[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 127 (Friday, August 3, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9682-H9685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The Clerk will report the 
resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 611

       Whereas on November 8, 2006, Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi 
     said ``we will make this the most honest, ethical and open 
     Congress in history.'';
       Whereas on November 16, 2006, Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi 
     said ``This leadership team will create the most honest, most 
     open, and most ethical Congress in history.'';
       Whereas on January 4, 2007, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer 
     said ``As we open this new chapter in American history--an 
     era in which we will seek to elevate results over rhetoric 
     and put progress before partisanship--we will affirm our 
     commitment to transparency, accountability and civility, 
     which should be the hallmarks of this great institution.'';
       Whereas on January 4, 2007, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer 
     said ``the Members of this House will ensure the integrity of 
     this institution when we conduct ourselves with integrity and 
     hold accountable those who fail to abide by these rules and 
     the highest ethical standards.'';
       Whereas on December 8, 2006, Majority Whip-Elect James 
     Clyburn said ``Democrats will exercise better leadership in 
     the new Congress and work to raise the standard of ethics in 
     this body.'';
       Whereas on August 1, 2007, the Majority Leader Steny Hoyer 
     said ``What is not fair, from our perspective, is to simply 
     disallow the House to proceed to do its business, to have its 
     disagreements, to make its votes, to express its will'';
       Whereas the Speaker, as the presiding officer, is supposed 
     to be the fair and impartial arbiter of the proceedings of 
     the House, held to the highest ethical standards in deciding 
     the various questions as they arise with impartiality and 
     courtesy toward all Members, regardless of party affiliation;
       Whereas the Members, as duly elected under Article I, 
     section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, represent 
     the people of the United States by casting their votes in the 
     U.S. House of Representatives;
       Whereas the Clerk of the House has the specific 
     responsibility of accurately taking and tallying votes of the 
     Members and preserving the records thereof;
       Whereas on the evening of August 2, 2007, the House had 
     under consideration H.R. 3161, a bill making appropriations 
     for the Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies;
       Whereas following completion of general debate and the 
     reading of the bill for amendment, the gentleman from 
     California (Mr. Lewis) offered a motion to recommit the bill 
     to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions that 
     prohibited any funds in the bill from being used to employ or 
     to provide rental housing assistance to an illegal alien not 
     authorized to receive such assistance under the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act;
       Whereas Representative Lewis timely requested the yeas and 
     nays, which once ordered were recorded by electronic device;
       Whereas shortly following the expiration of time allotted 
     for the recorded vote, the Chair gaveled the vote closed and 
     announced that the motion had failed by a vote of 214 yeas to 
     214 nays, while the tally clerk was still processing 
     additional votes through the electronic voting system;
       Whereas during said time period, the Majority Leader stated 
     to the Parliamentarian of the House, ``We control, not the 
     Parliamentarians.''
       Whereas the Chair announced the results of the 
     aforementioned vote after reading the totals from the 
     electronic board to the Chair's right without the benefit of 
     the written tally customarily provided by the tally clerks;
       Whereas a video recording of the proceedings produced by 
     the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer confirms that, 
     while closing the vote, the Chair banged the gavel and spoke 
     over the voice of the House Reading Clerk seated immediately 
     in front of the Speaker's rostrum, who can clearly be heard 
     attempting to record the vote of another Member;
       Whereas contrary to the vote total announced by the Chair, 
     said electronic board, visible to all Members in the Chamber, 
     indicated a final tally of 215 yeas and 213 nays;
       Whereas the Majority Leader directed the Chair to reopen 
     the vote, making it possible for Members to change their 
     vote, and thereby altering the outcome;
       Whereas several minutes later the Chair again closed the 
     vote and announced that the motion had failed on a vote 212 
     yeas and 216 nays;
       Whereas the Minority Leader immediately directed his staff 
     to gather and review all available records regarding this 
     incident; and
       Whereas in the course of such review, the staff discovered 
     that the electronic voting records related to this roll call 
     vote were missing from the electronic voting system and upon 
     inspecting the Clerk's website, found no information 
     regarding the disposition of the motion to recommit contrary 
     to the long standing customary practice of that office: Now 
     therefore be it
       (1) Resolved, That--
       The Officers of the House of Representatives are 
     immediately directed to preserve all records, documents, 
     recordings, electronic transmissions, or other material, 
     regardless of form, related to the voting irregularities of 
     August 2, 2007.
       (2) there is hereby established a select committee to 
     investigate the voting irregularities of August 2, 2007 
     (hereinafter referred to as the ``select committee''). The 
     select committee shall be comprised of 6 Members, of which 3 
     Members shall be appointed by the Speaker and 3 by the 
     Minority Leader. The select committee shall--
       (A) investigate the circumstances surrounding the record 
     vote requested by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
     on the motion to recommit to H.R. 3161, including the Chair's 
     ruling over the objections of the Parliamentarian;
       (B) make an interim report to the House not later than 
     September 30, 2007 and a final report not later than 
     September 15, 2008--
       (i) regarding the actions of any Members, officers, or 
     employees of the House engaged in the disenfranchisement of 
     Members in voting on the question; and
       (ii) recommending changes to the rules and procedures of 
     the House of Representatives necessary to protect the voting 
     rights of constitutionally elected Members chosen by the 
     people of the United States of America.

[[Page H9683]]

       (3) The select committee shall have the same powers to 
     obtain testimony and documents pursuant to subpoena as 
     authorized under clause 2(m) of rule XI.

                              {time}  1845

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution presents a question of 
privilege.
  Pursuant to rule IX, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) or his designee each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think the resolution that I offer outlines pretty clearly the 
promises that have been made and the promises I believe that have been 
broken over the course of the last 7 months. What we seek here is to 
understand exactly what did happen last night and to what extent 
changes in the rules need to be made to ensure that all Members are 
treated fairly.
  As was stated in the resolution, myself and my colleagues in the 
minority believe that, in fact, we won the motion to recommit last 
night. We asked to bring this resolution that a select committee do, in 
fact, be impaneled, three Members from each side of the aisle to 
understand clearly what happened, but also to understand whether there 
are any changes in the rules that need to be made in order to ensure 
that all Members are treated fairly.
  I and others have begun to believe that there's been a pattern of 
abuse that has occurred over the last several months. In many of these 
occurrences it appears the Chair is operating on their own, with little 
regard to the recommendations of the Parliamentarian. The 
Parliamentarians are here to preserve the precedents of the House and 
to ensure that all Members are treated fairly.
  And as we watched the tape from last night, we watched from 
activities earlier this week, watched activities, frankly, earlier 
today that a pattern of activity continues to occur, and I believe that 
it's important for this select committee that, if it is created, to not 
only understand what happened last night, but to understand clearly are 
there any other changes that need to be made to ensure that all 
Members' voices are, in fact, heard.
  We outline a select committee, we outline a timing for an interim 
report, but it's something that I believe would be in the best 
interests of the House, and I would urge my colleagues to support the 
resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, we had a conversation on the floor of the 
House today with reference to this matter. I introduced a resolution to 
investigate this matter. The minority leader asked me to withdraw that 
resolution. I withdrew it.
  The minority leader then asked me to have a meeting with himself and 
Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Clyburn attended that meeting. We discussed the 
incident of last night, we discussed proceeding to do the people's 
business, and what would be the conduct today.
  The minority leader suggested that I have a member of my staff 
contact a member of his staff to discuss the creation of this select 
committee. That was just a few hours ago. Those discussions have not 
begun obviously and may not begin.
  The minority leader talks about patterns. I think this is a pattern. 
I'm deeply disappointed, not by the resolution itself; although, we 
think the facts that are stated in the resolution are incorrect. I want 
to tell every Member of this House that I do not believe that there was 
any wrongdoing by any party yesterday. I do believe that there was a 
mistake made. I said that this morning. I repeat that this afternoon, 
and I regret it. I regret it because that mistake, understandably, 
angered those who perceived themselves disadvantaged by that mistake. I 
have a disagreement with the conclusion in here that has been again 
stated by the minority leader that I think would be disproved by any 
investigation that occurs.
  There was never a call of the vote prevailing at 215-213 with a 
Republican motion to recommit prevailing. There was never a call by the 
Chair of that vote, period.
  I observed, to the minority leader, that for 2 hours and 45 minutes I 
sat on this floor, actually, I'm not good at sitting on this floor. I 
walked around and talked to a lot of Members. For 2 hours and 45 
minutes, my side was prevailing; not for 5 minutes, not for 2 minutes, 
not for 1 minute, as was the case last night. For 2 hours and 45 
minutes, my side was prevailing, and the vote lasted another 10 
minutes. It was referred to on ``60 Minutes'' last Sunday.
  Now, historically, in the last 12 years, let me tell you what my 
friends' actions would have been on this motion. Immediately you would 
have moved to table. I do not do that. I do not accept the premises in 
your resolution, but I welcome the investigation. I applaud coming to 
the bottom of what happened because I know what happened.
  Now, I wasn't looking behind me; I was looking at the Chair. But I've 
been informed of what happened, and what happened is eight people 
changed their votes. Three were Republicans, five were Democrats. There 
were 428 people who voted last night during that series of three votes. 
Every time the vote was called, 428 people voted. And the Chair called 
the vote at 214-214, which as all of you know adds up to 428. So every 
Member of the House had voted. No one was excluded. But some changed 
their vote on your side, and then some changed their vote on my side. 
And so the vote ended up and was finally called at 212-216, and we 
prevailed.
  Now, as I said this morning, I understand the anger that existed and 
the sense of unfairness that was felt because, on the board 
electronically, when one of the changes came forward switching from one 
of the 214 to one of the 215 and reducing the 214 to 213, that was 
immediately reflected on the electronic board as the Speaker was 
announcing the vote, and so you were angry. I don't blame you. For 2 
hours and 45 minutes as we sat on the prevailing side, the winning 
side, having more votes than your side, the vote was not closed. So I 
empathize with the sense of anger and frustration that you have.
  And so what did I do? I didn't do what one of your former leaders 
did, just shrugged my shoulders and said, well, that's the way it goes, 
folks. I went to that rostrum, and I said we ought to vacate this vote 
and we ought to give everybody a fair shot at making sure the result is 
what those 428 votes want to do, because I understood that you had a 
sense of being wronged, and I wanted, to the extent I could, to try to 
right that wrong.
  So I asked unanimous consent that that vote be vacated. There were 
many objections on your side of the aisle. I'm not sure why. You 
thought the vote was improperly cast. I know my friend, and everybody 
knows he's my friend, but we have a deep disagreement on this 
conclusion. Mr. Blunt believes that you won 215-213. We were ahead for 
2 hours and 45 minutes. We didn't prevail. Why? Because the Speaker did 
not call the vote, and the Speaker didn't call the vote at the 215-213 
margin. He called it at 214-214; you're absolutely right. But then he 
said, no, I was premature because there were changing votes, and so 
that vote was not finalized. You're absolutely right. The vote that was 
finalized was the accurate vote, 212 for your resolution and 216 
against your resolution.
  Now, one of those 216, of course, was the minority leader. He 
switched so he could make the motion, I presume, to reconsider, but it 
was not necessary for him to do that. I wanted, as I said, to try to 
make this right because, as I said on Tuesday night, and I repeated 
this morning, I want to try to have a civil relationship.

                              {time}  1900

  I work with a lot of you in this House on that side of the aisle. I 
like a lot of you on that side of the aisle. Some of you I do not know 
as well as I know others. More importantly than that, this is about my 
40th year in legislative office, and I believe that it is important 
that we say hi to one another, respect one another and have trust in 
one another.
  After you objected to the vacation of the vote, I moved to reconsider 
the vote, by which we prevailed on your motion to recommit.
  I don't know why you didn't vote on that. It passed. We all voted for 
it on this side. All the Members on this side

[[Page H9684]]

voted for it to give you a second chance because you felt the first go-
around wasn't fair.
  I think it was fair but not appearing so because of the 215-213. Now, 
this investigation will look into that. As I said, we welcome it. We 
will not move, therefore, to table.
  I have been asked to ask for a unanimous consent to drop all the 
``whereas'' clauses but accept the result. I am not going to do that. 
Let me tell you why I am not going to do it.
  I do not accept those ``whereases.'' I think they are factually 
inaccurate. They were not reviewed by me, and there has been no meeting 
of our staffs, I say to my friend, the minority leader, which we 
discussed at approximately 11:30 this morning.
  I withdrew my resolution. My expectation was that the minority leader 
and I would sit down and our staffs would sit down and discuss this 
matter and determine how best to investigate this. That's what we 
discussed. There was no discussion about this resolution coming 
forward. There was no notice to me that this discussion was going 
forward; and there was a request to me, which I honored, to withdraw my 
own resolution offered this morning. I am disappointed.
  I am not going to oppose this resolution, and we will have an 
investigation. We will appoint three on our side, and we will appoint 
three on your side. We will appoint three fair-minded Members who care 
about this institution. I hope you will do the same.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Last night, when the gentleman from New York was in the chair and 
beginning to call the question and the electronic board moved to 215-
213, my observation of the well of the House is that there was no one 
in the well of the House attempting to vote at that moment. It's why my 
colleagues and I, many of us, believed that we won. I think it's fair 
to say, many of my colleagues and I feel as though the vote was taken 
from us.
  I understand the disagreement, and I appreciate the gentleman coming 
to an agreement on this Select Committee to get to the bottom of it.
  But this morning's conversation was, well, we will talk about it. I 
am sorry, we could be talking about it for months.
  I wanted to bring this resolution to the floor tonight so that there 
could be real action on this issue. We don't want to sit around here 
for months and months and talk about it and never come to some 
agreement and it's all over and done with. I think our Members want to 
get to the bottom of it as quickly as possible, and I am glad that the 
gentleman has agreed with us.
  If the gentleman would like to work out some resolution dividing the 
question on the resolution before us, I would be happy to do it. 
Because at the end of the day, what we want is we want to get to the 
bottom of what happened and are there any necessary changes that need 
to be made in order to protect the rights of all Members.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the minority whip, Mr. Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank Mr. Boehner for yielding; and I also thank my good 
friend, the majority leader, for being willing to accept this effort to 
look at the standards of how we do our business in the House.
  In fact, I think many of my friends on our side, and obviously your 
side as well, want to be sure that the work of the House is done in a 
way that the American people can be proud of.
  I think a lot of the problem that we saw last night, to our side, at 
least, was another indication of deciding that the normal behavior and 
the normal rules of the House may not apply any more. Last night's 
vote, I see some of my friends near the front of their House shaking 
their head, last night's vote is the only vote I am aware of in the 
House of Representatives in the 10 years and few months that I have 
been here that the Clerk did not write down a number which is the 
official end of the vote and hand it to the Speaker.
  The Speaker, in fact, is talking over the Clerk while the Clerk is 
trying to announce votes are being changed.
  If any Member on that side or our side, either one, has ever seen a 
time in the House when a vote was announced or sees one later today 
where the paper wasn't filled out and you wait for that paper, I would 
like to know when that was.
  You know, as the whip of the House for the last 4 years, the previous 
two Congresses, I remember many times thinking that I wanted the vote 
over; and I remember many times thinking the Clerk is writing too slow, 
the Clerk is turning around too slow, the Speaker is reading the paper 
too slow, but I don't remember it ever not happening.
  If that had happened, we would not have this problem. The vote on the 
board has nothing to do with the official tally. The Clerk keeps the 
official tally.
  During that vote, someone said to the Parliamentarian, the 
Parliamentarians don't run the House, the majority does. Well, that's 
right. The Parliamentarians don't run the House. But the 
Parliamentarians provide the continuity of how the House is always run.
  This is not the great legislative body it is because every Congress 
decides how they are going to run things. This isn't the great 
legislative body it is because those of us who, I think, if 78,000 
votes in the entire country would have changed would be in the majority 
or the minority that we have no rights here. This is not the great 
legislative body it is because the majority just gets to decide.
  Now, there are other instances in recent days when we believe the 
Parliamentarian gave other advice than was taken. I don't want to 
create a problem for the Parliamentarian. But I do know that one night 
this week in debate Members of the House were told that their comments 
were irrelevant. Now, they might not have been the best comments in the 
world, they might not have been the most on-target comments in the 
world, but I never remember anybody in the chair ever before ruling 
that a Member's comments were irrelevant.
  We are not irrelevant here. Just because we are in the minority does 
not mean we are irrelevant. Just because we have a small difference 
between our numbers and your numbers doesn't mean we are irrelevant. 
That doesn't mean that the Speaker can decide to end the votes when 
they want to, no matter what the traditions have been of the House.
  It does mean, when the Speaker ends the vote, whatever the official 
tally is at that moment, which, by the way, is what the Clerk would 
write down, should be the official tally.
  That's why, I may not be quite to the level of outrage, but that's 
why I am offended by how that process worked. I have never seen it 
happen before; I hope to never see it happen again.
  If it had happened in the right way, we wouldn't be having this 
discussion right now. But maybe this discussion also allows us to look 
at our relationships with each other, our relationship with the 
Parliamentarian, the job of the Speaker in the chair is to create 
fairness. It's not to ensure that everything goes so that one side is 
happy and the other side is not.
  I welcome the acceptance of my friend Mr. Boehner's resolution by the 
majority leader and, I assume, the majority. I look forward to the 
report. I hope this creates a moment when we all begin to think about 
what we are doing here and how we are doing it and the obligations we 
owed each other.
  This is not a one-sided street. I understand that. Respect for each 
other, appreciation for each other, respect for the way business has 
been done here for a long time is an important part of what we all need 
to work to achieve, and hopefully this helps get that done.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to take the leader up on his offer, 
and I don't want to argue the facts more than we have done. Mr. Blunt 
knows I disagree with the conclusions he has just expressed. We 
discussed our disagreements in my office just a few hours ago.
  I want to take the leader up on his offer. And pursuant to that, I 
would ask unanimous consent that the Chair be permitted to divide the 
question of agreeing to House Resolution 611 between agreeing to the 
resolution and agreeing to the preambles.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H9685]]

  Mr. HOYER. The preambles are your conclusions. I would therefore, 
with the question divided, I would hope, very frankly, Mr. Leader, as 
my resolution did, it did not make conclusions. It simply asserted that 
we ought to look into the matter. Your resolve clause says that. We 
will support that, but we will not support the conclusions.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work of the majority 
leader, and for the benefit of all Members basically, the motion that 
the gentleman offers would strike the ``whereases'' contained in the 
resolution and leave the resolved clauses in place.
  I appreciate his support and hope this will allow us to move on.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
the Chair will first put the question on the matter following the 
resolved clause, followed by putting the question on the preamble.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the preamble.
  The preamble was not agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________