 |
| 215 to 213 |
August 03, 2007 |
| |
Dear Friends,
It was after ten o’clock on Thursday night and we were finishing votes on amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
The last vote before passing the bill is the motion to recommit -- the minority’s last chance to make a change.
The motion to recommit had some appeal to conservative Democrats and the vote would be close. I was sitting in the front row as the fifteen minute clock ran down.
When the clock goes to zero, the Speaker in the chair for the evening, Mr. McNulty of New York, intoned the standard words, "Has every member in the chamber voted?" A few final tallies went up leaving the vote at 213-215 -- a narrow defeat for the Republican amendment.
McNulty then gave the standard call, "Does any member wish to change their vote?" Two members from Florida approached the well of the House to submit cards to change their votes. Also not unusual. The clerk read, as they do, "Not 'no', but 'aye' for Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida. Not 'no', but 'aye' for Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida".
As fast as he could, having been signaled by the Democrat floor leader, the Speaker pounded the gavel and announced, "On that amendment the vote was 214-214. The amendment is not agreed to.". The vote talley board was marked "FINAL". But the vote was 215 to 213. Two people had changed. The Speaker closed the vote but had called the wrong result.
Then, after gavel had gone down and the vote was called and closed, Mr. McNerney of California went to the well of the House and turned in a card to change his vote from "aye" to "nay". I was in the front row. I saw it all.
The House Republicans erupted. The Democrats stood mostly silent and stunned. I looked at the faces of some of my Democrat friends. There was no partisan jeering on their side. They had expressions like my kids have when they know they've done something very wrong.
While I have seen some angry moments on the floor, and a fair amount of feigned fury for effect, I have never seen the universal angry denunciation that I saw on Thursday night.
The gavel had gone down. The vote was over. The Speaker pro temp had miscounted and called the vote when the majority was losing. The tally clerk keeps the actual record and it was 215-213. So they cheated to protect their pride.
The press gallery started filling as the Parliamentarian tried to figure out what to do and the Republican members jeered and shouted, "Shame!"
The Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, asked unanimous consent to vacate the last vote and re-vote. Dozens of people objected. He then moved to reconsider. Then, as if to make a point, the vote tally machine jammed and would not move of off "FINAL".
There was a quick huddle and something happened that I have never seen before and no members I was with had seen before. The Republicans left. We just went home without re-voting. We had voted. We had won. They had changed the vote after it was final. And they were re-voting to somehow show it was all "fair".
So we left. We refused to participate in the sham.
The rules of the House date back to Thomas Jefferson. Those rules provide a structure and confidence that whether you win or lose a particular vote, the people each of us have come here to represent are treated fairly.
The veneer of civil society is much thinner than we want to think.
On Friday, after some more acrimony, the House established a special committee of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans to review the events of Thursday night. The episode did not reflect well on the House.
Wish you were here,
|
|
|
|