[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 103 (Thursday, June 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6204-H6205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1040
                  FAIRNESS IN HOUSE VOTING PROCEDURES

  (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, prior to making a unanimous-consent request, 
I have two comments to make about yesterday's vote on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] as amended during 
consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill.
  First, after viewing and reviewing the videotape of yesterday's 
proceedings, it is quite clear that the Chair, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder], was on solid parliamentary ground when he called 
the vote on the Fazio amendment. The clerk informs us that he called 
the vote after 17 minutes and 10 seconds. The videotape shows Mr. 
Linder started to call the vote and refrained from completing the call 
to allow a Member on the minority side of the aisle to vote at the 
desk, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman]. The video then shows 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] called the vote with the well 
of the House empty of Members. The video then shows that after some 
time two Members from the minority party appeared at the desk and 
attempted to vote. The regular procedure of the House is that after the 
Chair has called the vote, it is too late for Members to cast a vote. 
The fact that Mr. Linder paused to allow the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Ackerman] to vote demonstrates that his intent was not to 
arbitrarily shut off Members from their right to vote, nor did the 
Chair cut off anyone in the well from their right to vote because there 
were no Members in the well at the time he announced the vote.
  I would further point out to the House that the vote on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] followed two 
earlier series of parliamentary inquiries to the chair which were 
propounded to Members on the minority side. These Members asked the 
chair to be consistent in his respecting the 17-minute voting period. 
The Chair allowed that he had been, perhaps, too generous in allowing 
votes to stay open to accommodate Members and that he would attempt to 
be more rigorous in abiding by the 17-minute vote policy, and with the 
vote on the Fazio amendment he did just that.
  I would further point out that the two Members from the minority who 
entered the well to vote aye after the vote had already been announced 
were followed in seconds by another Member from the majority who also 
arrived too late to vote nay. Had all three of those Members voted, the 
amendment would still have been defeated on a tie vote, and I might 
point out, as is the custom, the Speaker did not cast a vote. In other 
words, Mr. Speaker, the outcome would not have changed even with an 
extra minute of voting time.
  The disposition of the vote on the Fazio amendment was entirely 
appropriate and conducted within the proper parliamentary procedure of 
this Chamber.
  Having said that, it is also true that many Members, most especially 
Members on this side of the aisle who supported the Houghton language 
earlier, felt that their victory had been snatched from them. They have 
made that clear to the leadership on this side of the aisle. Perhaps 
they did not have the chance to view the videotape, as I have had. I 
have that videotape in my office and will make it available to any 
Member who wishes to see it.
  However, 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 
important to this Member that the victories we win are honest and that 
the defeats we endure are equally so.
  For that reason I am about to make a unanimous-consent request to 
revisit the vote on the Fazio amendment, and, Mr. Speaker, before I 
make that request, if I may just speak very personally for a moment to 
my colleagues.
  I have not been a Member of this body long, but I can think of few 
things in life beyond my wife and my children for which I have a 
greater deal of love than I have for this institution, and this body, 
and us as Members. I hope that we can set straight a perception of 
wrongdoing, errant behavior, unfairness, with this action today, and I 
hope we can all take time to pause and reflect, and remember this body 
in my estimation is the single most precious and unique institution of 
democracy in the world, perhaps in the history of the world, and 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 political subtlety of the moment.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can see this as an opportunity for all of 
us to regain a new understanding of how precious is this body, and how 
precious is [[Page H 6205]] our privilege to be here, and how precious 
is our duty to always do honor to this body.


                          ____________________