[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 154 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2031-E2032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   SELECT COMMITTEE ON ROLL CALL 814 MEETING TO CONSIDER FINAL REPORT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 25, 2008

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, this is been a long and, at times, 
tedious, but productive process.
  When we began last September, I said that I hoped our efforts would 
be ``truly bipartisan, and conducted in as . . . open a manner as 
possible.'' The committee's transparency and level of collaboration had 
to reflect the deep commitment to this institution held by the 
individual members of this select committee. I believe we have stayed 
true to that goal, and have demonstrated, throughout the past year, 
that bipartisanship does exist, and more importantly, can work.
  Norm Ornstein--an American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar, and 
a Roll Call contributing writer--is someone I hold in high regard. In 
May, he reflected on the rancor and partisanship that had taken hold of 
the House, and in so doing, referenced our Committee. He wrote:

       This week, indeed this whole month, will be a key test in 
     whether the political process in Washington can rise above 
     the dysfunction [and partisanship] that has been the norm . . 
     .

  He went on to say,

       That dynamic appears to be gelling on another front with 
     the emergence of public hearings on the ``stolen vote'' from 
     August of last year . . . It appears, though, that instead of 
     a long deliberative process creating a greater understanding 
     of the insensitivities and failings of both the majority and 
     the minority, and a determination on both sides to do better, 
     the result will be another wedge issue driving more distrust 
     and hostility between the parties.

  I have long regarded him and his work with tremendous respect, for 
its insight and accuracy. However, I believe I can say that in this 
case, he was wrong, and we exceeded expectations. Against the apparent 
odds, we will be adopting, at the conclusion of this meeting, a single, 
bipartisan report of which I believe we can all be proud.
  I must recognize and commend the Committee members, who are not just 
my colleagues, but are my friends, and with whom it has truly been an 
honor to serve. Mike Pence, the Ranking Member, has throughout this 
entire task brought a spirit of comity, collegiality and a genuine love 
of the institution; Steve LaTourette and Kenny Hulshof with whom I've 
worked before and whose integrity and familiarity with the issues 
before us served the committee well. Of course, my Democratic 
colleagues: Artur Davis, who took on the burden of serving as Vice-
Chair, and thereby, a lead role in the investigation; and Stephanie 
Herseth Sandlin, who, as usual, brought adeptness, civility and focus 
to our work.
  I also want to thank a number of other individuals for their critical 
guidance and assistance. Former House Parliamentarian Charlie Johnson, 
whose infinite wisdom on these matters provided a foundation for the 
committee's work, and whose continued consultation on the 
recommendations allowed us to submit a product that truly serves the 
institution. In addition, I want to thank Judy Schneider and Mike 
Koempel of CRS for their hours of assistance on our interim report, 
which charted the course of our investigation, and their invaluable 
support throughout.
  In addition, we would not have been able to conduct an appropriately 
thorough investigation without the assistance and cooperation from the 
Clerk of the House, Lorraine Miller, and her staff; House 
Parliamentarian John Sullivan, and his staff; and the various 
leadership staff. They provided their time and effort without 
hesitation, and for that, we want to acknowledge and thank them.
  The assistance provided by our outside counsel--King and Spalding's 
Tom Spulak and George Crawford on the Democratic side, and Dickstein 
Shapiro's Mark Paoletta and Andrew Snowdon, was exceptional. Each one 
of them has a long career of service to this House, and I am thankful 
that once again, the House received the benefit of their knowledge and 
dedication.
  Lastly, I must praise the diligence and collaboration of the 
committee's professional staff. They dedicated the time and effort to 
see this effort through, while still carrying out their existing 
responsibilities in their primary offices. Mr. Davis' legislative 
counsel, Chanelle Hardy; Ms. Herseth Sandlin's Deputy Chief of Staff, 
Russ Levsen; Mr. LaTourette's Chief of Staff, Joe Guzzo, and Mr. 
Hulshof's Chief of Staff, Eric Rasmussen, and now Aaron Smith. I 
especially want to thank my legislative counsel, Davida Walsh, and Mike 
Pence's counsel, Josh Pitcock, who assumed the respective roles of 
Democratic and Republican staff director. I also want to extend my 
deepest appreciation to the committee's Democratic and Republican 
General Counsels, Muftiah McCartin and Hugh Halpern--from the House 
Rules Committee. They have been tireless in every capacity, and their 
extensive expertise has been invaluable.
  Turning to the report, I believe it speaks for itself. What you will 
see when you read it--and we are suggesting that it be required reading 
for the entire Membership--JOKING--is that Roll Call 814 arose out of a 
confluence of factors that I will not repeat now--but that it was a 
``perfect storm,'' if you will.
  I believe that the core recommendation is the repeal of the new House 
rule added to clause 2(a) of rule XX at the beginning of the 110th 
Congress. For those who are unfamiliar, it is a single sentence that 
reads ``a record vote by electronic device shall not be held open for 
the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.'' As I have 
said before--I thought it sounded good at the time, so I'm saying it 
again--it is ``a rule that was enacted with a noble intent to curb 
other perceived abuses, but a rule that is, at best, difficult to 
enforce, and at worst, the catalyst for the raw anger that we observed 
on August 2nd.''
  It is unworkable because, in the words of Mr. Johnson, ``others can 
claim to know because they have seen pressure brought to bear 
externally, but it is the Chair's intent as discerned by the Chair at 
the moment in time as the vote is being kept open,'' that is 
dispositive. Furthermore, it would be ``inappropriate to require the 
Chair to declare a reason for delaying a vote. However, without such a 
declaration, it would be virtually impossible to find a violation of 
the rule.
  Worse than its impracticality, however, is the corrosive incentive 
the rule creates for the

[[Page E2032]]

membership to genuinely question the motives of their colleagues in the 
Chair. At a time when rancor and tension exist in the House chamber and 
when the parties increasingly view each other with suspicion, the rule 
acts to compound the negativity. I know that the rule was a good faith 
effort to infuse integrity and transparency into the voting process--
laudable goals that are not lost on anyone here; however, I guess what 
I'm saying is, its time to go back to the drawing board. I think all of 
us on this panel would be happy to share our thoughts--in detail--
should the leadership choose to take our recommendation.
  I would just like to take a moment to speak about Mike McNulty, the 
man who was in the Chair during Roll Call 814. For quite some time but 
I would say now, more than ever, what is lacking in Washington is the 
willingness to admit mistake, acknowledge error, to be candid and 
forthright about a misstep. The irony, I think, is it's a rare person 
who doesn't find such an admission refreshing. However, our custom and 
practice tends to be: ``blame the other guy.'' Not Mike McNulty. He is 
special, truly exceptional, not just as a member and presiding officer, 
but as a human being. And while his character and integrity has long 
been recognized on both sides of the aisle, I think this incident has 
both magnified and confirmed this perception. We all know it was a most 
difficult moment for him. But he earned our respect not only for his 
apology to the membership, but for his conduct and candor with the 
committee as well. The Nation needs more Mike McNultys in Congress, and 
we're all grateful, and have been better served, by his willingness to 
resume his duties in the Chair. I just want to reiterate here today, 
the respect and admiration the members have for him.
  It should be noted that during his interview with the committee, 
Republican whip, Roy Blunt told us that after August 2, he personally 
reached out to Mr. McNulty and told him that he ``should feel confident 
in his respect that the Members have for him personally.''
  Similarly, the Republican Leader Boehner went to the floor on August 
3--the next day--and said: ``I accept the regrets offered by my friend 
from New York. Having been in the Chair myself, I can understand how it 
can happen. He and I are friends. He is, in fact, one of the fairest 
Members who could ever be in the chair.''
  And certainly, this view is echoed on the Democratic side of the 
aisle, as stated by our own Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, who said: ``I 
believe Mr. McNulty is an extraordinarily honest person of high 
integrity . . . He's a wonderful human being.''
  And while I commend Mr. McNulty for his honesty and his courage, I 
also want to suggest that even in error, he has made a contribution to 
this institution. As I've said in at least one of our prior meetings, 
none of us here sought this assignment, but I believe strongly that 
this committee's report is a benefit to the institution.
  I am also hopeful that an even greater benefit has accrued. Many 
outside this committee viewed it with skepticism and cynicism. One the 
one hand, we would be the product of a political stunt, a microcosm of 
the partisanship and rancor in the House; on other hand, certainty that 
we would never meet, would never investigate or deliberate, and 
certainly never report.
  To revisit Ornstein's article, he further stated,

       [If we have] a House as deeply divided along partisan lines 
     as it was in the previous Congress--and a House with no 
     common denominator of trying to do something to solve the 
     problems we have at home and abroad . . . if we can't [reduce 
     this divide and distrust], the clear and urgent needs of the 
     country will be left to fester.

  The issues we've examined in this committee--most notoriously, a 
botched motion to recommit on a bill that never became law--do not 
compare to the issues we're currently facing as a Congress, and as a 
Nation. However, in light of Mr. Ornstein's ominous warning, I am 
hopeful that what we've done here is to demonstrate that we've 
succeeded at what the people want and deserve--which is accountability, 
responsibility, and transparency; and the commitment, the wherewithal 
and the humility to put our heads together to solve the problems that 
confront us.

                          ____________________