Ordering Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to Immediately Review Events Surrounding Vote on H.R. 3161

ORDERING COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT TO IMMEDIATELY REVIEW EVENTS SURROUNDING VOTE ON H.R. 3161 -- (House of Representatives - August 03, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

Source