[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 14, Chapter 30]
[Chapter 30. Voting]
[C. Yeas and Nays and Other Votes of Record]
[§ 28. Recapitulation of Roll Call Vote]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 11606-11616]
CHAPTER 30
Voting
C. YEAS AND NAYS AND OTHER VOTES OF RECORD
Sec. 28. Recapitulation of Roll Call Vote
The term, ``recapitulation,'' refers to a procedure (16)
whereby the count on a roll call vote is verified by the Chair.
Undertaken at the Chair's discretion,(17) a recapitulation
is had either before or after the announcement of the result. The sole
purpose is to ascertain how Members are recorded. Occasionally
requested on close votes,(18) the procedure enables
incorrectly recorded Members to obtain corrections. Members may not
change their votes during a recapitulation (19) [a
correction, of course, does not constitute a ``change'' of vote].
However, if the Chair directs the recapitulation before announcing the
result of the vote, Members may change their votes following the
recapitulation and preceding the announcement of the
result.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 28.8, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 28.1-28.5, infra.
18. See Sec. Sec. 8.4, 28.5, infra.
19. See Sec. 28.6, infra.
20. See Sec. 28.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in the 92d Congress, the House began using the electronic
voting system (Sec. 31, infra). Most yea and nay votes have been taken
with the electronic system since Jan. 23, 1973. Recapitulation has not
been permitted since that time but would still be available on a vote
taken by roll call. -------------------
Speaker's Discretion
Sec. 28.1 Either before or after the announcement of the result of a
roll call vote, the Speaker may, in his discretion, order a
recapitulation of the vote.
On Sept. 2, 1959,(1) the House voted on overriding a
Presidential veto of a bill (H.R. 7509) making appropriations for civil
functions administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies
of the Department of the Interior, and the Tennessee Valley Authority
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 105 Cong. Rec. 17752, 17753, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the votes were tallied, but before the Speaker announced the
result, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, prompted the following
discussion:
Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recapitulation of the
vote.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, may we not
have the vote announced first?
The Speaker: (2) The Chair holds that there can be a
recapitulation be
[[Page 11607]]
fore or after the vote. Therefore, we will have a recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: Upon request, will not the Speaker announce the
vote?
The Speaker: The Chair has discretion in this matter.
Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, regular
order.
The Speaker: The regular order is the Clerk will call the names
of those voting in the affirmative. . . .
Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker. I renew my request for an
announcement of the vote.
The Speaker: The Chair has already ordered a recapitulation.
The Clerk will call the names of those voting in the
affirmative.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. For similar instances, in which the Chair makes evident its
authority to order a recapitulation before the announcement of
the vote, see Sec. 28.3, infra; and 81 Cong. Rec. 7772, 75th
Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1937. But see Sec. 28.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 28.2 In the course of exercising his discretionary authority, the
Chair once stated that it was not possible to request a
recapitulation where a roll call vote was still in progress.
On Oct. 12, 1962,(4) the House agreed to a conference
report on a bill (H.R. 12900) making certain public works
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. The Members
then proceeded to consider the first amendment remaining in
disagreement between the two bodies, and Mr. Clarence Cannon, of
Missouri, moved that the House recede from its disagreement and concur
in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 108 Cong. Rec. 23432, 23433, 23434, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Speaker put the question on the motion, it was taken; and
he announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. Cannon then
objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present
whereupon the Chair counted and subsequently directed the Clerk to call
the roll. The roll having been called, the Speaker directed the Clerk
to call the names of those Members who failed to answer the first call.
In the course of this resumption of the call, the following
proceedings occurred:
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa] (interrupting the rollcall): Mr.
Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (5) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, how many times must a Member check how
he has voted?
The Speaker: That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma] (interrupting the
rollcall): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 11608]]
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Edmondson: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to have a
recapitulation of the votes that have been cast in advance of the
announced vote?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that there has been no vote
announced as yet. Therefore, at this point it is not possible to
request a recapitulation.
(The Clerk resumed calling the roll.)
Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that any determination
as to whether to conduct a recapitulation is within the discretionary
power of the Chair. Thus, it is altogether possible to interpret the
Speaker's language in this instance as meaning that such a request was
not permissible because in the exercise of the Speaker's discretionary
authority, he did not choose to entertain such a request before the
announcement of the vote.
Moreover, the majority of recapitulation instances indicate that
the Chair has felt few constraints on the timing of his decision to
order a recapitulation. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, for example,
declined a Member's request for announcement of the vote prior to
undertaking a recapitulation in 1941.(6) Speaker William B.
Bankhead, of Alabama, responding to a Member's point of order in 1937,
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 87 Cong. Rec. 6869, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 7, 1941.
7. 81 Cong. Rec. 7772, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In answer to the point of order the Chair refers to section
3123, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents. The syllabus recites that
``under the more recent practice recapitulation of a vote may be
had either before or after the announcement of the result of the
vote.''
--Members' Responsibility
Sec. 28.3 When a recapitulation of a roll call vote on overriding a
Presidential veto is ordered by unanimous consent, Members who come
on the floor for the first time while the recapitulation is being
taken are not permitted to vote. Members leaving the Chamber after
voting on the original roll call who may have been incorrectly
recorded do so on their own responsibility, and any Member who
desires to change his vote before the vote is announced following
the recapitulation may do so.
On Aug. 7, 1941,(8) the House proceeded by roll call
vote to consider the question of overriding the President's veto on S.
1580 (a road bill). When the roll call was completed the Speaker
(9) announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 87 Cong. Rec. 6895-97, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair thinks this vote is close enough so that, if there is
no objection, there will be a recapitulation. . . .
[[Page 11609]]
Mr. [Joseph E.] Casey of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Casey of Massachusetts: May we hear the present vote?
The Speaker: We are starting a recapitulation to determine
whether or not the vote is correct. The Clerk will call the names
of those recorded as voting ``yea.''
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Nichols: Mr. Speaker, will Members who come on the floor
while this recapitulation is being taken be permitted to vote?
The Speaker: Members cannot qualify unless they were here
before the roll call was completed.
Mr. [Leo E.] Allen of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Allen of Illinois: How could you have a correct analysis of
the vote if a Member were out of the Chamber now who had voted
``nay'' and he is recorded as voting ``yea'' and he is not here to
correct it?
The Speaker: That is not the business of anybody in the House
except the particular Member involved. . . .
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: As I understand the rules, at the conclusion of
the calling of the roll, the rules require the Speaker to announce
the result.
No business can intervene between the calling of the roll and
the announcing of the result of the roll call. After the result has
been announced and it is known whether or not the vote is close,
the Speaker may, of his own volition, order a recapitulation of the
roll call. . . . It has been held that a recapitulation will only
be ordered where the vote is close. Consequently, it seems
imperative that the House should be advised as to what the vote is
before a recapitulation is ordered. . . .
It is fundamental that a Member cannot change his vote after
the result of the roll call has been announced. A recapitulation is
for the purpose of correcting any errors in the vote as recorded,
and not for the purpose of giving an additional opportunity to
members to change their votes. . . . A recapitulation is for the
purpose of correcting clerical errors.
To hold otherwise would be to lend encouragement to effective
filibuster in order that one side in a closely contested vote might
bring influence to bear and cause Members to change their original
votes. To hold otherwise would do violence to the democratic
processes of the House. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair certainly is not in a filibuster. It has
been held time and time again that any Member may change his vote
before the vote is announced, and I read from page 419 of Cannon's
Procedure in the House of Representatives, and this is exactly what
the Speaker operated under:
The motion that a vote be recapitulated is not privileged,
but either before or after the announcement of the vote, the
Speaker may, in his discretion, order recapitulation. (If
[[Page 11610]]
more than four votes different, in the absence of other
considerations, recapitulation will not be ordered.)
The Speaker did not order a recapitulation until he asked if
there was objection by any Member of the House.
Mr. Michener: There was no announcement to see whether there
was a difference of but a few votes. The effect of this procedure
is to interrupt an incompleted roll call and proceed with a
recount. No votes should be changed in a recount and no new votes
should be added during a recount or a recapitulation.
The Speaker: The Chair is following this book. The Chair is
going to hold that up until the time the result of this vote is
announced by the Chair any Member may change his vote, because that
is merely following the precedents of the House. Any Member who
desires to change his vote before the vote is announced, may do so.
After the names of Members who had voted aye were called, and the
last of those voting no, several Members then changed their votes
before the result was announced.
The vote was--yeas 251, nays 128, not voting 54. So the President's
veto was not overridden.
Closeness of Vote as Determining Factor
Sec. 28.4 The Speaker has declined to order a recapitulation where the
difference in the vote was as great as 10.
On June 21, 1962,(10) Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois,
offered a motion to recommit a bill (H.R. 11222) to the Committee on
Agriculture pertaining to farm products, prices, income, and other
agricultural matters. When the Speaker put the question, the yeas and
nays were demanded and subsequently ordered. The question was taken;
and there were--yeas 215, nays 205, not voting 17. The Chair then
announced the result of the vote on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 11383, 11384, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately thereafter, the following exchange occurred:
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
for a recapitulation of the vote.
The Speaker: (11) Does the gentleman insist on his
request for a recapitulation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I insist upon it.
The Speaker: The Chair feels that the vote is not sufficiently
close to order a recapitulation.
Mr. Cooley: All right, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the
request.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Chair has also declined to order a recapitulation after being
so urged in earlier Congress; see, for example, 101 Cong. Rec.
11930, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1955, where a seven-vote
difference was involved, and 83 Cong. Rec. 5124, 75th Cong. 3d
Sess., Apr. 8, 1938, where there was an eight-vote spread. See
also Sec. .28.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11611]]
Sec. 28.5 The Speaker has declined to order a recapitulation of a vote
where there was a four-vote difference.
On Oct. 9, 1969,(13) Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of
Massachusetts, offered a motion instructing House conferees to insist
on a particular provision with respect to a bill (H.R. 11612) making
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 29314, 29315, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly thereafter, a preferential motion was offered to lay the
Conte motion on the table. On a vote by division, there were--ayes 64,
noes 44. Mr. Conte objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was
not present whereupon the Speaker, concurring, directed the Clerk to
call the roll. The question was taken and there were--yeas 181, nays
177. Accordingly, the preferential motion was agreed to.
Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:
Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, was the vote 181 affirmative and 177
negative?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that that is correct.
Mr. Findley: Mr. Speaker, on that I request a recapitulation.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair feels that if
there was a difference of one or two votes, the Chair would order a
recapitulation, but where there are four votes the Chair does not
feel a recapitulation should be ordered.
Parliamentarian's Note: Referring to the difference between the yea
and nay columns in a similar situation, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
stated,(15) ``If the number were less than 4, the Chair
would consider a recapitulation but not on a vote where there is this
much [seven votes] difference.'' A number of years earlier, Speaker
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, noted,(16) ``The Chair has
the discretion upon a very close vote to request a recapitulation; that
is, where there is a difference of only one or two or three or possibly
four votes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 101 Cong. Rec. 11930, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1955.
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 5124, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 8, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Changes; Effect of Announcement of Result
Sec. 28.6 Members desiring to change their votes on a re
[[Page 11612]]
capitulation of a vote may do so after the recapitulation providing
the result has not been announced by the Chair.
On July 28, 1954,(17) the House took a roll call vote on
a resolution (H. Res. 626) providing that upon its adoption the
Committee of the Whole would sit to consider a bill (H.R. 236)
authorizing a flood control project in Colorado. Immediately after the
vote and prior to making any announcement as to the result, the Chair
asked for a recapitulation, and the following proceedings then
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 100 Cong. Rec. 12453, 12454, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold A.] Patten [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Patten: What are we doing now?
The Speaker: We are recapitulating the vote to find out if the
Members are correctly recorded.
Mr. Patten: Is it true that a Member who voted ``yea'' can now
vote ``nay''?
The Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Patten: Then you are not recapitulating, you are asking for
a new vote.
The Speaker: The House is in the process of recapitulating the
vote.
Mr. Patten: A person who voted ``yea'' before may now vote
``nay.'' You cannot do that, Mr. Speaker. I raise a point of
parliamentary procedure. You cannot do that.
The Speaker: Will the gentleman take his seat, and we will do
it in due order?
Mr. Patten: No; I shall not take my seat.
The Speaker: Will the gentleman cease for a moment?
Mr. Patten: The Parliamentarian will tell you that is wrong.
The Speaker: The Parliamentarian informs the Chair that Members
can change their votes at any time before the Chair announces the
result of the vote.
Mr. Patten: Then I may change my vote at this point?
The Speaker: Not until after the recapitulation.
The Clerk will call the names of those voting ``yea.''
The Clerk proceeded to call the names of those voting ``yea.''
Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio] (interrupting the
recapitulation): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk passed my name. I voted in
the affirmative about four times as loud as I could yell.
The Speaker: The gentleman may make that correction at the end
of the call of those who voted in the affirmative.
Immediately after the recapitulation, but prior to the Chair's
announcement of the result, the Record reveals that 10 Members changed
their votes.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Members desiring to change incorrectly recorded votes may do so, of
course, at the proper time during the recapitulation; see
Sec. Sec. .28.7, 28.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11613]]
Sec. 28.7 The result of a roll call vote having been announced, a
Member may not change his vote on a subsequent recapitulation
although he is entitled to correct his vote if it was incorrectly
recorded.
On Feb. 17, 1955,(20) the House had under consideration
a resolution (H. Res. 142) which provided that upon its adoption the
House would resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole in order to
consider a bill (H.R. 1) to extend the authority of the President to
enter into trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act of
1930. The resolution additionally provided that no amendment other than
those offered by the Committee on Ways and Means would be in order, and
that such amendments would not be subject to amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 101 Cong. Rec. 1661, 1678, 1682, 1683, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the previous question on the resolution was voted down, Mr.
Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, offered an amendment to provide for an open
rule which would have allowed ``any amendment . . . germane to H.R. 1
when . . . considered under the 5 minute rule.'' Following debate on
the Brown amendment, the Speaker put the question, it was taken; and,
the yeas and nays having been ordered, there were--yeas 191, nays 193,
not voting 50. The Chair announced the result of the vote, and the
following proceedings then occurred:
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, may I call for a
recapitulation.
The Speaker: (1) The Chair thinks the vote is close
enough so that there should be a recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk will call the names of those voting in the
affirmative.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McCormack: I would like to inquire of the Speaker if my
understanding is correct that on recapitulation no Member can
change his vote. The question is only how they are recorded.
The Speaker: That is true because the vote has been announced.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Upon recapitulation, if a Member finds that
his vote has been recorded incorrectly, he certainly has a right to
correct it.
The Speaker: That is the purpose of a
recapitulation.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See also Sec. .28.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure
Sec. 28.8 When a recapitulation is ordered, the Clerk calls first
[[Page 11614]]
those voting in the affirmative, second, those voting in the
negative, and, third, those answering ``present''; any necessary
corrections are made after all the names in each respective
category are called.
On July 28, 1954,(3) the House took a roll call vote on
a resolution (H. Res. 626) providing that upon its adoption the
Committee of the Whole would sit to consider a bill (H.R. 236)
authorizing a flood control project in Colorado. Immediately after the
vote and prior to making any announcement as to the result, the Speaker
asked for a recapitulation, and directed the Clerk to call the names of
those voting in the affirmative. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 100 Cong. Rec. 12453, 12454, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (4) The Clerk will call the names of
those voting ``yea.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk proceeded to call the names of those voting ``yea.''
Mr. [Cliff] Clevenger [of Ohio] (interrupting the
recapitulation): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk passed my name. I voted in
the affirmative about four times as loud as I could yell.
The Speaker: The gentleman may make that correction at the end
of the call of those who voted in the affirmative.
Mr. Clevenger: I voted in the affirmative.
The Speaker: Will the gentleman be seated and wait until the
end of the call?
The Clerk concluded the call of the names of those voting
``yea.''
The Speaker: Are there any corrections to be made where any
Member was listening and heard his name called as voting ``yea''
who did not vote ``yea''? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.
Did any Member vote ``yea'' whose name was not called?
Mr. Clevenger: Mr. Speaker, I said I voted four times in the
affirmative.
The Speaker: The gentleman will be recorded as voting ``yea.''
The Clerk will call the names of those recorded as voting
``nay.''
The Clerk called the names of those voting ``nay.''
The Speaker: Is there any Member voting ``nay'' who is
incorrectly recorded? (5) [After a pause.] The Chair
hears none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. For comparable instances, see 105 Cong. Rec. 17752, 86th Cong. 1st
Sess., Sept. 2, 1959; 101 Cong. Rec. 5807, 84th Cong. 1st
Sess., May 5, 1955; 97 Cong. Rec. 8876, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.,
July 25, 1951; and 87 Cong. Rec. 6897, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Aug. 7, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Different Result Obtained
Sec. 28.9 The Chair having directed a recapitulation on a close vote, a
different result than that previously announced was obtained.
[[Page 11615]]
On Mar. 24, 1949,(6) Mr. Olin E. Teague, of Texas, moved
that the bill (H.R. 2681) to provide pensions for veterans of World
Wars I and II based on nonservice-connected disability and attained
age, be recommitted to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for further
study. Shortly thereafter, the Speaker Pro Tempore put the question on
Mr. Teague's motion, it was taken; and the Chair announced that the
``ayes'' had it. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, then demanded the
yeas and nays which were ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 95 Cong. Rec. 3114, 3115, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The roll was called, and prior to the announcement of the result,
two Members changed their votes from ``no'' to ``aye.'' Thereafter, the
following exchange took place:
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) On this vote the ayes
are 208; the noes are 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair thinks the vote is so close that there should be a
recapitulation.
Mr. Rankin: Oh, no; it is clear.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will take its own
initiative; either way the Chair would have taken the initiative on
this vote.
Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make such a
request.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a Member cannot change his vote
during the recapitulation; is that correct?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
The Clerk will call the names of those voting in the
affirmative.
At this point the recapitulation process took place after which the
Chair stated:
Upon the tallying of the vote on the recapitulation it appears
the vote is as follows: Those in favor of recommittal, 208; those
opposed, 207.
Accordingly, the motion to recommit was agreed to--a different
result having been obtained after recapitulation of the vote.
Parliamentarian's Note: The cause of this different result lay in
the change of votes by the aforementioned two Members from ``no'' to
``aye.'' It seems the tally clerk properly added two more affirmative
votes to the ``yea'' column but inadvertently neglected to subtract
those votes from the ``nay'' column. Hence, the original error.
In the Senate
Sec. 28.10 The Chair has held that a Senator may vote after a yea and
nay vote has been recapitulated providing the result of the vote
has not been announced.
[[Page 11616]]
On Feb. 28, 1947,(8) the Senate resumed consideration of
a concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 7) establishing a ceiling for
expenditures for the fiscal year 1948 and for appropriations for the
fiscal year 1948 to be expended in that fiscal year. In the course of
the resolution's consideration, the President Pro Tempore put the
question on an amendment to an amendment. The yeas and nays having been
ordered on this particular proposal, the vote was taken and a
recapitulation was had.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 93 Cong. Rec. 1547, 1552, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately thereafter, the following proceedings occurred:
The President Pro Tempore: (9) On this vote the yeas
are 38, the nays----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Arthur H. Vandenberg (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Millard E.] Tydings [of Maryland]: Mr. President, I ask
for a recapitulation.
The President Pro Tempore: The Clerk will recapitulate the
vote.
The vote was again recapitulated.
The President Pro Tempore: On this vote the yeas are 38----
Mr. [Glen H.] Taylor [of Idaho]: Mr. President----
Mr. [Robert A.] Taft [of Ohio]: It is too late, Mr. President.
Mr. Tydings: Oh, no; it is not. The result has not been
announced.
The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Idaho is
recognized.
Mr. Taylor: I vote ``yea.''
Senator Taylor's vote having been permitted, the final tally was--
yeas 39, nays 38, not voting 18. Thus, the result of the vote was
altered by the Chair's recognition of the Senator from Idaho prior to
the announcement.