[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22745-22747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  ORDERING COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT TO IMMEDIATELY 
              REVIEW EVENTS SURROUNDING VOTE ON H.R. 3161

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a resolution at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

       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 back to the 
     House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, on this question of the 
privileges of the House, the party leaders will control 30 minutes 
each.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, the majority 
leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night I said this was going to be an unhappy 
week for all of us. I did not expect what happened last night, however; 
and I regret what happened last night. Mr. McNulty is going to speak as 
well.
  The vote was called. During the course of that vote, eight Members 
changed their votes after the vote was called 214-214, but the board, 
as everybody knows, at that point in time had reflected one of the 
Members who had changed their vote. There were at all times 428 Members 
voting. The vote went from 214-214, and then 215-213, and then 212-216. 
Obviously, the 214-214 would have had the motion fail. The 215-213 
would have had it to prevail. And then the 212-216 would have had the 
motion fail. The minority, having been in that place, was 
understandably angry. I won't use the word ``upset'', understandably 
angry. If that happened to us, we would have been angry; I would have 
been angry.
  At that point in time, I clearly believe that what had happened gave 
the impression that clearly, correctly would have been my impression 
that

[[Page 22746]]

this was unfair; and, as a result, as the Members will recall, I asked 
to vacate the vote. That was objected to. So I then moved to reconsider 
the vote by which the motion to recommit offered by Mr. Lewis had 
failed.
  I thought it appropriate that that vote be retaken because of the 
confusion that occurred during the course of that vote and having three 
separate tallies indicated. I thought that was appropriate. In fact, 
that motion prevailed. We did reconsider that vote, and the vote 
passed, at that point in time, by voice vote, and then final passage of 
the bill. And the bill passed, the Agriculture appropriation bill.
  But, clearly, people were angry. Words were said on this floor, 
unfortunately, that were not, I think, designed, as I said on Tuesday 
night, to maintain civility. But I don't blame the minority for being 
angry at what clearly appeared to them, which would have been the 
impression that I would have had, that they were being treated in a way 
that they thought was not fair.
  It does no good to this discussion to repeat what has happened over 
the last 12 years, where we felt aggrieved. But when you feel 
aggrieved, it is justifiable aggrievement.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of having this matter 
reviewed by the Ethics Committee to ensure that nothing was done that 
should not have been done, this motion simply refers this matter to the 
Ethics Committee.
  This is no aspersion, I want to say, on the presiding officer. When 
he called the vote, that was the vote on the board, but it changed 
almost instantaneously at that time and clearly would have been 
something that correctly was interpreted as what's going on here.
  We need to know what's going on here. My view is, because eight 
people change their votes, during the course of that, three Republicans 
changed their vote, five Democrats changed their vote. There have been 
a lot of questions about changing votes in the past, so we think it is 
appropriate that this matter be reviewed.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), someone who has 
served in this body long and honorably and whose integrity, I think, is 
unquestioned by Members who have served with him on the Ways and Means 
Committee and in this House.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the majority leader's recounting of what 
happened last night is correct; and I wish to express my apology to all 
of the Members of the House for calling the vote prematurely. I called 
the vote at 214-214. Subsequently, Members of both parties changed 
their votes.
  The majority leader is correct. Very soon after that the board showed 
a different vote, which was, I believe, in favor of the motion to 
recommit. And then when all of the Members had been counted, it was 212 
in favor and 216 opposed. All of those numbers in those various 
iterations add up to 428. So all Members had voted, but Members of both 
parties had changed their votes.
  I just want to express regret to all the Members of the House, and 
especially the minority, for any role that I had in causing that 
confusion by calling the vote prematurely. The Members who have been 
around for a long time, and staff, know that I have presided over the 
House many, many times since 1989, when Jim Wright first put me in the 
Chair. And all during that time, I have always strived to be 
scrupulously fair, to the extent where a number of Members of my party 
in the old days used to criticize me for calling voice votes in favor 
of the minority when the minority had more Members in the room than the 
majority did. And Members of the minority party mentioned that to me 
many times through the years, as did Members of the minority staff.
  And so I just want to reiterate that I regret any role that I played 
in causing the confusion.

                              {time}  0915

  I just want to pledge to all of the Members of the House that I will 
continue to go out of my way to be fair when I am given the privilege 
of serving as Speaker pro tempore to all Members of the House and to 
both parties.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in January, when this Congress began, there were 
promises of the most open and ethical Congress in the history of our 
country. Over the last several weeks, I have been up on numerous 
occasions talking about the problems of how I believe the minority had 
been treated, only asking for fairness.
  What happened last night not only disenfranchised minority Members, 
it disenfranchised Members of the majority party as well who had an 
interest in voting for that measure. I regret what happened last night. 
I think that it is very unfortunate. But it has been a pattern of 
activity that has gone on all year.
  I think my colleagues on the majority side understand what I am 
saying. There were promises made, there were commitments made; and not 
only has none of it happened, but some of the actions taken by the 
majority over the last 7 months were actions that had never even been 
contemplated during the 12 years of Republican rule.
  Now, I understand there were times when Republicans did things that 
were heavy-handed, and, in fact, I can understand why the minority was 
aggrieved at the time. But when you think about the opening several 
weeks, when we had one rule covering six bills, no amendments, one 
motion to recommit for six bills, things that we would have never even 
dreamt of doing have happened. But it has been time after time after 
time.
  When we look at the activities of the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program, how there were no hearings, the size of the bill and 
then the conditions under which it was going to be brought to the 
floor, I think it was the straw that broke the camel's back. At least, 
I thought it was the straw that broke the camel's back, until last 
night.
  The resolution that we are debating takes this issue and sends it to 
the Ethics Committee. As we all know, that is the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct that is referred to. Now, that, to me, 
does not appear, on the surface, to be the right place to send this 
issue. We all know about the problems of the Ethics Committee. Sending 
it to the Ethics Committee is sending it into what most people would 
describe as a ``black hole.''
  Back in January, I suggested in a private meeting with the Speaker 
that I wanted the Ethics Committee to work, and the only way it was 
going to work was that if she and I locked arms and told our Members 
and told the American people that we are going to ensure that the 
Ethics Committee work.
  That hasn't happened. The fact is, the productivity, I don't know 
whether there is productivity or lack of productivity in the Ethics 
Committee, because we have not seen anything out of the Ethics 
Committee thus far this year.
  I would suggest to the gentleman that if you are serious about 
getting to the bottom of what happened and serious about preserving the 
integrity of the House and ensuring that there is no disenfranchisement 
of Members on either side of the aisle, that a conversation between the 
two of us, or the two leaderships, might be a better course of action 
for the entire House.
  I have a privileged resolution that I have drawn up that would set up 
a select committee of Members to deal with only this issue. It may be, 
I think, a wiser course of action. I would be happy to discuss this 
with the gentleman.
  I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that what 
happened last night happened last night, and that if we could have a 
commitment of getting to the bottom of what happened last night, that 
we ought to proceed with the business that the American people sent us 
here to deal with.
  Now, I know that there are those on my side of the aisle, and 
probably some on the other side of the aisle, who would rather fight 
all day. But at the

[[Page 22747]]

end of the day, our responsibility is to the American people. This is 
the people's House.
  I accept the regrets offered by my friend from New York. Having been 
in the chair myself, I understand how it can happen. He and I are 
friends. In fact, he is one of the fairest Members who could ever be in 
the chair. But we need to have some understanding early today, if in 
fact we are going to proceed today in an orderly fashion, that we are 
going to do it in a way that dignifies this institution and dignifies 
our responsibility to the American people to do their work.
  So I would ask my friend if he would consider withdrawing the 
resolution that he has on the floor, allow us an opportunity to sit 
down and discuss this, and see if we can't come to some mutually 
agreeable way to proceed on the issue of what happened and how we 
preserve the integrity of the House and the rights of all Members.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. I thank my friend for the 
tone of his remarks, the focus of the substance of those remarks in 
terms of ensuring that the House runs in a fashion that Members 
certainly are given full consideration in terms of casting of their 
votes, and I will certainly look forward to discussing with the 
gentleman that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have had an opportunity to discuss 
various issues in a way that I think was positive. I think the remarks 
hopefully that both of us are making indicate that we have the ability 
to continue to do that and want to do that.
  I would say to my friend that I, when we complete this action, would 
look forward to visiting with him in his office or he in mine to 
discuss that. My suggestion would be that we perhaps unanimously adopt 
this resolution so that the Ethics Committee can look at it, but not 
exclusively, as the gentleman indicates and proceed.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the whole point of the 
suggestion that I made that we withdraw this to go into a conversation 
or negotiation where the gentleman has 10 cards in his hand and I have 
one clearly would put me and my colleagues at a disadvantage.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we don't want to do that. If the gentleman is 
indicating that he would prefer not to offer any resolutions at this 
time, I would certainly, at this point in time, if that is our 
understanding, be prepared to withdraw this resolution.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to hold off on the resolution that I 
was planning on offering and look forward to our conversations.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the House, a proposition may be withdrawn 
before any action thereon as a matter of right.
  The resolution is withdrawn.

                          ____________________