 vote and the
duties of the clerk’s staff on the Speaker’s dais.364 In addition, in its interim report the
Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007 set out
four areas of investigation for future hearings. These were:
Persons on the Speaker’s dais and persons responsible for conducing a vote;
Electronic voting system;
Duration of a vote; and365
Sequence of events.
To date, the select committee has taken testimony in public hearings on
September 27, 2007, from Clerk of the House Lorraine Miller and her staff
concerning the duties of individuals on the Speaker’s dais;366 received a walk-through
on the House floor on October 18, 2007, of the electronic voting system by the
individuals responsible for operation of the system;367 taken testimony on October 25,
2007, from Parliamentarian Emeritus of the House Charles Johnson and from Chief
Tally Clerk Mark O’Sullivan;368 and taken testimony from Majority Leader Hoyer,
Representative Michael R. McNulty (who was presiding during the conduct of Roll
Call No. 814), Parliamentarian John V. Sullivan, and representatives from the Office
of the Clerk, the Office of the Speaker, the Office of the Minority Leader, and the
364 For information on the House staff on the Speaker’s dais, see CRS Report 98-396, Guide
to Individuals Seated on the House Dais, by Mildred Amer.
365 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August
pp. 4-6.
366 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August
2, 2007, Organizational Meeting on Adoption of Committee Rules; Consideration of Interim
Report; and Hearing on Voting in the House of Representatives, hearing (unpublished),thst
367 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August
2, 2007, Member Briefing on Voting in the House of Representatives — The Rostrum and
the Electronic Voting System: A “Walkthrough” by the Clerk of the House Lorraine C.thst
Miller, hearing (unpublished), 110 Cong., 1 sess., October 18, 2007.
368 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August
and Practice, hearing (unpublished), 110 Cong., 1 sess., October 25, 2007.
Office of the Parliamentarian.369 The final report of the committee is due to the House
not later than September 15, 2008.370
Options for Addressing Issues
Related to Record Voting
Electronic voting has been in use for 35 years in the House of Representatives.
However, Members have been casting votes in other ways for over 200 years. The
process for voting has remained relatively unchanged in all that time, and the
problems associated with voting have been relatively rare. Nevertheless, no matter
how infrequently problems occur, when they do, the ramifications within the
chamber can reverberate for days, or even longer. Whether changes to voting
procedures are warranted, or even necessary, is open to discussion.
Pursuant to H.Res. 611,371 the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting
Irregularities of August 2, 2007 is authorized to recommend changes to the rules and
procedures of the House related to voting. Accordingly, this section discusses
possible issues and options related to voting in the House. The options range from
making no changes to a complete overhaul in the procedures for conducting votes in
the chamber. Some options are explored in detail, while others are presented only as
questions to be considered. Further, some options, or variations of those options, may
appear under more than one heading. The headings are not listed in an order
indicating their importance.
Vehicles for Effecting Changes Related to Record Voting
If the House chooses to make any changes to its voting protocol, there are
several options available to effect such changes. Each may carry its own advantages
and disadvantages.
369 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August
sess., May 13-14, 2008.
See also Jared Allen, “GOP ‘stolen vote’ Investigators say Dems’ explanations
‘implausible’,” The Hill, May 14, 2008,
[http://thehill.com/lea d i n g-t h e -n e ws / go p -s t o l e n -vo t e-investigators
-say-dems-explanations-implausible-2008-05-14.html], accessed May 23, 2008; Jackie
Kucinich, “Rep. Hoyer calls for House voting rule to be scrapped,” The Hill, May 14, 2008,
[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-hoyer-calls-for-house-voting-rule- to-be-
scrapped-2008-05-13.html], accessed May 23, 2008; Jennifer Yachnin, “Hoyer Ready to
Scrap Rule,” Roll Call, May 14, 2008, [http://www.rollcall.com/
issues/53_137/news/23600-1.html], accessed May 23, 2008; and Jennifer Yachnin, “GOP
Tries to Press Its Case Over Floor Imbroglio,” Roll Call, May 15, 2008, p. 3.
370 H.Res. 611, agreed to in the House August 3, 2007.
371 Agreed to in the House August 3, 2007.
House Rules. House rules are traditionally changed on the opening day of a
Congress by adoption of a resolution. The rules of the House in the prior Congress
are made the rules of the House for the new Congress with this resolution. The
resolution also contains specific changes to those rules effective for the new
Congress. The Rules Committee or the parties’ leadership often solicit proposals or
suggestions for rules changes in the late summer or fall prior to an election. The
majority members of the Rules Committee, with input from the majority leadership,
consolidate and evaluate the suggestions. Any changes to voting processes could be
included in this opening-day rules package.
Historically, the rules resolution for a new Congress has most often been
numbered either H.Res. 5 or H.Res. 6. The rules package is usually considered for
one hour as an indivisible and unamendable entity, although that has not always been
the case. It is therefore difficult to change any part of the resolution. The minority
party routinely offers an alternative rules package, but that normally fails on a party-
line vote.
On occasion, House rules are changed by the adoption of a resolution on a day372
other than opening day. Again, such a resolution would likely be debatable for one
hour and amendments would rarely be made in order.
House rules changes can also be effected by a so-called “self executing” or
“hereby” provision in a related or unrelated special rule. This process would allow
the rules change to be made without a vote on the change itself.373
In addition, although rarely successful, a measure making changes to House
rules could be brought up for consideration through the use of a discharge petition,
either discharging the measure itself or discharging a special rule making it in order
to consider a resolution embodying the rules change.
Unanimous Consent. It is possible to effect minor changes in the standing
rules by unanimous consent.
Rulemaking Statute. Congress may enact statutes setting forth rules and
procedures to follow when the House considers certain kinds of legislation.374 Such
372 For example, H.Res. 491, agreed to in the House June 18, 2007, governs earmark
disclosure in conference reports on general appropriations bills.
373 For example, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was
created in this manner. The special rule (H.Res. 219) providing for the consideration of
H.Res. 202, the committee funding resolution, contained a “hereby” clause that the
“amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House
Administration..., modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.” The amendment
printed in the report created the select committee. H.Res. 219, agreed to in the House March
374 Examples of rulemaking statutes are the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508), the War
(continued...)
statutes are enacted pursuant to the rulemaking power of Congress and may be
incorporated by reference in the preface of the resolution adopting the rules of the
House. Once a statute is enacted, it normally takes enactment of a subsequent statute
to change its effect, although both the House and Senate reserve authority to change
rules, even those that had been effected through a statute.
Speaker Announcements. On opening day, or early in the first session of
a new Congress, the Speaker promulgates what have been called “Speaker
announcements” or “Speaker’s policies.” Such announcements are protocols relating
to legislative practices that are observed during a Congress. Most of these practices
reflect long-standing traditions that have not been raised to the level of inclusion in
House rules, but relate to the operation of the chamber and to the legislative375
process.
Standing Order. A standing order is a continuing directive or regulation that
has the force of a chamber rule but is not incorporated into the rules. In that respect
it is similar to items included in the Speaker’s announcements. Standing orders are
more frequently used in the Senate, although the House has, on occasion, effected
change through their use.
Administrative Order. The Office of the Clerk of the House, the Office of
the Parliamentarian, and the Committee on House Administration, among other
entities, have the authority to issue guidance, proclamations, or regulations related
to the internal operations of the chamber, including on voting and the voting
apparatus. In the 110th Congress, to use a well-publicized example of an internal
change, the clerk of the House altered the process for preparing an enrolled measure
for presentation to the President.376
Custom and Tradition. In addition to the rules and procedures of the House,
operations can be changed, albeit informally, through custom and tradition. Examples
of such traditions include allowing party leaders time to conduct a colloquy about the
work of the upcoming week, the allowance for party leaders to speak without the
time being counted against controlled time, and yielding 30 minutes to the minority
to debate a special rule.
374 (...continued)
Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148), and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
375 For the Speaker’s policies for the 110th Congress, see Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
“Announcements by the Speaker,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (January
5, 2007), pp. H59-H61. The Speaker’s policy related to voting by electronic device appears
in Appendix A.
376 For background, see Ryan Grim, “Who’s to Blame for Farm Bill Snafu?”, Politico, June
3, 2008, available at [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10782.html]; and Mike
Soraghan, “Fiasco Envelopes Farm Bill,” The Hill, May 22, 2008, available at
[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news /fiasco-envelops-f arm-bill-2008-05-22.html ].
Vote Duration and Well Cards
Perhaps the major issue related to voting is: When is it too late for a Member
to vote? The Constitution, one Member stated, “enshrines the right of every Member
of the House of Representatives to vote on the floor of the House on behalf of the
people they were elected to serve.”377 Nevertheless, what does comity require in
accommodating an opportunity for a Member to vote?
With regard to potential changes to voting procedures, the House could consider
enforcing a firm 15-minute voting time. If a 15-minute time for voting was enforced,
and the electronic voting system was closed at the end of that time, Members would
be unable to continue after 15 minutes to cast or change votes. There could be a
single exception to the 15-minute limit in the event the electronic voting system
malfunctions. A rules change would be needed to eliminate the “minimum” voting
time of 15 minutes and replace it with a fixed voting time of 15 minutes.
Closing the electronic voting system at a time certain could eliminate the use of
well cards, unless they were retained solely for Members who did not have their
personalized electronic voting card.378 The House could seek to require all votes to
be by electronic device.
If well cards were eliminated, the House could consider an increase beyond 15
minutes in the time for voting in order to accommodate Members’ travel to the House
chamber. For example, a strict time limit of 20 minutes could be added to House
rules.
Alternately, the House could retain the minimum 15-minute time for voting by
electronic device and continue the use of well cards, but place a cap on the time for
all voting after 15 minutes. A new clock could be activated, for example, to enable
Members to vote by electronic device or to use well cards for a period of five
additional minutes.
Members could continue the current practice for using well cards, but, in the
Speaker’s policy or through another communication to the Members, it could be
377 Rep. Mike Pence, in U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting
Irregularities of August 2, 2007, Organizational Meeting on Adoption of Committee Rules;
Consideration of Interim Report; and Hearing on Voting in the House of Representatives,thst
hearing (unpublished), 110 Cong., 1 sess., September 27, 2007.
378 Well cards are also referred to as ballot cards or voting cards. They are paper cards of
green for “aye” or “yea” votes, red for “no” votes, and amber for “present” votes. A Member
fills out a well card to cast or change a vote as an alternative to voting at a voting station.
The Member hands the card to a tally clerk who checks it, and who then hands it to a second
tally clerk for entry into the electronic voting system. U.S. Congress, House Select
Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007, Organizational
Meeting on Adoption of Committee Rules; Consideration of Interim Report; and Hearingthst
on Voting in the House of Representatives, hearing (unpublished), 110 Cong., 1 sess.,
September 27, 2007.
strongly recommended or required that Members arrive on the floor to vote within
Well cards are traditionally kept on the round table in the well, near the official
reporter. By keeping them in this location, the table is within the view of television
cameras, but Members crowd in this area, possibly blocking the view of the presiding
officer and other Speaker’s dais personnel. Is this location the appropriate place for
the well cards? Would another location be better for Members and for a clearer view
by the presiding officer?
House Rules/Speaker Announcements
The sentence on reversing the outcome of a vote in House Rule XX, cl. 2(a) was
new in the 110th Congress, although its intent stemmed from concerns that had
existed for some time. Although points of order and parliamentary inquiries have
been raised regarding the enforcement of the rule (see Appendices C and D,
respectively), there have been questions about its use and its inherent ambiguity. The
rule could be repealed, or it could be clarified as to the form of a collateral
determination of whether the rule had been violated. Alternatively, a House rule
could be drafted to provide a potential point of order when a presiding officer has
allowed voting to continue after voting time has expired, or a potential point of order
when a Member has not been allowed to vote if the Member is in the well or,
alternately, in the chamber.
House rules, or Democratic Caucus or Republican Conference rules, could
authorize the Speaker’s announcements related to voting procedures. Such a
provision could formalize a requirement that the Speaker’s announcement include
information on voting by electronic device and a clarification of what is the well as
opposed to what is the chamber and not the well, and could provide guidance to the
Speaker on the content of an announcement.
The House could clarify the relationship between House rules and the Speaker’s
policies over what is official policy. A point of order can be made against a violation
of House rules, but there is no effective way to remedy violations of policies
enunciated by the Speaker. Should there be a way, and if so, what might it be?
Tr ai ni ng/ Educati on
A meeting of the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of
August 2, 2007 was held on the House floor to allow the clerk of the House to
explain the electronic voting system. Members of the committee commented that380
most Members were not aware of all that went into the conduct of a vote.
379 Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, “Legislative Program,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
380 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August
2, 2007, Member Briefing on Voting in the House of Representatives — The Rostrum and
the Electronic Voting System: A “Walkthrough” by the Clerk of the House Lorraine C.
(continued...)
One response to this observation could be to require Members to learn about
voting procedures in the chamber generally and the operation of the electronic voting
system specifically. The clerk and the parliamentarian, who participated in the select
committee’s walk-through, could design a training session on the voting system for
new Members, and a re-introduction session for returning Members. The training
could also include information on the role of each official on the Speaker’s dais.381
Training for Members could be provided during early organization meetings, and a
second session could be held within the first several months of a Congress, after
Members have had the opportunity to participate in votes.
Similarly, the clerk and the parliamentarian could design training sessions for
all officials who work on the dais. Considering their interrelated roles, each official
could benefit in performance of his or her role from understanding the roles and
responsibilities of others on the dais. Further, the clerk and the parliamentarian could
consider whether each role or function on the dais should be performed with limited
flexibility to ensure that there is uniformity of action regardless of whether the person
performing a role is a senior or junior staff member. The clerk, in rotating staff
serving on the dais, could also attempt to ensure a mixture of junior and senior staff
so that the dais is never occupied by exclusively junior or exclusively senior staff.
Training manuals could be prepared for both Members and dais staff. The
manuals could include information on the responsibilities of each official on the dais,
and information on voting procedures and the electronic voting system. Manuals
could be distributed to Members along with other materials provided at the early
organization meetings or at another time. Dais personnel could presumably receive
manuals prior to the convening of a new Congress.
The House could require training for all Members who are asked to preside over
the House. Concomitantly, consideration could be given to a clarification of the role
of the presiding officer, including how Members are selected by the majority
leadership to preside, how a Member presiding carries out the Speaker’s role
regarding decorum and comportment, and whether the presiding officer’s role is “an
impartial one.”382 The role of the parliamentarian, moreover, could be made more
explicit, for example, whether the parliamentarian should intervene in advising the
presiding officer on a parliamentary development on the floor or should await the
presiding officer’s request for advise.
The parliamentarian currently provides Members who preside with a brief
overview document of the role of the presiding officer.383 The document does not
380 (...continued)
Miller, hearing (unpublished), 110th Cong., 1st sess., October 18, 2007.
381 In an interview, Select Committee Chairman Delahunt called for such training. See Paul
Kane, “Probe of Disputed House Vote Turns into Long and Costly Saga,” The Washington
Post, March 18, 2008, p. A17.
382 Brown and Johnson, House Practice, p. 637.
383 It is unclear if this brief document is provided to all Members of the majority party or
(continued...)
specifically address the language to be used, and it does not address issues that might
arise. (Presiding officers are provided with cue cards containing the language to use
in response to specific developments on the floor.) If asked, the parliamentarian will
provide in-person training to individual Members prior to their time in the chair. The
training, among other things, could cover what the presiding officer should look and
listen for, what the appropriate language to use is, and generally, what the presiding
officer’s role is in maintaining decorum in the chamber and recognizing Members to
speak.
Dais Personnel
Because of the location of the parliamentarian and other officials on or near the
rostrum, Members and floor staff often approach the dais to speak with them. It could
be decided that the rostrum is to be limited only to Members or selected leadership
floor staff. The number, and possibly names, of such staff could be determined by the
Speaker and minority leader. Alternately, if a Member or floor staff aide wishes to
speak to the parliamentarian, that conversation could be required to occur off the
rostrum itself.
As already mentioned, training and an operations manual could be provided for
dais personnel.
Official Absences
The House could consider reinstating the use of “pairs.” For much of its history,
the House recognized three types of pairs to enable absent Members to have their
position noted prior to a vote, or to indicate that their absence would not affect the
outcome of a vote. A general pair enabled two Members to be listed without
indication of how they would have voted; a specific pair indicated how two absent
Members would have voted, with one supporting and one opposing a question, so
that had they been present, their votes would have balanced out; and a live pair,
which matched two Members, one absent and one voting present. The rules for the
Medicare prescription drug measure.
The House could institute an official policy regarding statements on missed
votes. For example, there could be a standard time set aside on the floor for Members
to deliver a statement, or there could be a section in the Congressional Record, such
as at the end of legislative business, where all such statements would appear.
383 (...continued)
only those who are selected to preside. If the latter, it is unclear when it is provided, and
whether a Member routinely receives it or needs to ask for training or the document.
384 Sec. 1 of H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House January 6, 1999. See Rule XX, cl. 3 (110th
Congress).
385 “Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003,” Congressional Record,
vol. 149, part 12 (June 26, 2003), p. 16594.
On March 6, 2008, a Member asked unanimous consent to make a traditional
missed-vote statement. Another Member reserved the right to object, and spoke not
about the request but about the legislative priorities of the House. The first Member
withdrew her unanimous consent request.386 The unanimous consent request was
successfully renewed later that day.387 The House might consider allowing such
statements to be made by a means other than unanimous consent.
Tally Sheets
The absence of a “tally sheet” is integral to the investigation of the vote on
August 2, 2007.388 The House could require partial preparation of a tally sheet with
the appropriate vote number as soon as the bells indicate the start of a vote. A vote
could also be deemed final and official only after a tally sheet was completed with
the official tally by a clerk and provided to the presiding officer.389 To distinguish a
final tally sheet, a different color could be used for it.
If one or more tally sheets are used for a vote, they could all be marked to show
their order of preparation and be retained as part of the official record of the vote.390
Alternately, as the House increasingly uses automated systems, it might be asked
whether tally sheets could be abandoned and the display board or a desk monitor be
used by the presiding officer.
Tally (Summary) Boards
One of the issues raised by the select committee was the appearance of the word
“final” on the summary boards in the chamber, and whether the presiding officer used
a summary board rather than a tally sheet to determine the vote tally. The House may
386 Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee and Tom Price, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154
(March 6, 2008), pp. H1398-H1399.
387 Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 154 (March 6, 2008),
p. H1399.
388 Referred to by the clerks as a page or a slip from the “yea-nay pad.” A tally clerk prepares
a tally sheet once the clerk believes that all Members have voted and in anticipation of the
presiding officer’s readiness to announce the result of a vote. A presiding officer uses the
tally sheet rather than the display board to announce a result since a tally sheet functions as
the clerk’s certification of the final vote. U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to
Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007, Voting in the House of
Representatives — Rules, Procedures, Precedents, Customs and Practice, hearingthst
(unpublished), 110 Cong., 1 sess., October 25, 2007.
389 The clauses of Rule XX (110th Congress) refer repeatedly to the conduct of a vote by the
clerk at the direction of the presiding officer.
390 If the presiding officer allows one or more late-arriving Members to vote, the tally clerk
might prepare more than one tally sheet in the course of attempting to close a vote. U.S.
Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2,
and Practice, hearing (unpublished), 110 Cong., 1 sess., October 25, 2007.
want to consider when or whether the word “final” should be displayed since it refers
to a step in the clerk’s termination of a vote rather than the presiding officer’s
announcement of a result.391
It also might be worth considering having the presiding officer exercise greater
control over both tally sheets and the summary boards. Control could also extend to
activating and deactivating the bell and light system.
Voting Stations
The number of voting stations in the chamber has remained constant since their
installation. The number and locations of the stations was determined without actual
experience and long ago, at a time when Members were called to the floor throughout
the day to vote or to respond to a quorum call. With over 30 years of experience, is
the number and location still appropriate? A survey could be conducted regarding the
usage of each machine to determine if there should be more or fewer stations, and
whether the locations of the voting stations are still appropriate.
Administrative/Legislative Organization
Both the House Administration Committee and the Standards of Official
Conduct Committee have jurisdiction over aspects of voting in the House. This
relationship could be clarified so that all Members understand which panel would
exercise authority over voting in general, and the particular problems that may arise
from it. Relatedly, the House Rules Committee has responsibility over the rules of
the House and potential points of order which can be raised against those rules,
including those related to voting. The committee’s authority could be clarified.
Further, it could be determined if the new Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE)
would have any role in looking into concerns about possible voting irregularities.
The House could require reports, perhaps biennially, from the House
Administration Committee or clerk, or both, on
!the operation of electronic voting system, including but not limited
to preparation for, conduct of, and conclusion of daily use of the
electronic voting system; use of the voting system by personnel on
the Speaker’s dais; support for the system and dais personnel during
the day behind the scenes; and security, including privileges
accorded different staff members;
!voting in general, specifically information on official absences,
points of order raised with respect to voting irregularities, and
malfunction of the electronic voting system; and
!Members making points of personal privilege related to voting
irregularities.
391 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August
2, 2007, Organizational Meeting on Adoption of Committee Rules; Consideration of Interim
Report; and Hearing on Voting in the House of Representatives, hearing (unpublished),thst
Each report could be prepared at the end of a Congress, printed as an official
document and provided to all Members and dais personnel. The documents could
also be provided at training sessions for the new Members.
Make No Changes
One of the issues the House might consider is whether there is a problem
associated with voting that requires action. For example, it is possible that the events
of August 2, 2007, are an isolated incident. As such, the House could decide whether
there is something really broken that needs to be fixed. It is possible that changes to
address one situation might produce unintended consequences at some future date.
Appendix A. Constitutional Provisions, House
Rules, and Speaker’s Policies Related to Voting
Constitution
Article 1, Section 5, clause 1 (excerpt).
...and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller
Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the
Attendance of absent members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each
House may provide.
Article 1, Section 5, clause 3 (excerpt).
...and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall,
at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Article 1, Section 7, clause 2 (excerpt).
...If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the
Bill, it shall be sent together with the Objections, to the other House, by which
it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it
shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be
determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and
against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
Article 1, Section 7, clause 3.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and
House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of
Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before
the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by
him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives,
according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Rule I. The Speaker
Clause 1 (excerpt).
Approval of the Journal
...Having examined and approved the Journal of the last day’s proceedings, the
Speaker shall announce to the House his approval thereof. The Speaker’s
approval of the Journal shall be deemed agreed to unless a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner demands a vote thereon. If such a vote is decided in
the affirmative, it shall not be subject to a motion to reconsider. If such a vote is
decided in the negative, then one motion that the Journal be read shall be
privileged, shall be decided without debate, and shall not be subject to a motion
to reconsider.
Clause 5 (excerpt).
Questions of order
The Speaker shall decide all questions of order, subject to appeal by a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. ...
Clause 6.
Form of a question
The Speaker shall rise to put a question but may state it sitting. The Speaker shall
put a question in this form: “Those in favor (of the question), say ‘Aye.’”; and
after the affirmative voice is expressed, “Those opposed, say ‘No.’”. After a vote
by voice under this clause, the Speaker may use such voting procedures as may
be invoked under rule XX.
Clause 7.
Discretion to vote
The Speaker is not required to vote in ordinary legislative proceedings, except
when his vote would be decisive or when the House is engaged in voting by
ballot.
Rule II. Other Officers and Officials
Clause 1 (excerpt).
There shall be elected at the commencement of each Congress, to continue in
office until their successors are chosen and qualified, a Clerk, a Sergeant-at-
Arms, a Chief Administrative Officer, and a Chaplain. ...
Rule III. The Members, Delegates, and Resident
Commissioner of Puerto Rico
Clause 1.
Voting
Every Member shall be present within the Hall of the House during its sittings,
unless excused or necessarily prevented, and shall vote on each question put,
unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question.
Clause 2.
2. (a) A Member may not authorize any other person to cast his vote or record his
presence in the House or the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union.
(b) No other person may cast a Member’s vote or record a Member’s presence
in the House or the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Clause 3(a) (excerpt).
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner
In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, each Delegate and
the Resident Commissioner shall possess the same powers and privileges as
Members of the House. ...
Rule X. Organization of Committees
Clause 5(a)(1) (excerpt).
Election and membership of standing committees
The standing committees specified in clause 1 shall be elected by the House
within seven days after the commencement of each Congress....
Clause 5(c)(1) (excerpt).
One of the members of each standing committee shall be elected by the House....
Rule XIII. Calendars and Committee Reports
Clause 6(a)(1).
Privileged reports by the Committee on Rules
A report by the Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of business
may not be called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to the
House except —
(1) when so determined by a vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum
being present;
Clause 6(c).
(c) The Committee on Rules may not report —
(1) a rule or order proposing that business under clause 6 of rule XV be set aside
by a vote of less than two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present;
or
(2) a rule or order that would prevent the motion to recommit a bill or joint
resolution from being made as provided in clause 2(b) of rule XIX, including a
motion to recommit with instructions to report back an amendment otherwise in
order, if offered by the Minority Leader or a designee, except with respect to a
Senate bill or resolution for which the text of a House-passed measure has been
substituted.
Rule XIV. Order and Priority of Business
Clause 6.
All questions relating to the priority of business shall be decided by a majority
without debate.
Rule XV. Business in Order on Special Days
Clause 1(a) (excerpt).
Suspensions
A rule may not be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members
voting, a quorum being present. ...
Clause 5(b)(1) (excerpt).
Private Calendar, first and third Tuesdays
On the third Tuesday of a month...the Speaker may direct the clerk to call the
bills and resolutions on the Private Calendar. ...Two-thirds of the Members
voting, a quorum being present, may adopt a motion that the House dispense with
the call on this day.
Clause 6(a) (excerpt).
Calendar Call of Committees, Wednesdays
On Wednesday of each week, business shall not be in order before completion
of the call of the committees (except as provided by clause 4 of rule XIV) unless
two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present, agree to a motion that
the House dispense with the call. ...
Rule XVI. Motions and Amendments
Clause 8(c).
A third reading precedes passage when the Speaker states the question: “Shall the
bill [or joint resolution] be engrossed [when applicable] and read a third time?”
If that question is decided in the affirmative, then the bill or joint resolution shall
be read the final time by title and then the question shall be put on its passage.
Rule XVIII. The Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union
Clause 6.
Quorum and voting
(a) A quorum of a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is
100 Members. The first time that a Committee of the Whole finds itself without
a quorum during a day, the Chairman shall invoke the procedure for a quorum
call set forth in clause 2 of rule XX, unless he elects to invoke an alternate
procedure set forth in clause 3 or clause 4(a) of rule XX. If a quorum appears, the
Committee of the Whole shall continue its business. If a quorum does not appear,
the Committee of the Whole shall rise, and the Chairman shall report the names
of absentees to the House.
(b)(1) The Chairman may refuse to entertain a point of order that a quorum is not
present during general debate.
(2) After a quorum has once been established on a day, the Chairman may
entertain a point of order that a quorum is not present only when the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union is operating under the five-minute
rule and the Chairman has put the pending proposition to a vote.
(3) Upon sustaining a point of order that a quorum is not present, the Chairman
may announce that, following a regular quorum call under paragraph (a), the
minimum time for electronic voting on the pending question shall be five
minutes.
(c) When ordering a quorum call in the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, the Chairman may announce an intention to declare that a
quorum is constituted at any time during the quorum call when he determines
that a quorum has appeared. If the Chairman interrupts the quorum call by
declaring that a quorum is constituted, proceedings under the quorum call shall
be considered as vacated, and the Committee of the Whole shall continue its
sitting and resume its business.
(d) A quorum is not required in the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union for adoption of a motion that the Committee rise.
(e) In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Chairman
shall order a recorded vote on a request supported by at least 25 Members.
(f) In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Chairman
may reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting without any
intervening business or debate on any or all pending amendments after a record
vote has been taken on the first pending amendment.
(g) The Chairman may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment. The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at
any time. The Chairman may reduce to five minutes the minimum time for
electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic
voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes.
(h) Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided by a margin
within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner
have been decisive, the Committee of the Whole shall rise and the Speaker shall
put such question de novo without intervening motion. Upon the announcement
of the vote on that question, the Committee of the Whole shall resume its sitting
without intervening motion.
Clause 12.
Applicability of Rules of the House
The Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union so far as applicable.
Rule XIX. Motions Following the Amendment Stage
Clause 2(a) (excerpt).
Recommit
After the previous question has been ordered on passage or adoption of a
measure, or pending a motion to that end, it shall be in order to move that the
House recommit (or commit, as the case may be) the measure, with or without
instructions, to a standing or select committee. ...
Rule XX. Voting and Quorum Calls
Clause 1.
(a) The House shall divide after the Speaker has put a question to a vote by voice
as provided in clause 6 of rule I if the Speaker is in doubt or division is
demanded. Those in favor of the question shall first rise from their seats to be
counted, and then those opposed.
(b) If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner requests a recorded vote,
and that request is supported by at least one-fifth of a quorum, the vote shall be
taken by electronic device unless the Speaker invokes another procedure for
recording votes provided in this rule. A recorded vote taken in the House under
this paragraph shall be considered a vote by the yeas and nays.
(c) In case of a tie vote, a question shall be lost.
Clause 2.
(a) Unless the Speaker directs otherwise, the Clerk shall conduct a record vote
or quorum call by electronic device. In such a case the Clerk shall enter on the
Journal and publish in the Congressional Record, in alphabetical order in each
category, the names of Members recorded as voting in the affirmative, the names
of Members recorded as voting in the negative, and the names of Members
answering present as if they had been called in the manner provided in clause 3.
A record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of
reversing the outcome of such vote. Except as otherwise permitted under clause
8 or 9 of this rule or under clause 6 of rule XVIII, the minimum time for a record
vote or quorum call by electronic device shall be 15 minutes.
(b) When the electronic voting system is inoperable or is not used, the Speaker
or Chairman may direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call as
provided in clause 3 or 4.
Clause 3.
The Speaker may direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call by call
of the roll. In such a case the Clerk shall call the names of Members,
alphabetically by surname. When two or more have the same surname, the name
of the State (and, if necessary to distinguish among Members from the same
State, the given names of the Members) shall be added. After the roll has been
called once, the Clerk shall call the names of those not recorded, alphabetically
by surname. Members appearing after the second call, but before the result is
announced, may vote or announce a pair.
Clause 4.
(a) The Speaker may direct a record vote or quorum call to be conducted by
tellers. In such a case the tellers named by the Speaker shall record the names of
the Members voting on each side of the question or record their presence, as the
case may be, which the Clerk shall enter on the Journal and publish in the
Congressional Record. Absentees shall be noted, but the doors may not be closed
except when ordered by the Speaker. The minimum time for a record vote or
quorum call by tellers shall be 15 minutes.
(b) On the demand of a 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, entered on the Journal, 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.
Clause 5.
(a) In the absence of a quorum, a majority comprising at least 15 Members,
which may include the Speaker, may compel the attendance of absent Members.
(b) Subject to clause 7(b) a majority described in paragraph (a) may order the
Sergeant-at-Arms to send officers appointed by him to arrest those Members for
whom no sufficient excuse is made and shall secure and retain their attendance.
The House shall determine on what condition they shall be discharged. Unless
the House otherwise directs, the Members who voluntarily appear shall be
admitted immediately to the Hall of the House and shall report their names to the
Clerk to be entered on the Journal as present.
(c)(1) If the House should be without a quorum due to catastrophic
circumstances, then —
(A) until there appear in the House a sufficient number of Representatives to
constitute a quorum among the whole number of the House, a quorum in the
House shall be determined based upon the provisional number of the House; and
(B) the provisional number of the House, as of the close of the call of the House
described in subparagraph (3)(C), shall be the number of Representatives
responding to that call of the House.
(2) If a Representative counted in determining the provisional number of the
House thereafter ceases to be a Representative, or if a Representative not counted
in determining the provisional number of the House thereafter appears in the
House, the provisional number of the House shall be adjusted accordingly.
(3) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), the House shall be considered to be
without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances if, after a motion under
clause 5(a) of rule XX has been disposed of and without intervening
adjournment, each of the following occurs in the stated sequence:
(A) A call of the House (or a series of calls of the House) is closed after
aggregating a period in excess of 72 hours (excluding time the House is in
recess) without producing a quorum.
(B) The Speaker —
(i) with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, receives from the
Sergeant-at-Arms (or his designee) a catastrophic quorum failure report, as
described in subparagraph (4);
(ii) consults with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader on the content of
that report; and
(iii) announces the content of that report to the House.
(C) A further call of the House (or a series of calls of the House) is closed after
aggregating a period in excess of 24 hours (excluding time the House is in
recess) without producing a quorum.
(4)(A) For purposes of subparagraph (3), a catastrophic quorum failure report is
a report advising that the inability of the House to establish a quorum is
attributable to catastrophic circumstances involving natural disaster, attack,
contagion, or similar calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending
the proceedings of the House.
(B) Such report shall specify the following:
(i) The number of vacancies in the House and the names of former
Representatives whose seats are vacant.
(ii) The names of Representatives considered incapacitated.
(iii) The names of Representatives not incapacitated but otherwise incapable of
attending the proceedings of the House.
(iv) The names of Representatives unaccounted for.
(C) Such report shall be prepared on the basis of the most authoritative
information available after consultation with the Attending Physician to the
Congress and the Clerk (or their respective designees) and pertinent public health
and law enforcement officials.
(D) Such report shall be updated every legislative day for the duration of any
proceedings under or in reliance on this paragraph. The Speaker shall make such
updates available to the House.
(5) An announcement by the Speaker under subparagraph (3)(B)(iii) shall not be
subject to appeal.
(6) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to a proposal to create a vacancy in the
representation from any State in respect of a Representative not incapacitated but
otherwise incapable of attending the proceedings of the House.
(7) For purposes of this paragraph:
(A) The term “provisional number of the House” means the number of
Representatives upon which a quorum will be computed in the House until
Representatives sufficient in number to constitute a quorum among the whole
number of the House appear in the House.
(B) The term “whole number of the House” means the number of Representatives
chosen, sworn, and living whose membership in the House has not been
terminated by resignation or by the action of the House.
(d) Upon the death, resignation, expulsion, disqualification, removal, or swearing
of a Member, the whole number of the House shall be adjusted accordingly. The
Speaker shall announce the adjustment to the House. Such an announcement
shall not be subject to appeal. In the case of a death, the Speaker may lay before
the House such documentation from Federal, State, or local officials as he deems
pertinent.
Clause 6.
(a) When a quorum fails to vote on a question, a quorum is not present, and
objection is made for that cause (unless the House shall adjourn) —
(1) there shall be a call of the House;
(2) the Sergeant-at-Arms shall proceed forthwith to bring in absent Members;
and
(3) the yeas and nays on the pending question shall at the same time be
considered as ordered.
(b) The Clerk shall record Members by the yeas and nays on the pending
question, using such procedure as the Speaker may invoke under clause 2, 3, or
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 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 requisite majority
of those voting shall have determined. Thereupon further proceedings under the
call shall be considered as dispensed with.
(c) At any time after Members have had the requisite opportunity to respond by
the yeas and nays, but before a result has been announced, a motion that the
House adjourn shall be in order if seconded by a majority of those present, to be
ascertained by actual count by the Speaker. If the House adjourns on such a
motion, all proceedings under this clause shall be considered as vacated.
Clause 7.
(a) The Speaker may not entertain a point of order that a quorum is not present
unless a question has been put to a vote.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c) the Speaker may recognize a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner to move a call of the House at any time. When a quorum
is established pursuant to a call of the House, further proceedings under the call
shall be considered as dispensed with unless the Speaker recognizes for a motion
to compel attendance of Members under clause 5(b).
(c) A call of the House shall not be in order after the previous question is ordered
unless the Speaker determines by actual count that a quorum is not present.
Clause 8.
Postponement of proceedings
(a)(1) When a recorded vote is ordered, or the yeas and nays are ordered, or a
vote is objected to under clause 6 —
(A) on any of the questions specified in subparagraph (2), the Speaker may
postpone further proceedings to a designated place in the legislative schedule
within two additional legislative days; and
(B) on the question of agreeing to the Speaker’s approval of the Journal, the
Speaker may postpone further proceedings to a designated place in the legislative
schedule on that legislative day.
(2) The questions described in subparagraph (1) are as follows:
(A) The question of passing a bill or joint resolution.
(B) The question of adopting a resolution or concurrent resolution.
(C) The question of agreeing to a motion to instruct managers on the part of the
House (except that proceedings may not resume on such a motion under clause
(D) The question of agreeing to a conference report.
(E) The question of ordering the previous question on a question described in
subdivision (A), (B), (C), or (D).
(F) The question of agreeing to a motion to suspend the rules.
(G) The question of agreeing to a motion to reconsider or the question of
agreeing to a motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider.
(H) The question of agreeing to an amendment reported from the Committee of
the Whole.
(b) At the time designated by the Speaker for further proceedings on questions
postponed under paragraph (a), the Speaker shall resume proceedings on each
postponed question.
(c) The Speaker may reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on a question postponed under this clause, or on a question incidental
thereto, that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, so long
as the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
is 15 minutes.
(d) If the House adjourns on a legislative day designated for further proceedings
on questions postponed under this clause without disposing of such questions,
then on the next legislative day the unfinished business is the disposition of such
questions.
Clause 9.
Five-minute votes
The Speaker may reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting
on any question arising without intervening business after an electronic vote on
another question if notice of possible five-minute voting for a given series of
votes was issued before the preceding electronic vote.
Clause 10.
Automatic yeas and nays
The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered when the Speaker puts the
question on passage of a bill or joint resolution, or on adoption of a conference
report, making general appropriations, or increasing Federal income tax rates
(within the meaning of clause 5 of rule XXI), or on final adoption of a concurrent
resolution on the budget or conference report thereon.
Clause 11.
Ballot votes
In a case of ballot for election, a majority of the votes shall be necessary to an
election. When there is not such a majority on the first ballot, the process shall
be repeated until a majority is obtained. In all balloting blanks shall be rejected,
may not be counted in the enumeration of votes, and may not be reported by the
tellers.
Rule XXI. Restrictions on Certain Bills
Clause 5(b) (excerpt).
Passage of tax rate increases
A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a Federal
income tax rate increase may not be considered as passed or agreed to unless so
determined by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a392
quorum being present. ...
Rule XXII. House and Senate Relations
Clause 12(a) (excerpt).
(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), a meeting of each conference committee shall
be open to the public.
(2) In open session of the House, a motion that managers on the part of the House
be permitted to close to the public a meeting or meetings of their conference
committee shall be privileged, shall be decided without debate, and shall be
decided by the yeas and nays.
392 Rulemaking statutes sometimes also require record votes. See Brown and Johnson, House
Practice, p. 921.
Rule XXIII. Code of Official Conduct
Clause 10.
A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who has been convicted by a
court of record for the commission of a crime for which a sentence of two or
more years’ imprisonment may be imposed should refrain from participation in
the business of each committee of which he is a member, and a Member should
refrain from voting on any question at a meeting of the House or of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, unless or until judicial
or executive proceedings result in reinstatement of the presumption of his
innocence or until he is reelected to the House after the date of such conviction.
Speaker’s Policies
Following a tradition beginning in the 1980s, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced
policies on certain aspects of the legislative process at the beginning of the new
Congress. One policy dealt with voting by electronic device. The Speaker’sth
announced policies for the 110 Congress appeared in the Congressional Record
(daily edition) on January 5, 2007, on pages H59-H61.
6. Conduct of Votes by Electronic Device
The Speaker’s policy announced on January 4, 1995, with respect to the conduct
of electronic votes will continue in the 110th Congress with modifications as
follows.
As Members are aware, clause 2(a) of rule XX provides that Members shall have
not less than 15 minutes in which to answer an ordinary record 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 considering 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 record votes. 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. 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.
Members will be given a reasonable amount of time in which to accurately
record their votes. No occupant of the Chair would prevent a Member who is in
the Well before the announcement of the result from casting his or her vote.
Appendix B. House Voting Procedures:
Forms and Requirements
Walter J. Oleszek
Government and Finance Division393
Voting is among the most public acts of Representatives. Generally, Members
try not to miss a vote, because it is an important demonstration to their constituents
that they are always on the job. Procedural considerations suffuse voting, and thus
it is important to understand the methods of voting in both the House and in the
Committee of the Whole, where much of the chamber’s business is conducted.
In the House there are four ways for lawmakers to obtain a vote in the House.
They are voice votes, division votes, yea and nay votes, and recorded votes.
Voice Vote. This means that lawmakers call out “yea” or “nay” when a question
is first put by the Speaker or Speaker pro tempore. As Rule I, clause 6, states, the
Speaker will first say, “Those in favor (of the question), say ‘Aye’.” Then the
Speaker will ask: “Those opposed, say ‘No’.” A voice vote can be quick and easy,
but it is sometimes difficult for the Speaker to determine — based on the volume of
each response — whether more lawmakers shouted “aye” compared to those who
shouted “no.”
Division Vote. Rule XX, clause 1(a), states that if the Speaker is uncertain about
the outcome of a voice vote, or if a Member demands a division, the House shall
divide. “Those in favor of the question shall first rise from their seats to be counted,”
and then those who are opposed to the proposition shall stand to be counted. This
procedure is reasonably accurate and takes only a few minutes, but it does not
provide a public record of how each Member voted. Only vote totals (95 for, 65
against, for instance) are announced in this seldom-employed method of voting.
Yea and Nay Vote. The Constitution (Article I, Section 5) declares that “the
Yeas and Nays of the Members...on any question” shall be obtained “at the Desire
of one fifth of those present.” Under this provision, it does not matter if a quorum of
the House (218 Members) is not present to conduct business — which the
Constitution requires — because any Member can say, “Mr. Speaker, on that vote,
I demand the yeas and nays.” If the demand is supported by one-fifth of those present,
the Speaker will say “the yeas and nays” are ordered.
There is also an “automatic” yea and nay (or rollcall) vote provided in House
Rule XX, clause 6. For example, if it is evident to a lawmaker that a quorum is not
present in the chamber, he or she may object to a vote on that ground and,
“automatically,” a vote will be ordered by the chair. To request an automatic vote,
a Member says, “I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and
I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.” The actual vote will then
393 This report is available as CRS Report 98-228. As it appears here, it was updated May
simultaneously determine both issues: the presence of a quorum and the vote on the
pending question. Clause 10 of Rule XX also states that the “yeas and nays shall be
considered as ordered” on final passage of a limited number of measures or matters,
such as concurrent budget resolutions. The Constitution requires that votes to
override presidential vetoes shall be determined by the yeas and nays.
Recorded Vote. Under Rule XX, clause 1(b), if any Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner “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.” (Yea
and nay and recorded votes are all taken by electronic device — employed since 1973
— unless the computerized voting system malfunctions; then standby procedures
outlined in Rule XX, clause 2(b), are used to conduct the votes.) To obtain a recorded
vote, a Member states, “Mr. Speaker, on that I demand a recorded vote.” If at least
one-fifth of a quorum of 218 — or 44 members — stand and support the request,
then the recorded vote will be taken by electronic device. Recall that the distinction
between recorded votes and the yeas and nays goes to the number of Members
required to support each request: one-fifth of those present for the yeas and nays and
one-fifth of a quorum (44 of 218) for recorded votes.
In the Committee of the Whole. Three methods of voting are available in the
Committee of the Whole: voice, division, and recorded. Yea and nay votes are not
permitted in the committee, either the constitutional or “automatic” forms. In short,
there is only one way to obtain a recorded vote in the committee — where a quorum
is 100 Members — and it is outlined in Rule XVIII, clause 6(e). This rule of the
House states: the “Chairman shall order a recorded vote on a request supported by
at least 25 Members.” Thus, any Member may say, “I request a recorded vote,” and,
if 25 lawmakers (the Member who made the request can be part of the tally, too) rise
to be counted by the chair, the recorded vote will occur by electronic device.
Alternatively, a lawmaker who plans to request a recorded vote even though few
Members are present in the chamber will usually say, “Mr. Chairman, I request a
recorded vote and, pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not
present.” Once the chair ascertains that a quorum is not present, there is an immediate
quorum call and the Member who requested the recorded vote can ask 24 other
colleagues to support his request as they come onto the floor.
Length of Time for Voting. Under Rule XX, clause 2(a), the minimum time
for a record vote by electronic device is 15 minutes in either the House or the
Committee of the Whole. The 15-minute period is the minimum, rather than the
maximum, time allowed for the conduct of a recorded vote. The chair has theth
discretion to hold the vote open longer. A new 110 rule states that votes are not to
be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. However, this
rule seems difficult to interpret in practice. There are also occasions in the House (see
Rule XX, clause 9) when the Speaker has the discretion to reduce the voting time to
not less than five minutes. The Speaker also has the authority under Rule XX, clause
8, to postpone and cluster certain votes. Votes in the Committee of the Whole may
also be reduced to five minutes, as noted in Rule XVIII, clause 6(f).
CRS-123
Appendix C. Points of Order Relating to Voting in the 110th Congress
ompile the list of points of order in the 110th Congress relating toagain searched using Firefox’s search function. Points of order dealing
ing in the House, a search was run using the Legislative Informationwith voting, the date they occurred, the Member who raised the point of
Congressional Record. The result wasorder, the Congressional Record (CR) page number, and the colloquy
of order” between January 4, 2007,with the presiding officer are displayed in the following table.
23, 2008. Each individual document was examined and was
teMemberCR PageExchange
iki/CRS-RL34570
g/wne 27, 2007Westmoreland (GA)H7258Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
s.orThe Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
leakMr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, rule XX, clause 2(a) says that no vote will be held open to change
the outcome.
://wikiThe Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman states a fair question. The vote was kept open to do the numerical
httpcalculation to see if the votes of the Delegates would change the outcome.
ptember 18, 2007Manzullo (IL)H10446Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MANZULLO. Who was controlling the clock that puts up the word “final”?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a point of order.
Mr. MANZULLO. The computer is doing it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The clock is for display only. As previously stated, the Chair was trying to
close the vote, but Members were raising their hands indicating they had not voted, and the Chair extended
them the courtesy of allowing them to vote.
CRS-124
teMemberCR PageExchange
7, 2008Kingston (GA)H3149The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on House
Resolution 1174, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, point of order. On that, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. KINGSTON. On resuming with 5-minute voting, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That order was entered some time ago. No objection was heard.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reserving my right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman’s objection is not timely.
iki/CRS-RL34570 8, 2008Westmoreland (GA)H3193Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2(a) of rule XX that the vote
g/wjust ended was held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome.
s.orThe Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair has considered whether the new sentence in clause 2(a) of rule XX
leakshould be enforceable in real time. The black letter of the rule is not dispositive. It uses the mandatory
“shall.” It might just as well say “should,” inasmuch as it is setting a standard of behavior for presiding
://wikiofficers. For this reason the Chair thinks it more sensible to enforce the rule on collateral bases, as by a
httpquestion of the privileges of the House. A set of “whereas” clauses in the preamble of a resolution could
allege the facts and circumstances tending to indicate a violation more coherently than they could be
articulated in argument on a point of order or in debate on an appeal. The resolving clause of a resolution
could propose a fitting remedy, rather than requiring the instant selection of a remedy in the face of
competing demands for vitiation of the putative result, reversal of the putative result, or admonishment of
the presiding officer. The Chair finds that the new sentence in clause 2(a) of rule XX does not establish a
point of order having an immediate procedural remedy. Rather than contemplating a ruling from the Chair in
real time, the language should be understood to establish a standard of behavior for presiding officers that
might be enforced on collateral bases.
CRS-125
Appendix D. Parliamentary Inquiries Relating to Voting in the 110th Congress
mentary inquiries in the 110th Congressdocument was examined and was again searched using Firefox’s search
ting to voting in the House, a search was run using the Legislativefunction. Parliamentary inquiries dealing with voting, the date they
stem for parliamentary inquiries in the Congressionaloccurred, the Member who raised the inquiry, the Congressional Record
. The result was 220 documents that contained “parliamentary(CR) page number, and the colloquy with the presiding officer are
” between January 4, 2007, and May 23, 2008. Each individualdisplayed in the following table.
teMemberCR PageExchange
iki/CRS-RL34570
g/wuary 18, 2007Price (GA)H679Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry
s.orThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of parliamentary inquiry.
leakMr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on this vote that just occurred, when the clock expired, the yeas were
ahead of the nays and the majority of the Members were voted. According to H.Res. 6, a recorded vote by
://wikielectronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote. Would
httpthe Speaker agree with me that this vote then was in violation of the rules?The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the gentleman is aware, the 15-minute period is a minimum and, in the case
of the first vote of the day, and an unexpected vote at that, a longer time may be necessary to complete the
vo t e .
CRS-126
teMemberCR PageExchange
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1350Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time we are adopting a rule that will allow
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote in the Committee of the Whole, does the rule allow for a
separate vote on any question once the Committee rises?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Rule XVIII contemplates automatic, immediate review in the House of certain
recorded votes in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. As a point of clarification on the inquiry, so any question may be put to a separate
vote once the Committee rises?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 6(h) of rule XVIII, both affirmative and negative decisions of the
iki/CRS-RL34570Committee of the Whole may be reviewed in the House under circumstances in which votes cast byDelegates were decisive in Committee.
g/w
s.orbruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1350Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
leakThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Under what circumstances will a separate vote not be allowed?
://wikiThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee will not automatically rise for such an immediate review in the
httpcase where votes cast by Delegates were not decisive.
CRS-127
teMemberCR PageExchange
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1350Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. When a vote is not decisive, but a question put loses, is there any opportunity for any
Member, certified Member of the House, to ask for a separate vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 6(h) of rule XVIII, immediate review in the House occurs
automatically when recorded votes cast by Delegates were decisive, without regard to whether the question
was adopted or rejected. In ordinary proceedings of the House on the ultimate report of the Committee of the
Whole, the House considers only matters reported to it by the Committee of the Whole, which would not
include propositions rejected in Committee. Simply put, an amendment rejected in the Committee of the
Whole is not reported back to the House.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. PRICE of Georgia. On any question put?The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not if it is rejected in the Committee of the Whole.
g/w
s.orbruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1357Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
leakThe CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, since the House is sitting as the Committee of the Whole, are the
://wikiDelegates and Resident Commissioner permitted to vote on all matters in the Committee of the Whole
http Ho use?
The CHAIRMAN. Under clause 3(a) of rule III, the Delegates and Resident Commissioner possess the same
powers and privileges as Members in the Committee of the Whole.
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1358Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It is my understanding that under the rules the House has adopted, that on any matter
in which the votes of the Delegates are decisive in the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole, that those
votes shall be retaken in the full House and that the Delegates and Resident Commissioner shall not be
permitted to vote in the full House. Is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. On recorded votes, yes, the gentleman is correct.
CRS-128
teMemberCR PageExchange
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1358Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. How is the Chair going to determine if the votes of the Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner are decisive?
The CHAIRMAN. The test for determining whether the votes of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner
are decisive under 6(h) of rule XVIII is a “but for” test, that is, would the outcome have been different had
the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner not voted. The absence of some Members is irrelevant to this
d e terminatio n.
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1358Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
iki/CRS-RL34570The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair. If the Chair determines that the votes of the Delegates and the
g/wResident Commissioner are not decisive, but a Member believes that in fact they are, is it appropriate for a
s.orMember to lodge a point of order against the Chair’s determination?
leakThe CHAIRMAN. The Chair’s decision on a question of order is not subject to an appeal if the decision is
://wikione that falls within the discretionary authority of the Chair. The Chair’s count of the number rising todemand tellers, a recorded vote, or the yeas and nays is not subject to appeal, nor is the Chair’s count of a
httpquorum. Likewise, the Chair’s count of the votes of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner is not subject
to appeal.
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1358Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the Chair determines that in fact the votes of the Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner are not decisive, will the Chair include those numbers when reporting the tally of the vote?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
CRS-129
teMemberCR PageExchange
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1358Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Given that, then it is my understanding, is it correct that the number of individuals
allowed to vote in the Committee of the Whole shall be 440, and the number in the full House shall be 435?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1358Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may not vote in the full House; is
that correct?
iki/CRS-RL34570The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole that thegentleman is correct.
g/w
s.orbruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1358Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
leakThe CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Do the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner count for the purposes of
://wikiestablishing and maintaining a quorum of the Committee of the Whole House?
httpThe CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
CRS-130
teMemberCR PageExchange
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1358Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the Delegates and Resident Commissioner are allowed to vote on everything in the
Committee of the Whole and they vote on procedural issues that may in fact affect the substantive nature of
a bill, and if a procedural vote is lost within a decisive margin, is there a mechanism to have a separate vote
in the full House on that procedural vote?
The CHAIRMAN. Under clause 6(h), an immediate vote in the House is contemplated under those
circumstances, given a recorded vote.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. On that procedural vote?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair. Are the Delegates and Resident Commissioner permitted to voteon the question of the Committee rising?
g/wThe CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
s.orMr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
leak
bruary 8, 2007Blunt (MO)H1386Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
://wikiThe Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
httpMr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, on the vote just taken, the Chair announced the vote as 422-3. Should the Chair
not have delineated the vote to properly reflect that the vote was 418-3 of those Representatives representing
the several States as specified in the Constitution, and that the votes of those Delegates not representing
States was 4-0?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No.
bruary 8, 2007Blunt (MO)H1386Mr. BLUNT. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The further parliamentary inquiry is, am
I accurate in believing that all of these votes can be revoted once we rise from the Committee of the Whole?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Those that are adopted may be revoted.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the chairman.
CRS-131
teMemberCR PageExchange
bruary 8, 2007Terry (NE)H1387Mr. TERRY. One last parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. So under the rule adopted by the House last
week giving Delegates and Commissioners voting rights, the standing committees of the House and the
Committee of the Whole House have the same legal standing under the rules of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to affirm that. Rules X and XVIII have the same
provenance. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole?
iki/CRS-RL34570
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http
CRS-132
teMemberCR PageExchange
bruary 8, 2007Price (GA)H1387Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, during the Committee of the Whole, I had a parliamentary inquiry
of the Chair about a second-degree amendment, and the response from the Chair may not have been
accurate. So in an effort to clarify for the House, in the Committee of the Whole, if a second-order
amendment passes but it is not a decisive vote, meaning that the Delegates and the Resident Commissioners
weren’t decisive in that passing, can any Member call for a re-vote of a second-degree amendment in the full
Ho use?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair appreciates the gentleman’s inquiring in this forum because an
earlier response he received about second-degree amendments in the Committee of the Whole, which should
iki/CRS-RL34570not have been given in that forum in the first place, was incorrect. Under the regular order, the Chair mustput the question in the House on amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole. In the instant case,
g/wthe Committee of the Whole has reported a single amendment in the nature of a substitute on which the
s.orChair will put the question to the House in due course. In addition, House Resolution 133 included language
leakto allow any Member to seek a separate vote on any amendment adopted to that original-text substitute in the
://wikiCommittee of the Whole. However, this opportunity for separate votes is not availing either in the case of anamendment rejected in Committee or in the case of an amendment to an amendment to the original-text
http sub stitute.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So as I understand your answer, Madam Speaker, there is no opportunity for a
Member of the House of Representatives to receive a vote in the full House on a second-order amendment
from the Committee of the Whole that passed by a nondecisive margin; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
CRS-133
teMemberCR PageExchange
bruary 8, 2007Westmoreland (GA)H1389Mr. WESTMORELAND (during the vote). Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the parliamentary inquiry related to this vote?
Mr. WESTMORELAND. It is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, could you tell me the reason this vote is being held open and
could you read the rule about holding votes open?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not holding the vote open; the Chair is waiting for the clerks to
process changes in the well.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. I didn’t realize there would be so much confusion about the way they
voted.
iki/CRS-RL34570bruary 8, 2007Feeney (FL)H1389Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
s.orMr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Speaker close the board and
leakall Members would have an opportunity to re-vote this issue. It might save a considerable amount of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk is processing changes of votes in the well. The gentleman’s request
://wikiis not in order. The Clerk will proceed.
http
CRS-134
teMemberCR PageExchange
14, 2007Westmoreland (GA)H2515Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would like to join me in noting that clause 2(a) of rule
XX provides that a recorded vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of
reversing the outcome of such vote. On the previous question vote, Rollcall Vote No. 145, I would hope that
you would agree that at the expiration of time for this vote the noes were prevailing. Is that true?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct that that particular clause says that a vote may not be
held open for the sole purpose of changing an outcome. In this case, the vote remained open to allow all
Members to vote.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
g/wMr. WESTMORELAND. Could the Speaker tell me when an instance of the vote being held open would
s.orreverse the outcome if it is not when the “nays” are prevailing against the “yeas,” or the “yeas” prevailing
leakagainst the “nays,” and the majority wants the outcome to be the exact opposite?
://wikiThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not going to respond to a hypothetical question. Mr. WESTMORELAND. Sir, that is not a hypothetical.
http
CRS-135
teMemberCR PageExchange
14, 2007Westmoreland (GA)H2516Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I am asking you a question about the House rules. If I am not correct, further
parliamentary inquiry, you are the arbitrator of those rules; is that true?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct that the Chair may describe pending parliamentary
situatio ns.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry. According to clause 2(a) of rule XX, it says that a
recorded vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of
such vote. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry to you is: When would this rule apply to a vote where, at
the end of the time, the outcome was different than what the majority wanted it to be?
iki/CRS-RL34570The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that the rules address the duration ofvotes in terms of minimum times; 15 minutes is a minimum time, not the maximum. A vote ultimately is
g/wcalled at the Chair’s discretion, trying to accommodate all Members who wish to vote.
s.or
leakMr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
://wikiWe are talking about a single vote. We are talking about the previous question vote, rollcall No. 145, whichwas held open past the 15-minute mark to change the outcome. If clause 2(a) of rule XX does not apply to
httpthat, what would it apply to?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to elucidate as follows: It is true that under clause 2(a) of
rule XX, a vote by electronic device “shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of
such vote.” In conducting a vote by electronic device, the Chair is constrained to differentiate between
activity toward the establishment of an outcome on the one hand, and activity that might have as its purpose
the reversal of an already-established outcome, on the other. The Chair also must be mindful that, even
during a vote by electronic device, Members may vote by card in the well. So long as Members are
recording their votes — even after the minimum period prescribed for a given question — the Chair will not
close a vote to the disenfranchisement of a district whose representative is trying to vote.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
CRS-136
teMemberCR PageExchange
ril 24, 2007Price (GA)H4024Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, isn’t it true that under the rules of the House adopted in this 110th
Congress, the five Delegate Members are allowed to vote in the Committee of the Whole, but not in the
whole House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Isn’t it true that the number of eligible
Members to vote in the whole House is 435 when all seats are filled?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn’t it further true, Mr. Speaker, that the number of eligible votes in the Committeeof the Whole is 440?
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Currently it is 438 because of absences due to two deaths. But normally it is
s.or440, that is correct.
leakMr. PRICE of Georgia. Four hundred forty if all seats were filled.
://wikiThe SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn’t it further true, Mr. Speaker, that the vote in the Committee of the Whole on the
httpGillibrand amendment was adopted by a vote of 254-165?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
CRS-137
teMemberCR PageExchange
2, 2007Price (GA)H4375 -Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
H4376The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, isn’t it true that under the rules adopted by this House, the number of
votes allowed in the Committee of the Whole is different than the number of votes allowed when the House
sits?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn’t it further true, Mr. Speaker, that because of the rules, any re-vote in the House
iki/CRS-RL34570on an amendment that passed in the Committee of the Whole with full participation, the total votes castwould be different?
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
s.orMr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.
leak
://wiki
http
CRS-138
teMemberCR PageExchange
9, 2007Price (GA)H4714Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, isn’t it true that, under the rules of the House, rule XX, clause 2 states
that the vote shall not be held open for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of the vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is true that, under clause 2(a) of rule XX, a vote by electronic device shall
not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn’t it true that, on the vote that was just taken, that at a point after the expiration of
iki/CRS-RL34570the time, that in fact the noes had prevailed and that individuals then changed their votes?The SPEAKER pro tempore. In conducting a vote by electronic device, the Chair is constrained to
g/wdifferentiate between activity toward the establishment of an outcome, on one hand, and activity that might
s.orhave as its purpose the reversal of an already established outcome, on the other. The Chair will state that this
leakwas an ongoing vote.
://wikiMr. PRICE of Georgia. Final inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
httpThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Is the Speaker able to inform the House as to the length of time that that vote was
kept open?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not have that information.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.
9, 2007Price (GA)H4717Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. How did the Speaker call the voice vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The noes prevailed. Does the gentleman from Georgia ask for a recorded vote?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I ask for a recorded vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A recorded vote is requested.
Those in favor of a recorded vote will rise.
CRS-139
teMemberCR PageExchange
9, 2007Abercrombie (HI)H4717Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. How much time has to pass before you get to
stand up and ask for a vote after you’ve already ruled? You can’t stand there forever and do that. Now let’s
run this thing right. The vote’s over.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia was on his feet and seeking recognition in a
timely manner.
9, 2007Linder (GA)H4717Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Isn’t it true that the motion to recommit was
passed by a recorded vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. LINDER. Isn’t it further true that the motion to recommit was brought back with the bill for finalpassage and that last motion was on final passage and you called the vote a “no”?
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The last vote was on the amendment reported back forthwith.
s.orMr. LINDER. Actually, the amendment was already agreed to and it came back with the final bill. There was
leakno call for a separate vote on the amendment again.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not correct. The adoption of the motion to recommit caused a report
://wikiforthwith that placed an amendment before the House, which separately bears adoption by the House.
httpMr. LINDER. By vote about 20 minutes ago.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chairman of the Committee reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment, which amendment still must be disposed of.
Mr. LINDER. With instructions, with the amendment included in it. So the only vote left for you to put
before the House is the vote on final passage, and you called it a “no” vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not correct. The question must be taken on the amendment reported
fo rthwith.
CRS-140
teMemberCR PageExchange
9, 2007Hoyer (MD)H4717The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the parliamentary situation in which we find ourselves is that
we adopted a motion to recommit forthwith to be reported back with an amendment. That amendment was
adopted favorably. When the vote was called, you indicated that amendment was defeated. My
parliamentary inquiry: Would at this point in time a motion to reconsider that vote be in order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes..... the request for a recorded vote aside.
Mr. HOYER. I would suggest that a motion to reconsider might solve the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the last voice vote be vacated and that the question be put de
no vo .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?
iki/CRS-RL34570 9, 2007Baker (LA)H4718Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
s.orMr. BAKER. I believe the gentleman, in order to offer the motion to reconsider, would have to be on the
leakprevailing side, and I would question the gentleman’s vote on the matter.
://wikiMr. HOYER. By the way, I’m trying to help the gentleman. You may have missed that, but I’m trying to
httphelp your side. But we can do it by unanimous consent that it be done de novo. And just so that the
gentleman from Louisiana knows, on a voice vote, of course, because there is not a recorded vote, anybody
can ask for a motion to reconsider because there is no record as to who voted on the prevailing side or who
voted on the opposing side. But, notwithstanding that, I press my motion de novo; that, in other words, the
question be placed, once again, de novo.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to vacating the voice vote and taking the question de novo?
Without objection, so ordered.
CRS-141
teMemberCR PageExchange
17, 2007Frank (MA)H5443Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The subsequent votes, do I understand correctly, will be 2-minute votes, Mr.
Chairman?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. After the first vote, subsequent votes will be 2-minute
votes.
22, 2007Bean (IL)H5569Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Georgia requesting a recorded revote on the bipartisan
iki/CRS-RL34570Bean-Neugebauer amendment which passed by voice vote last week?The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman have a proper parliamentary inquiry?
g/wMs. BEAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to make sure this was the bipartisan Bean-Neugebauer
s.oramendment.
leak
ne 14, 2007Price (GA)H6428Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
://wikiThe Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized to state his parliamentary inquiry.
httpMr. PRICE of Georgia. Do the rules not state that the Chair of the House is to be an impartial arbiter of the
proceedings?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls each voice vote as he hears it, and that call is not subject to
appeal.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
CRS-142
teMemberCR PageExchange
ne 27, 2007Westmoreland (GA)H7258Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you hold the vote open for people not having
voted, but this was a specific case of people changing their vote after the limit.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The vote was not kept open for the purpose of allowing Members to vote. There
had to be numerical calculations on the votes of the Delegates to see if they changed the outcome of the
vote. That was the purpose of the delay. It was not for any other reason.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, if I understand it correctly, the rule XX, clause 2(a) was put into
effect to keep votes open and keep people from lobbying to change their votes. That is exactly what
happened on this vote, and it is against the rules.
iki/CRS-RL34570ly 19, 2007Lewis (CA)H8171Mr. LEWIS of California. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
s.orMr. LEWIS of California. Is it untoward for me or someone to ask for unanimous consent that this vote be a
leak2-minute vote rather than a more extended vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain that request under the current circumstances.
://wikiWithout objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
httpThere was no objection.
ly 26, 2007Manzullo (IL)H8673Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. MANZULLO. Is it appropriate at this time to ask for a re-vote on each and every amendment just voted
on?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has just queried on that matter.
Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
CRS-143
teMemberCR PageExchange
ly 31, 2007Linder (GA)H9254 -Mr. LINDER (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
H9255The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LINDER. Is this a 5-minute vote that occurred because of a unanimous consent request?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will restate his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LINDER. First of all, is this a 5-minute vote?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. LINDER. Is it the result of a unanimous consent request?
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this is a 5-minute vote.
Mr. LINDER. It is my understanding that any intervening business requires a 15-minute vote on the
following vote under the rules of the House, and there was intervening business.
iki/CRS-RL34570The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will repeat that pursuant to clause 6(b)(3) of rule XVIII, this is a 5-minutevote. Voting will proceed.
g/w
s.or 2, 2007Barton (TX)H9649 -Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
leakH9650The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is the vote that is about to occur a 15-minute vote or a 5-minute vote?
://wikiThe SPEAKER pro tempore. It will be a 15-minute vote.
http
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order to ask a unanimous consent
request to make it a 5-minute vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain that request without proper notice. Proper notice
has not been given.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further parliamentary inquiry. What would constitute proper notice?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members would have to be given adequate notice.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t hear the answer. I am not being dilatory.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Member may consult the leadership on standards of adequate notice.
CRS-144
teMemberCR PageExchange
2, 2007Boehner (OH)H9650Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair first will announce the result. The Chair prematurely announced that
the motion was rejected on a tie vote of 214-214. After the cards already submitted in the well were entered
in the computer, the result was the same, albeit by a different total, 212-216. The motion is not adopted.
3, 2007Sensenbrenner (WI)H9659Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair tell me how many Members rose to request the
recorded vote and the total number of Members present in the House upon which the Chair made his
decision?
iki/CRS-RL34570The SPEAKER pro tempore. It’s up to the Chair. And let me tell you this: The vote will show that theapproval would be approved by the House, as it has been. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
g/w
s.or 3, 2007Sensenbrenner (WI)H9659Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, does not the
leakConstitution require that in order to get a yea and nay vote there has to be one-sixth of the Members present
requesting a yea and nay vote?
://wikiThe SPEAKER pro tempore. One-fifth.
httpMr. SENSENBRENNER. Excuse me, one-fifth.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
3, 2007Sensenbrenner (WI)H9659Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further parliamentary inquiry. Does not a recorded vote in the House require the
second of 44 Members?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. One-fifth of a quorum is required.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further parliamentary inquiry. Did one-fifth of the Members present stand? And,
if so, how is it possible to challenge the call of the Speaker on the accuracy of the count of the Members
present?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair’s decision is not subject to question.
CRS-145
teMemberCR PageExchange
3, 2007Sessions (TX)H9668Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. It is my understanding that the Speaker may, has options available to him or her as it relates
to electronic voting to where the Speaker could make a decision to have the Clerk record those votes
manually by rollcall.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The voting system is operational and the vote is ongoing.
Mr. SESSIONS. Continuing my request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will suspend. The Chair will try to ensure that Members know
of time remaining and will have an opportunity to cast their votes, and the Chair will announce the vote a
number of times to allow Members to change their vote.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will consult with the Clerk, they will tell you how you have
g/w vo t e d .
s.or
leak 3, 2007DeGette (CO)H9668Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady from Colorado.
://wikiMs. DeGETTE. Parliamentary inquiry. To speed this process, Mr. Speaker, are the computers throughout the
httpChamber on both sides working so Members could check the computers to see how their votes are recorded
and how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would recommend that Members check their votes at the voting
machine or at the rostrum to ensure that his or her vote is recorded.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. On this side of the aisle the computers in the
Chamber seem to be working, and I am wondering if they are working on the other side of the aisle?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry. The voting will continue.
CRS-146
teMemberCR PageExchange
3, 2007Sessions (TX)H9668Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. When the electronic voting system is
inoperable or is not used, the Speaker or Chairman may direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum
call as provided in clause 3 or 4; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The voting system is working. The problem is with
the display. The House will continue voting electronically.
3, 2007Sessions (TX)H9668Mr. SESSIONS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, would it be correct to say that normal procedures of this House are notcurrently, as it relates to voting, in place and available to Members at this time?
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. There is a problem with the display. The Clerk is
s.orworking to address that problem. But the voting machines are working, and the tally is being held.
leak
3, 2007Sessions (TX)H9668Mr. SESSIONS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
://wikiThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas.
httpMr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the question is whether the Speaker or the Speaker’s designee has the
authority to make a decision to enact what we would call to conduct or direct the Clerk to conduct a record
vote or quorum call as provided in clause 3 or 4.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has alternatives; and when it is proper to use them, the Chair may do
so .
3, 2007Sessions (TX)H9668Mr. SESSIONS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, could you please outline those options that are available to you and your
thinking? Because we are in a circumstance where we believe an inoperable voting system is presently being
—
The SPEAKER pro tempore. One is a manual call, one is a vote by tellers, and one is to continue with the
electronic vote. And the Chair has chosen to so continue.
CRS-147
teMemberCR PageExchange
3, 2007Dreier (CA)H9668Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. How much time is remaining on the vote that we can’t
see displayed any place that we are supposed to be casting?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 5 minutes and 30 seconds remaining on this vote, and the Chair will
accommodate Members on this vote.
3, 2007Sessions (TX)H9668Mr. SESSIONS (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Members having an inability to know what time remains, can
iki/CRS-RL34570the Chair please advise us what time remains in this vote?The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will make every effort to ensure that the Members will have every
g/wopportunity to vote, regardless of the time elapsed.
s.or
leak 3, 2007Sessions (TX)H9668Mr. SESSIONS. Further parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, can you please advise me how much time
remains in this vote?
://wikiThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman repeat his inquiry?
httpMr. SESSIONS. I will, Mr. Speaker. Can you please tell me how much time remains in this vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has the discretion to close the vote when all Members have voted.
3, 2007Sessions (TX)H9668 -Mr. SESSIONS. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing the circumstances that we are
H9669under, can you please advise me how much longer you will hold the vote open for Members?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will use his discretion to provide for Members who have not voted
or who would like to change their vote when in the Chair’s discretion every Member has voted who wants to
vote. The Chair will then tally the votes and announce the vote.
CRS-148
teMemberCR PageExchange
3, 2007Dreier (CA)H9669Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to propound a parliamentary inquiry. I’d like to inquire of the Chair, by
what means will the Chair know what the totals are on the vote that we’re engaged in at this moment?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will use the standard method of verification.
3, 2007Dreier (CA)H9669Mr. DREIER. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. DREIER. What is the traditional method of verification? For me, it is to look at the board up there and
see how my State delegation had voted. Mr. Speaker, I was just asking the Chair to enlighten us as to exactly
iki/CRS-RL34570how it is through this traditional procedure of determining what the vote is that you’re going to report to us. Iusually look up here on the wall and see how my State delegation is voting, how some of my colleagues are
g/wvoting. We don’t have the ability to do that. I’m just wondering exactly how it is that the Chair will be able
s.orto make this announcement to us.
leakThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Members can verify their votes at any one of the various voting stations.
Engineers are working on the problem.
://wiki
http 3, 2007Hastings (FL)H9669Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that there are
computer terminals on the majority side, the minority side and at the Speaker’s desk; and, further, Mr.
Speaker, is it not true that the Clerk of the House has the responsibility, when there are engineering
problems, to fix the engineering problems?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct and the engineers are working on the problem.
3, 2007Kanjorski (PA)H9669Mr. KANJORSKI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman suspend for a moment before being recognized.
The House is voting on a motion to adjourn. Members may verify their votes at any of the various voting
statio ns.
CRS-149
teMemberCR PageExchange
3, 2007Foxx (NC)H9669Ms. FOXX. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell us how much time has elapsed since you began this voting
process?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Approximately 20 minutes.
3, 2007Sessions (TX)H9669Mr. SESSIONS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, can you please at this time tell us the vote total?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not provide the total until every Member has an opportunity to
iki/CRS-RL34570change their vote, or to vote.
g/w 3, 2007Dreier (CA)H9669Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, you said the Clerk is still in the process of tallying the
s.or vo t e s?
leakThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Some of the ballot cards cast in the well are still being counted. The cards that
have been submitted are still being counted.
://wikiMr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, how long has this vote been open?
httpI am happy to yield to the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. I asked the gentleman a question because I think it is pertinent to whether or not the computers
to which the Speaker has referred are working throughout the floor.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to the majority leader, I would like to inquire, is the vote
still open? If Members want to change their votes now, they can continue to do that? If a Member were to
walk into the Chamber now, they could still vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The vote is still open.
CRS-150
teMemberCR PageExchange
3, 2007Davis (TN)/Dreier (CA)H9670Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, might I continue my parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry, in response to the question from the distinguished
majority leader, I will say that we have no way of verifying what it is that is coming out of this computer
here. It is not operating the way it normally does. If Members are able to still vote, we can see this screen
here, but it is not operating. I don’t normally operate this thing, but our crack team here has told me that it is
not operating the way that it normally does. I am happy to respond to any further questions.
iki/CRS-RL34570 4, 2007Westmoreland (GA)H9718Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry.
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
s.orMr. WESTMORELAND. Could the Speaker tell me what the magic number was that rose in order to get a
leak vo t e ?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair’s count is not subject to challenge. The Chair counted one-fifth of
://wikithose present standing.
http
CRS-151
teMemberCR PageExchange
ptember 18, 2007Sessions (TX)H10445Mr. SESSIONS (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. SESSIONS. Could the Speaker please provide this body with the information about how the Chair
intends to rule in regard to the clock when it says “time final,” and yet you have gaveled several times, and
yet you are accepting more votes. Could you please describe to us what we can count on. I think it is
important for this entire body to understand so that we know when the votes are final and when they are not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will inform the gentleman from Texas that the board is for display
only. The Chair will also tell the gentleman from Texas that the Chair began to announce the vote several
times, but noticed that Members were still trying to vote; and to extend them the courtesy to vote, the Chair
waited. Members from both sides of the aisle were trying to vote.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I also did recognize what you were trying to do. I am notopposed to extending courtesies. I am very obviously concerned about the extension of any time after the
g/wvote says “final.” I thank the gentleman.
s.or
leakptember 18, 2007Garrett (NJ)H10447Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
://wikiMr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Can the Speaker please clarify within the rules of the House when a bill is
httpfinal in terms of not being subject to open and changing the votes? Is it when the board says final or is it
when the Speaker gavels the bill down?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The board is for display purposes; and when the Chair hit the gavel to see if
any Members wished to change their votes, several Members from both sides of the aisle indicated they had
not voted, and the Chair extended the courtesy to allow Members to vote.
ptember 18, 2007Garrett (NJ)H10447Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Further parliamentary inquiry then.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his further parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just so I am clear, it is not upon the board, nor is it at the time of handing of
the gavel down? Some other action has to occur?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The Chair is advised that the word “final” appears on
the wall display as an indication of the status of the computer, not of the status of the vote.
CRS-152
teMemberCR PageExchange
ptember 18, 2007Garrett (NJ)H10447Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Further parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his further parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. The final element of when a vote is actually closed is when the Speaker, in
this case yourself, actually hands down the gavel and not the board?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is when the Chair announces the result of the vote.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the Speaker for the clarification. I appreciate it.
ember 7, 2007Souder (IN)H13249Mr. SOUDER. Parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. SOUDER. Since I moved for a recorded vote before the amendment was withdrawn and because I had
iki/CRS-RL34570the right to close, how did she get recognized over my motion?The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman withdrew the amendment before the Chair put the question on the
g/w amendment.
s.orMr. SOUDER. But why did you recognize her when I had the right to close?
leakThe CHAIRMAN. The gentleman made the closing remarks in debate. Then the amendment was withdrawn.
://wikivember 7, 2007Frank (MA)H13249Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry.
httpThe CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is it in order to demand a roll call before the Chair has put the voice vote?
The CHAIRMAN. No.
11, 2008Blunt (MO)H1532 -Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
H1533The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. BLUNT. Am I right that the rules of the House read, “A record vote by electronic device shall not be
held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote?”
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that that was a rule change that was made this Congress this year?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At the start of this Congress, that is correct.
CRS-153
teMemberCR PageExchange
11, 2008Blunt (MO)H1533Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Am I right in inquiring that the majority has said that any
vote that doesn’t change for 3 minutes and then changes is a vote being changed for the purpose of changing
vo t e s?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Has the gentleman asked the chair to interpret what the majority has said?
Mr. BLUNT. May I restate my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may restate the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, if the rule is violated that the majority put in the rules
package this year, does that eviscerate the vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. An alleged violation of 2(a) of rule XX may give rise to collateral challenge in
the form of a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Does this rule have any impact at all?
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry.
s.or
leak 11, 2008Dreier (CA)H1533Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
://wikiMr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair, what is the procedure to move ahead to
httpensure that we have enforcement of rule IX?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously stated, an alleged violation of clause 2(a) of rule XX may give
rise to collateral challenge in the form of a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX.
11, 2008Blunt (MO)H1533Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BLUNT. If the vote is necessary for another vote to occur, what’s the parliamentary way to challenge
that vote before the subsequent vote occurs?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The challenge would occur collaterally — that is, after the fact.
CRS-154
teMemberCR PageExchange
11, 2008Blunt (MO)H1533Mr. BLUNT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for purposes of parliamentary
inq uiry.
Mr. BLUNT. What is the proper motion to ask that that vote be reconsidered?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any Member on the prevailing side may move to reconsider.
11, 2008Boehner (OH)H1533Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, did I understand that to challenge the vote on the previous question that it
would rise to a question of the privileges of the House? Is that correct?
iki/CRS-RL34570The SPEAKER pro tempore. Such a matter could qualify as a question of privilege.Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the privileges of the House have been dishonored, that the rules
g/whave been violated.
s.orThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry? The gentleman is
leakrecognized for purposes of parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, when could I introduce a privileged motion?
://wikiThe SPEAKER pro tempore. A privileged resolution may be entertained after the conclusion of the pending
http rule.
11, 2008Boehner (OH)H1533Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for purposes of parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BOEHNER. If I can’t offer a privileged resolution until this business has been completed, there will
have been a vote taken on final passage of this rule, which basically takes my remedy away from me. I
believe that under the rule as written by the majority that a vote cannot be held open solely for the purpose
of trying to change the outcome. It was violated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has described the challenge as collateral. An alleged violation of
clause 2(a) of rule XX may give rise to collateral challenge in the form of a question of the privileges of the
House pursuant to rule IX. The question is on the resolution.
CRS-155
teMemberCR PageExchange
11, 2008Cubin (WY)H1533Mrs. CUBIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for purposes of a
parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I’m under the impression that the delegates from the territories’ vote cannot be
counted when it makes a difference in the outcome of the vote. So could you tell me when those votes can be
considered and when they can’t be considered?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule to which the gentlewoman refers is applicable to the Committee of the
Whole only.
12, 2008Boehner (OH)H1544Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
iki/CRS-RL34570The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.Mr. BOEHNER. As the gentleman called the vote, I couldn’t hear, Mr. Speaker.
g/wThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair noted that the ayes had it.
s.orMr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.
leak
12, 2008Lungren (CA)H1544Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
://wikiThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your inquiry.
httpMr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is it true that the rule that was the subject of the motion of the
gentleman from Ohio with respect to not holding a vote open for the purpose of changing votes was adopted
by this Congress at the beginning of this Congress?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
12, 2008Lungren (CA)H1544Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is it true that that
rule was, in fact, a separate title and voted separately by this House by a vote of 430-0?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not currently aware of the exact vote on that.
12, 2008Lungren (CA)H1544Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Consistent with the
rulings of the Chair last night, is it true that the only enforcement mechanism of that rule adopted by this
House is a privileged resolution such as offered by the gentleman from Ohio?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
CRS-156
teMemberCR PageExchange
12, 2008Lungren (CA)H1544Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. If such a privileged
resolution is tabled, as was just done by this body, is it true that there is no alternative enforcement
mechanism?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The minority leader’s resolution, House Resolution 1039, was held to present a
question of privilege and was considered as such. The will of the House was that it be laid on the table.
12, 2008Lungren (CA)H1544 -Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it available to
H1545other Members of this House who feel aggrieved by the vote last night to bring a privileged resolution
similar to that brought by the gentleman from Ohio?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, it is.
iki/CRS-RL34570Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is it true, Mr. Speaker, that if individual Members brought suchmotion seriatim that that would not be considered dilatory but, rather, within the authority of each Member
g/wof this House as a separate and individual Member of this House?
s.orThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot render such an advisory opinion.
leak
12, 2008Lungren (CA)H1545Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is the enforcement
://wikimechanism referred to previously, exercised by the gentleman from Ohio, also available to other individual
httpMembers of this House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Rule IX may be invoked by any Member of the House.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman.
12, 2008Shadegg (AZ)H1545Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SHADEGG. Is it correct that the motion just brought by the gentleman from Ohio was brought pursuant
to rule IX and was on a question of the privileges of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. SHADEGG. And is it correct that that motion was then tabled and that was the action the House just
took?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The minority leader’s resolution (H.Res. 1039) was held to present a question
of privilege and was considered as such. The will of the House was that it be laid on the table.
CRS-157
teMemberCR PageExchange
12, 2008Shadegg (AZ)H1545Mr. SHADEGG. Further parliamentary inquiry. If it had not been tabled, then it would have been debatable
for 1 hour, is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not answer a hypothetical question. The majority leader’s
resolution was held to present a question of privilege and was considered as such. The will of the House was
that it be laid on the table.
Mr. SHADEGG. Is it not true that earlier this year there have been questions of the privileges of the House
where they have not been tabled and they have been debated for an hour?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot serve as historian for the House, but the gentleman is correct
that a question of privilege could be considered by the House.
Mr. SHADEGG. And could be debated for an hour?
iki/CRS-RL34570The SPEAKER pro tempore. And could be debated.Mr. SHADEGG. Is it not true that in the last Congress, the then minority leader and the now Speaker raised
g/wa similar question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX after a vote was held open and that on
s.orthat question of privileges of the House, in fact, the majority, the then majority, now minority, allowed a
leakdebate of an hour and that the conduct of the House in holding a vote open to change the result of the vote
://wikiwas debated for an hour?The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not the function of the Chair to render historical perspectives. The Member
httpwill have to look to the RECORD for that.
Mr. SHADEGG. I’m sorry. The gentleman is correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not prepared to render historical perspectives. The Member will
have to look at the Record for that answer.
Mr. SHADEGG. So the effect of immediately tabling the question of privileges raised by the gentleman
from Ohio was to deny the minority the ability to debate that issue for an hour as was done when the same
thing happened last Congress, is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is a summary, adverse disposition.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman.
CRS-158
teMemberCR PageExchange
12, 2008Westmoreland (GA)H1545Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the last vote was called at 10:52?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not prepared to give exact figures. The gentleman can look at the
Record for that.
12, 2008Westmoreland (GA)H1545Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Please state your inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is it not true that the vote was closed at 11:22, which is approximately 30
mi nut e s ?
iki/CRS-RL34570The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not prepared to render an historical perspective. The gentlemancan look to the Record for that.
g/w
s.or 12, 2008Westmoreland (GA)H1545Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry. According to the Democrats’ election manifesto,
leakfloor votes should be completed within 15 minutes with a customary 2-minute extension to accommodate
Members’ ability to reach the House Chamber to cast a vote. No vote shall be held open in order to
://wikimanipulate the outcome. Was that the rule that we passed on January 5, 2007?
httpThe SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not appropriate for the Chair to render an opinion on a document of the
nature cited by the Member.
ril 15, 2008Westmoreland (GA)H2321Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is it not the job of the Speaker to
interpret the rules of this House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have an inquiry to state? Would the gentleman please state
that inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, is it not true that under rule XX of this House, that it says that no
votes will be kept open to change the outcome of that vote; is that true?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair advised on March 11, 2008, a challenge to the Chair’s actions
under clause 2 of rule XX may be raised collaterally.
CRS-159
teMemberCR PageExchange
8, 2008Westmoreland (GA)H3192 -Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
H3193The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, in light of the conversation that the majority leader and the
minority leader had last night as far as leaving votes open, and I believe the majority leader said the vote
would be for 15 minutes, and then a 2-minute courtesy period, could you tell me the tally of the vote at the
end of the 15 minutes and the 2-minute courtesy period?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.
iki/CRS-RL34570
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http