U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–139 2008

INVESTIGATIVE HEARING REGARDING ROLL CALL 

814, DAY 1 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE 

THE VOTING IRREGULARITIES OF 

AUGUST 2, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 13, 2008 

WASHINGTON, DC 

( 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE VOTING IRREGULARITIES OF 

AUGUST 2, 2007 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts, Chairman 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Ranking Member 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Delahunt, Hon. William, Chairman ....................................................................... 1 

Pence, Hon. Mike, Ranking Member ...................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Mr. Delahunt .................................................................................................... 111 

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... 116 

Mr. McNulty ...................................................................................................... 123 

Catalog of the Video Highlights and Color Key .................................................... 126 

Memorandum from the Clerk of the House, Lorraine C. Miller .......................... 128 

Documents referenced during questioning by Mr. LaTourette ............................ 133 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(1) 

INVESTIGATIVE HEARING REGARDING ROLL 

CALL 814 

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE VOTING

IRREGULARITIES OF AUGUST 2, 2007, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 1539, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. William D. Delahunt 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Delahunt, Davis, Pence, and 

LaTourette. 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing of the Select Committee will come 

to order. Let me begin with my own statement. First, the Committee would like to extend our thanks to the witnesses who will 

testify today. We thank them for the time and assistance they have 

already provided to the Committee as they have all been previously 

interviewed by Committee members and staff. Additionally, I want 

to extend our collective appreciation to all of the individuals, Members, officers, and staff of the House who the Committee has called 

upon to assist us in our work. Every single one of them, without 

hesitation, responded diligently and professionally to all of our requests. 

In particular, I would like to recognize the Clerk of the House, 

Lorraine Miller, who we have not asked to testify today, but who 

along with her counsel, Russ Gore, has devoted countless hours 

educating the Committee, compiling document productions and providing us with unfettered access to her staff and explaining the 

Clerk’s Office internal operations. 

I know I speak for all of the Committee when I say that all of 

the offices and professional staff of the House with which we have 

interacted are of the highest caliber and we are grateful for their 

service; the Office of the Parliamentarian, the Chief Administrative 

Officer, and the leadership staff on both sides. The American people should be confident and proud of the collective service they provide to the people’s House. Now, the purpose of these hearings is 

to discover what happened on August 2nd during Roll Call 814. 

Voting in the House can be chaotic, confusing and often an emotional process. And on that particular evening, many Members left 

the floor feeling frustrated and dissatisfied, not simply with the result, but with the process. I understand this Committee’s mandate 

is to determine how and why this roll call unfolded in the manner 

that it did, and make recommendations to ensure the integrity of 

the voting procedures. I would also suggest that implied in this 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
2 

charge is a task to, not only ensure confidence in our voting procedures, but to abate the anger and mistrust that was evidenced that 

evening. 

As our first witness, Kevin Hanrahan, testified during his interview, ‘‘the atmosphere in the Chamber was vitriolic, at best it was 

hateful. In my whole time I have seen some weird stuff, but that 

night was the worst. Everybody was hateful. And I am putting that 

gently.’’ And while my own opinion is that there has been considerable improvement in the mood and atmosphere in the House, my 

hope is that the Committee’s work can further enhance civility and 

respect among Members that is necessary for the proper functioning of the people’s House. 

Now, it should be noted that a great deal of time and effort has 

already been devoted to the Committee’s task. We have been working. Members and staff have spent hundreds of hours on this undertaking. I cannot overstate their diligence and commitment and 

I wish to publicly commend them. We were fortunate to have the 

benefit of a videotape of the event that evening. And Committee 

members and staff have reviewed that tape countless times. We 

have also requested and reviewed over 5,000 pages of documents, 

e-mails, logs, notes and memoranda from over 33 individuals and 

six offices in the House. We have conducted over 20 interviews and 

have taken almost 50 hours of testimony. We will be making all of 

the transcripts of those interviews, as well as all of the documents, 

part of the official Committee record today. 

And I would move that we now, by unanimous consent, move to 

place all of the documents that I just enumerated into the official 

record. And hearing no objection it is so ordered. 

[The information described is available in the Committee archive. 

Opening statements can be found in the Appendix of this transcript.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I would be remiss if I failed to note the 

contribution of the Congressional Research Service in assisting 

with the drafting of the interim report, which was filed on September 27, 2007. This interim report laid out the steps we anticipated would be necessary to conduct a thorough inquiry of the 

events surrounding Roll Call 814. Next, we conducted three public 

hearings on the history, rules and customs surrounding voting in 

the House of Representatives. What was particularly revealing, 

even at that early stage, was how little many of us, particularly 

myself, knew about the process that is involved in recording the 

votes cast in the House of Representatives. The parliamentary 

rules and procedures, as well as the instrumentalities, the computer, the electronic voting system, the boards, the tally slip that 

serve as the infrastructure of the voting process, is complex and it 

requires a high degree of coordination. We interviewed the Clerk 

of the House, the deputy clerks, and the parliamentarian emeritus, 

Charles Johnson. 

We conducted an in-depth walk-through of the House floor and 

the electronic voting system, or to use the acronym, the EVS, and 

took a view of the EVS control room. We used these hearings and 

the expertise of the Congressional Research Service to provide a 

strong foundation going forward. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
3 

I must take special notice of the outstanding work of Judy 

Schneider and Mike Koempel, for without their assistance, I believe the Committee, or at least myself, would have been adrift as 

we embarked upon our work. I think it is important to note that 

while the videotape is clearly helpful, it has its limitations. I believe we have made good use of it, and I expect we will utilize this 

videotape today and in the future. 

However, as we will see, it does not provide a panoramic view 

of the House. Nor does it explain the actions of the principals, the 

key players. Therefore, our witnesses today are vital in understanding Roll Call Vote 814. And that is why the Committee invited these particular individuals to testify. At our first public 

hearing, I said a number of things that I believe hold true today. 

First, none of us chose this assignment. Secondly, though none of 

us asked for this task, I can say that I am privileged to serve with 

the other five members of the Select Committee. We have worked 

well together, as has our fine professional staff. 

August 2, 2007, was a Thursday, but it wasn’t just any Thursday. It was the last day before Congress was supposed to break for 

the August recess. Members were exhausted, staff was exhausted 

and we were all anxious to go home. As a senior rostrum staff person said during his interview in February, ‘‘the workload,’’ and 

these are his words, ‘‘the workload that three months, June, July 

and August, was maybe one of the worst I have ever seen in all 

of my time here. We set a record with roll calls.’’ Another officer 

of the House stated, ‘‘it was the ugliest week I can remember in 

the House.’’ Another said, ‘‘we were all tired that night, it was a 

long night and we had a stack of votes on a bunch of amendments. 

And then we moved into what we all thought was going to be the 

final passage and then hopefully go home.’’ Roll Call Vote 814 was 

a motion to recommit promptly H.R. 3161, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture. Roll Call Vote 

814 was supposed to take place around 10:00 at night after a series 

of 9, 2-minute votes on amendments to H.R. 3161. Congressman 

Mike McNulty was presiding. 

At this point I should note that Mr. McNulty’s reputation among 

his colleagues and the staff is well known for integrity and professionalism, and his ability to serve as the Speaker pro tem. Both 

leaders following August 2nd have reaffirmed their respect for his 

service to this House. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stated, ‘‘I think 

McNulty is a competent accomplished presiding officer, and I think 

he is perceived by all Members as a very fair individual of high integrity, and I think he is that.’’ 

Similarly, the Republican leader, John Boehner, said on the 

morning following Roll Call 814, ‘‘I accept the regrets offered by my 

friend from New York,’’ referring to Mr. McNulty. ‘‘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 that Chair.’’ Well, the vote began at 10:34 and 5 seconds. And 

as time passed it was clear that the vote would be close. At 10:49 

and 47 seconds, which would be 15 minutes and 42 seconds into 

the vote, the Speaker voted against the motion and the vote was 

tied. At 10:50 and 8 seconds Mr. McNulty announced the tally, but 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
4 

did not proceed with any further statements that are often integral 

to closing down a vote. 

At 10:50 and 15 seconds, more Members appeared in the well 

and took possession of well cards, arguably, manifesting intent to 

change their votes. At 10:50 and 29 seconds more Members entered 

the well, similarly obtaining well cards. At 10:51 and 30 seconds, 

Mr. McNulty announced that the vote is tied at 214 and the motion 

is not agreed to. A fraction of a second later, the tally on the display board in the Chamber refreshed, I would use the word change 

or uptick, as the professionals use that term, reflecting a different 

tally than the one that Mr. McNulty announced. It is fair to say 

that chaos erupted. 

Six seconds later, two additional Members turned in well cards, 

which the clerks accepted and announced as changes. For those of 

us in the Chamber that night, the noise level was, again, as our 

first witness described, deafening. As another witness said, you 

could hardly hear. We were then, as the parliamentarian stated, in 

unchartered territory. Well, among the first orders of business the 

next day were apologies offered by the Majority Leader, Mr. Hoyer 

and Mr. McNulty, for the events of the evening before. During this 

hearing we will review the beginning of Roll Call 814 through the 

subsequent motion to reconsider Roll Call 815. That is the time 

frame that falls within this Committee’s jurisdiction. I look forward 

to listening to the testimony we will hear today. And while I certainly have reached no conclusions, I do have a sense that when 

the dust settles, that as we consider the events of that evening 

with the advantage of hindsight and a calm perspective, a culprit 

may emerge. And I have a hunch that we will see it in the form 

of a rule, 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. 

As I said, our purpose is to determine what happened and what 

changes to the voting procedures may be necessary or may be an 

improvement so that a similar situation does not reoccur. I look 

forward to working with all members of the Select Committee to 

put forth a final report that reflects the good work we have done 

to this point and encompasses the thoughtful and respectful deliberations that I am confident we will undertake to develop positive 

recommendations for our voting procedures in the House of Representatives. That concludes my statement, and I now yield to the 

Ranking Member, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I want to take this 

opportunity to thank Chairman Delahunt for holding this investigative hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting 

Irregularities of August 2, 2007. And on a personal note, Mr. 

Chairman, I want to thank you for the collegial spirit and cooperation and courtesy that you have shown to the Members of this Minority throughout this inquiry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. PENCE. The integrity of the House of Representatives is completely dependent on the integrity of the vote that takes place on 

the floor of the Congress. Every American is entitled to have a 

voice in the People’s House and to know that their representative’s 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
5 

vote counts. This Select Committee has been tasked with the responsibility of investigating what happened during Roll Call 814 

held on the night of August 2nd, and making recommendations to 

the House regarding necessary changes to the House rules and proceedings so that the voting right of every Member of Congress is 

protected. 

I am confident that today’s hearing will go a long way toward 

fulfilling this responsibility. Now, there were some who predicted 

that the Select Committee would never meet, let alone hold public 

hearings. I am very pleased that all six members of the Select 

Committee have been able, over the course of many months, to put 

the interests of the American people and this institution above partisan politics. I would like to thank the members of both parties on 

this Committee and the staff for conducting this investigation in a 

truly bipartisan manner. As the Chairman said, and I would associate myself, it has been a privilege to work with the men and 

women on this Committee and with their capable staff and counsel. 

I particularly would like to express my appreciation for my Republican colleagues on this Committee. Representative Kenny Hulshof 

has made an extraordinary contribution of time and professionalism to this effort. And I would like to offer special gratitude 

and recognition to the vice ranking member of this Committee, 

Steve LaTourette of Ohio. 

I thank both of these men for lending their professional experience and their extraordinary reputations for integrity and commitment to the institution to this inquiry. As the Select Committee 

held educational hearings last fall and then moved forward with its 

investigation, a clear commitment to fairness and the facts was exhibited, befitting the serious business with which the Select Committee was tasked. I am pleased to report that we have taken on 

this responsibility with a thorough and professional investigation. 

As the chairman stated, we retained outside counsel to lead the investigation, we collected and reviewed over 6,000 pages of documents and conducted more than 21 transcribed interviews with 

witnesses, all of which, by unanimous consent today, will be a part 

of the record of these proceedings. 

As a result of these efforts, we now have a solid understanding, 

not only of what happened on the evening of August 2nd, but also 

why it happened. While our examination of the documentary record 

was substantial, it was hampered by limitations created by the failure of some parties to take timely action to preserve relevant documents. For instance, if the Chief Administrative Officer of the 

House had been more diligent in preserving potentially responsive 

documents as required by our authorizing resolution, the picture 

might be even clearer. 

Before I go on with my statement, since nearly a year has passed 

since that night in August, I think it would be appropriate to watch 

a short video of some of the key scenes from that night. And I 

would ask unanimous consent to make this video a part of the 

record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[Video was played. The video can be found in the Committee’s archive.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
6 

Mr. PENCE. Catlin O’Neill, the aide to the Speaker is in orange, 

the Speaker of the House is circled in blue, the Majority Leader is 

circled in red, Jerry Hartz, an aide to the Speaker, is circled in yellow, and the Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, is circled in green. 

[The color code can be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. PENCE. Roll Call 814 was taken on the Republican motion 

to recommit the Agriculture appropriations bill on the night of August 2, 2007. The Republican motion would have denied taxpayer 

benefits in that bill from going to illegal immigrants. It was, to say 

the least, a contentious and controversial issue in Congress. The 

evidence will show that the Republican motion to recommit passed 

the House by a vote of 215–213, and was overturned by the Democratic Leadership and the Speaker pro tem. 

In the face of pressure from the Democratic leadership to shut 

down Roll Call 814 while they were prevailing, the Speaker pro 

tem, Representative Mike McNulty, bypassed well established procedures for closing a vote. This failure threw the House into chaos, 

and what one veteran professional staff member called ‘‘unchartered territory,’’ undermining the confidence in the integrity of the 

House. Given the video record that we just viewed and the candor 

and cooperation of numerous witnesses, most of the facts about 

what happened that night are not in dispute. 

After the minimum time for voting had expired, Speaker Pelosi 

received a signal to go to the well and cast her vote, making the 

total 214–214. Mr. Hoyer was quite candid during his interview 

with the Select Committee, acknowledging that he had expressed, 

in no uncertain terms, a strong desire that the vote be closed as 

soon as the Speaker cast her vote. To this end, he yelled at the 

Chair to close the vote in a voice loud enough to be heard. This was 

confirmed by at least five witnesses on the rostrum that evening. 

At the time the Speaker voted, Mr. Hoyer can be seen near the rostrum having a conversation with Catlin O’Neill of the Speaker’s 

floor staff. 

Mr. Hoyer recalled telling Ms. O’Neill words to the effect of ‘‘We 

need to shut down the vote when we are prevailing.’’ The video 

shows that Ms. O’Neill immediately turned and said something to 

the Chair, who then attempted to close the vote for the first time. 

Ms. O’Neill and Mr. McNulty both have denied giving or receiving 

any instructions about closing the vote that evening. It is troubling 

that their testimony was contradicted by the testimony of Mr. 

Hoyer. The Chair attempted to close the vote at 214–214, but 

stopped short when it became clear that well voting cards were still 

being processed. Believing that the parliamentarians had somehow 

prevented Mr. McNulty from closing the vote while the Majority 

was prevailing, Mr. Hoyer angrily vented his frustration toward 

the Parliamentarian, John Sullivan. 

In remarks that can be clearly heard on the video, he said, ‘‘We 

control this House, not the parliamentarians.’’ This outburst occurred on the rostrum a few feet from Mr. McNulty. And shortly 

thereafter, Mr. McNulty banged the gavel and called the vote at 

214–214 and declared that the ‘‘motion was not agreed to.’’ However, in the time between the Chair’s first attempt to call the vote 

and the second, three Florida Republicans had changed their votes 

and the tally clerks were still entering those changes in the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
7 

House’s electronic voting system. Consequently, the display board 

in the Chamber upticked to 215–213 milliseconds after the Chair’s 

second and final announcement of 214–214, creating an atmosphere of confusion and anger on the House floor, because at that 

time with those votes counted properly, the motion had, in fact, 

passed. Mr. McNulty explained during his interview that he intended to close Roll Call Vote 814 as soon as the last of the three 

Republicans had voted, concerned that holding the vote open any 

longer might allow other Members on both sides of the aisle to 

change their votes, and that such a delay might violate clause 2(a) 

of rule XX, which states that, ‘‘A recorded vote by electronic device 

shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome 

of such vote.’’ As Mr. Hoyer himself readily acknowledged, the presiding officer, Mr. McNulty, certainly had the discretion to close the 

vote at this point, when the true vote count was 215–213 in favor 

of passage. Clause 2(a) of rule XX in the House also provides ‘‘The 

clerk shall conduct a record vote by electronic device.’’ It is 

uncontroverted that Mr. McNulty, an experienced and respected 

Chair who has presided over dozens, perhaps hundreds of votes, 

called Roll Call 814 without giving the employees of the Clerk of 

the House an opportunity to conduct a record vote, prepare a tally 

slip and certify the results. 

While the requirement of the tally slip is not formally codified in 

the Rules of the House, numerous witnesses have stated that this 

tally slip is deeply embedded in the traditions of the House and 

that they have never before seen a vote closed without one. Had 

Mr. McNulty followed this long-standing procedure, the tally slip 

would have reflected a 215–213 vote total in favor of passage of the 

Republican motion denying taxpayer benefits from going to illegal 

immigrants. Rather than simply making a new announcement of 

the correct result, Mr. McNulty compounded his error by allowing 

the vote to remain open after he had announced the final result, 

enabling three Democrat Members to switch their votes, thereby altering the outcome from passage of the Republican motion to failure. 

Remarkably, numerous witnesses and the documentary evidence 

attest that a tally slip prepared by the Clerk was never produced 

in connection with Roll Call 814. I take no pleasure in saying this, 

but it is simply not plausible that such an experienced presiding 

officer simply forgot to wait for the tally slip during the course of 

such a close and controversial vote. Instead, I believe the evidence 

gathered by the Select Committee will show that the Chair rushed 

to close the vote in face of pressure from the Democratic leadership, and in so doing, side-stepped a long-standing procedural safeguard designed to ensure the integrity of the vote on the floor of 

the House. 

During an interview before this Committee when asked whether 

his demeanor or actions, ‘‘may have unintentionally created an environment of more pressure on [Mr. McNulty] to close the vote,’’ 

the Majority Leader did not argue the point, but merely replied 

that that was ‘‘certainly possible.’’ Leadership instructing a presiding officer about the timing of closing a vote is hardly uncommon. But as one professional staff member explained, he had 

‘‘never seen the Chair buy into it, never.’’ When any Majority feels 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
8 

that it can cut corners to achieve a particular legislative result, we 

risk reducing the most powerful democracy in the history of the 

world to a banana republic. 

The chaos of August 2nd was a dark moment in the history of 

the United States House of Representatives, and it must never be 

allowed to happen again. The imperious actions of the Democratic 

Leadership unduly influenced the Chair and undermined the will 

of the American people on the controversial and divisive issue of 

taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants. Our national legislature was designed to resolve just such issues through the democratic process. But to accomplish this, the American people must 

have absolute confidence that their will is being worked in the People’s House, and not thwarted through political gamesmanship, 

procedural sleight-of-hand, or a win-at-all-costs mentality. We cannot restore Roll Call 814, but this Committee can restore what has 

been taken: the fundamental respect for the independence, fairness 

and integrity of the House of Representatives. 

By acknowledging what happened that evening and embracing 

the reforms necessary to ensure that it never happens again, this 

Congress can learn the lessons of August 2nd, move beyond that 

dark moment and restore the confidence of the American people 

that this is not a Democratic House, this is not a Republican 

House, this is the People’s House, and their will is worked every 

time a vote is called. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

and thank the Chairman again for his courtesy and cooperation. 

[The statement of Mr. Pence may be found in the Appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pence. And pursuant to our understanding I will now go to Mr. Davis for any observations he may 

have. And I would respectfully request he limit them to five minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try 

to do even better than the five minutes, because I want to get us 

to what we are here for: Just to hear from witnesses today. Let me 

begin with just one general observation. As I have been a member 

of the Select Committee over the last several months, I am heartened about one thing. I think that the work of this Committee and 

the cooperation this Committee has practiced as we moved to this 

point today reminds me that one can debate about, disagree about, 

have contentious arguments about very emotional polarizing issues 

and still do it in a respectful way. That has been the tone of the 

last 6 or 7 months in which this Committee has done its work, and 

I frankly say with great confidence, I believe it will be the tone of 

the hearing today. And if we learn nothing else from this process, 

Mr. Chairman, I hope it is that the spirit with which we have conducted this investigation can be a template for the way we go about 

resolving many more substantive, many more difficult issues that 

face the House day in and day out. 

The other two observations I want to make are more factual. I 

expect there will be two dominant things that will happen over the 

next several hours. The first one is that, in approximately one 

hour, a Member of the House of Representatives, a distinguished 

veteran Member, Michael McNulty, is going to come before this 

Committee and do something that very few people of our ilk ever 

do in public; that is acknowledge that he made a mistake. And he 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
9 

is going to say that he did it not out of any malice, not out of any 

intent to disenfranchise, but because he looked up at a board that 

was tallying the votes and he mistakenly thought it reflected the 

sum total of all Members who voted that night. 

But he will acknowledge that that was a mistake. What was the 

effect of that mistake? I think the testimony will be very clear over 

the next several hours that as a practical matter the vote was kept 

open for approximately seven minutes in real-time, more than 

ample time for Democrats or Republicans, people yea or nay on this 

motion to recommit, to change their vote, rethink their vote or do 

anything else they wished to do. 

Seven minutes elapsed after what Mr. McNulty will acknowledge 

was an erroneous calling of the vote. Over those 7 minutes, some 

Members did change their votes and that led to the vote total that 

was announced that night. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I expect that 

the evidence will show that the Democratic leadership actually 

went beyond even that to make things right that night. 

The Majority Leader went to the floor of the House of Representatives and said let us just do it over, there was an erroneous calling of the vote, let us just start it over, let us make a motion to 

reconsider, let us set the vote aside, let us do what needs to be 

done procedurally so that we can do it right. And instead of the 

other side of the aisle, the Republican caucus saying, Mr. Leader 

we thank you for agreeing to set this vote aside, they responded 

by walking out of the House; the opposite of comity, the opposite 

of the kind of decorum that this Committee has followed and that 

we all urge on the floor of the House. So none of us are happy to 

be here, but it will be an interesting day, an instructive day, and 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis. The gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

want to echo the remarks that have been made by the three previous speakers. It has been a pleasure to serve on this Committee. 

Before this service I knew you, Mr. Chairman, but I didn’t know 

Mr. Davis, Ms. Herseth Sandlin very well, and it has been a pleasure to get to know them, and it is one of the happy circumstances 

of this work. I noticed in your rather lengthy opening remarks, Mr. 

Chairman, you didn’t indicate that the Cleveland Cavaliers had 

beaten the Boston Celtics by 11 points last night, and I am sure 

that that is an oversight on your part. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was a stolen game, Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. If Steny Hoyer could dunk like LeBron James 

we wouldn’t be here. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. See you in Boston Garden. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am glad in your opening remarks too you 

talked about how a culprit will emerge. In part of my misspent 

youth, I had read a lot of Agatha Christie, and I now have reread 

about six of her books and I find them to be very fascinating. And 

the interesting thing is that as you read through the pages, you 

think you know who the culprit is, and then when you get to the 

end you find that the culprit is not in fact who you thought it was. 

And that is really the mastery this Ms. Christie brought to her literary genre. And I agree with you that this false rule, 2(a), clause 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
10 

2(a) of Rule XX, is one of the culprits. But I think that the evidence 

today will bring forth other culprits as well. My view is that the 

Majority party should always win in the House of Representatives. 

It should always win because there are more Members. And on any 

vote, the Democratic Party now, the Republican Party for the last 

12 years, had more Members. And at any time that the Majority 

party can marshal their forces, they should win the vote. 

That is the way that the process works, that is the way our elections work. Now, from time to time the chairman mentioned what 

busy months those were, and I can remember a celebration where 

the new Majority celebrated their 1,000th vote. And I would tell, 

I think they really should have patted them on the back when they 

made that announcement for their 1,001st vote because we had two 

814s, and I don’t think they got credit for the extra 14. But 990 

of those votes are pretty controversial. And there are only maybe 

10, a very small fraction, where there are issues that aren’t necessarily divisive by party, but perhaps where you live. Geography; 

westerners versus easterners, southerners versus northerners. And 

issues like guns. I think it is a fair observation that more Members 

of the Democratic Party would support more regulations on firearms than would in the Republican Party. 

On the issue of abortion, I would suggest that it is fair to say 

that more Members of the Democratic House are pro choice and the 

reverse would be true on the Republican side. And likewise with 

immigration; there is clearly a split between the parties and within 

the parties on this issue of immigration which brought us to this 

particular evening. And so on the close votes, you don’t have the 

situation where the Majority just puts up its 230, 235 votes, you 

have some defections. And on this evening you had 19 Democrat 

defections that voted in favor of the motion to recommit. And continuing with the sports analogy just for a minute, Three River Stadium, every time they had a Pittsburgh Steelers game they would 

talk about the confluence of the Monongohela, the Allegheny and 

the Ohio Rivers. And this hearing, I think, will bring together a 

confluence of the rules, the unbroken precedence of the House and 

the transitions of the House, which all need to be given weight. 

And I think most of us are lawyers, and we are familiar with the 

black letter law, and we can talk about the rules. And I think it 

would be impossible for a rule book to cover every situation that 

could occur in the House unless it was many, many, many volumes. 

And I would hearken back to an article that was written right after 

this vote by Norman Ornstein. And I think he had it right. And 

that is, the Majority can win any vote, but what the Majority cannot do is win or steal a vote and shield some of its Members from 

having to take a difficult vote on guns, a difficult vote on abortion 

or a difficult vote on immigration, which was the case on August 

the 2nd. 

The second thing is this vote is still not right. Mr. Boehner’s card 

was never processed. Mr. Boehner’s change card was never processed. And this vote isn’t 214–214. I think it should have been 215– 

213. And it is not 212–216, it is 211–217. And that is the vote that 

occurred on that evening if you are permitted to keep it open for 

these last 7 minutes that Mr. Davis talked about. And this notion 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
11 

that the Majority Leader was just really fair and said start over, 

there was a remedy here. 

The remedy was that at the time that Mr. McNulty issued the 

magic words that the motion is not agreed to, he could have made 

a second announcement that it is 215 to 213, the motion is agreed 

to and we still could have had, because the Rules of the House permit a motion to reconsider, any one of those three Democratic 

Members; Space, Gillibrand and McNerney, who changed their 

votes at the very end, because they would have been on the prevailing side, could have made the motion to reconsider and we 

would have had that vote anyway. So I look forward to the testimony, I appreciate the comity on both sides and thank you for your 

time this morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. And now we will call 

our first witness, Kevin Hanrahan. Mr. Hanrahan, will you proceed 

to the witness table? Kevin Hanrahan is a native of Nebraska. He 

began his career in Congress in 1978 as a staff member of former 

Representative John Cavanaugh. He joined the Office of the Clerk 

in 1979 as assistant tally clerk and was later promoted to senior 

legislative clerk. Mr. Hanrahan recently succeeded Mark 

O’Sullivan as chief tally clerk of the House. He has served the 

House of Representatives under 16 different Speakers and seven 

different clerks. Welcome Kevin. Pursuant to a conversation that 

Mr. Pence and I had prior, we have agreed to attempt to limit the 

questioning of the witnesses to an hour to be divided equally between the Minority and the Majority. 

And I indicated to Mr. Pence that it was my intention to let Mr. 

Davis, the Vice Chair of the Committee, to conduct our inquiry so 

that we have coherence in our questioning. And let me begin with 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think actually, Chairman, the Ranking Member is going to ask some questions on our time and then hand off, 

if that is all right with everybody. 

Mr. PENCE. The ranking member’s prerogative. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. PENCE. Just a couple of brief questions for our witness. And 

Mr. Hanrahan, thank you for not only—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I didn’t see Mr. Hanrahan with any papers in 

front of him, so I presume he did not have an opening statement. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That’s correct, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. So then let me again yield to Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me just reiterate my 

appreciation for your cooperation with the Committee, not only appearing today, but also your cooperation with the Select Committee 

from the very beginning. And let me also congratulate you on, I 

think more than a quarter century of service to the American people in your capacity. I think you do great credit to the House, and 

we are appreciative of your service and your cooperation. A couple 

quick questions before I yield the Majority of our time to Mr. 

LaTourette. In your 25-plus years of experience in your capacity, 

have you ever been involved with the closing of a vote without a 

tally slip? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, I have not. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
12 

Mr. PENCE. The Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, told the Select 

Committee that a written tally slip is ‘‘probably the most important 

quality control device in the announcement of a vote.’’ Would you 

agree with that statement? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, I will agree with that. 

Mr. PENCE. Lastly, for the record, did you, at any point in time, 

in connection with Roll Call Vote 814, prepare a tally slip? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I didn’t have one ready when the vote was closing, but we have a practice, if you will, of in keeping with trying 

to keep things moving along rather than slow them down, it is not 

uncommon for the standing tally clerk to write the first digit of 

each of the totals in order to just save time. As long as we have 

topped over, for instance, if it is a 200 on one side, it would be okay 

to write a 2 and a 100 on the other side, a one. It saves time. And 

it might be construed as starting something, but it shouldn’t be 

construed as a final product because it is not done, it isn’t finished 

and hasn’t been completed and turned in. We do it once in a while 

just to move things along and try to be ready, but it is not a beall/end-all to the closing of a vote until we are through writing the 

tally and hand it up to the Chair for announcement to the House. 

Mr. PENCE. In connection with Roll Call 814, is it your testimony 

that you did begin to create such a document? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. To be perfectly truthful, I don’t honestly remember. I might have, because I was not unaware of the situation we 

were in. And there may very well have been a partially completed 

tally slip. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me ask you two quick questions. Do you recall 

ever completing a tally slip? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, I never did complete one and I never turned 

it in. 

Mr. PENCE. And so you never handed that tally slip to the parliamentarians to give to the Chair? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. PENCE. Okay. With that I would yield the balance of our 

time for questioning to Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Pence, and Mr. Hanrahan, 

welcome. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. The first thing that I would ask you to do, we 

are going to put a picture of the rostrum up over here on this the 

easel. And if I could ask you to rise from your witness chair, I have 

prepared some labels, and would ask you to approach the easel and 

we are going to walk through who the people are. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Okay. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me ask you the question, the occupant of 

the Chair is Michael McNulty of New York, is that right? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could you put Mr. McNulty’s sticker above his 

head. Not on his head, above his head. Who is the parliamentarian 

attending to the Chair? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Ethan Lauer. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could you put Mr. Lauer’s sticker above his 

head. And is there a person charged with keeping the time of the 

stop watch in that picture? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
13 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Well, Gay Topper is seated here, and that would 

be her function. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Could you put Gay Topper’s sticker 

above her head. Do you see yourself in that photograph? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, down here in the lower left-hand corner. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And you were the standing tally clerk that 

evening? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could you put your sticker underneath yourself? De’Andre Anderson was the seated tally clerk that evening? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could you put his sticker below him? And I 

prepared a sticker for Allys Lasky that has her as the assistant 

tally clerk, because she told us that is who she was when we interviewed her, but you don’t believe that was her title then? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, she was the journal clerk. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Could you put Allys Lasky’s sticker 

below her? We will all understand that she is the journal clerk and 

not the assistant tally clerk. Okay. Thank you. Could you resume 

your seat? Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Hanrahan resumes his seat, 

I just want to make clear as we go forward, Mr. Pence, in his opening remarks played about 6 minutes of the videotape. And I know 

because we have agreed to move this along, so we don’t inconvenience our witnesses, I want to make sure that we have stipulated 

that whenever we show the video to the witnesses, that the color 

coding that we have talked about, sort of the halos that we have 

described, in the fine tradition of Flemish painting, that those will 

be accepted by both sides as being accurate. And so if I indicate 

to a witness, would you please watch the tape, and the orange halo 

belongs to Catlin O’Neill, that we have agreed that that is, in fact, 

the case. Am I right about that? 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you give us the color code again Mr. 

LaTourette? Orange? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I will give you the whole sheet, how is that? 

It is my understanding that counsel has agreed to that. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have agreed. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Was there any reason for the particular colors? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. No, I don’t think so. And as a matter of fact, 

when the Majority asked us to put a halo around Mr. Space, we 

had run out of colors, and so he is just going to be white. 

The CHAIRMAN. I noticed that the Parliamentarian, Mr. Sullivan, 

is in green. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any significance? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Celtic green. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. All right. Mr. Hanrahan, when you were interviewed by the staff of the Select Committee on February 8th, they 

walked through with you a protocol, do you remember that? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Uh-huh, yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do you remember where the protocol came 

from and what the document was? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
14 

Mr. HANRAHAN. With respect what the—how the deposition was 

going to be conducted? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, I was just asking, do you remember what 

document they were walking you through? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I remember the document, yes. I do remember 

looking at it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could someone take that to Mr. Hanrahan? I 

just want to show you a document that was prepared by Mrs. Miller, the Clerk of the House, dated September 4th, and ask you, 

when I read the transcript of your interview, is that the document 

that they were walking you through? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And if I could ask you—do you guys 

have it, or do you want it to refer to? I don’t want to surprise you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Could I have a copy, Mr. LaTourette? 

I have it now. Thank you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. If I could ask you, Mr. Hanrahan, to refer to 

page 2 of that document. 

By the way, Chairman, I ask unanimous consent it be made part 

of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The document, a memorandum written by Ms. Lorraine Miller, 

Clerk of the House, can be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. LATOURETTE. On page 6—first of all, the first full paragraph 

on page 2, do you see that. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Do you recall during the course of your 

interview on February 8th having counsel walk you through that 

paragraph basically on the protocol that exists for conducting an 

electronic vote in the House of Representatives? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And is that an accurate explanation of 

the protocol for conducting an electronic vote in the House of Representatives? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, it is. I could embellish it, if I needed to, 

but it is basically correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And, at one point, on page 7, for those 

at home following, you indicate that this protocol hasn’t been 

changed in 30 years. Is that still your recollection today? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And that protocol contemplates the delivery of a tally sheet, the tally slip. Is that right? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Next, we are going to put up on the easel an 

exhibit that we used at one of our previous hearings. And do you 

recognize that? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, I do. It is one of our tally sheets. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And when you were talking to Mr. 

Pence a little earlier, is that the document that you, as the standing tally clerk, or any standing tally clerk, during the course of a 

recorded vote would complete? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And upon completion of that tally slip, except 

for this night that we are talking about, is that slip prepared by 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
15 

the standing tally clerk, handed to the parliamentarian tending to 

the Chair, who then hands it to the Chair for announcement? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And again, to be clear, no such slip was 

prepared on August the 2nd. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. There has been a suggestion when we interviewed the Majority Leader that there is nothing wrong with reading the numbers off the board. And, as a matter of fact, at one 

point in time, he said, ‘‘Well, the standing tally clerk does it all the 

time.’’ 

Now, do you just want to make an observation about that? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, I would like to. It is not that simple. 

The summary board is, of course, available for everyone in the 

chamber to see to track the progress of a roll call. But the submission of a tally slip, which is intended for announcement to the 

House as a result of the roll call, is limited to a discussion between 

the standing tally clerk, the seated tally clerk, as to when or if voting stations have been closed, which would prevent upticks and, 

therefore, signify that the tally that would be written on that slip 

and turned in could be expected to be the final for the vote and be 

accepted as the judgment of the House. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think, at one point in your interview on February the 8th, you indicate that perhaps the reason that it appears 

that way is that, because the standing tally clerk has the responsibility to, sort of, be looking around in the well to make sure there 

is no further activity, that the standing tally clerk may in fact look 

at the board, but it is only after consultation with the seated tally 

clerk that the system has been closed to further input. Is that 

right? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct. And that discussion is not limited to the tally clerks. That is a discussion that is commonly and 

always involves the parliamentarians and the reading clerk when 

the reading clerk is in a position to call Members who may or may 

not be coming to the well to cast initial votes or changes, whatever 

the case might be. It is an agreement that we don’t see any Members or hear any Members attempting to make their presence 

known in the well for the purpose of casting a vote. 

That little bit of a discussion takes just a little bit of time. It is 

a pause, if you will, but it is a perceptible pause. And it is meant 

to ensure that we all agree that there is not going to be any further 

voting and that we are then okay to close the voting stations and 

write that tally and submit it to the Chair for announcement to the 

House. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And that never happened on August the 2nd? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That did not happen, no, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could you put the picture back up? 

I want to talk to you about magic words for a second. Again, 

going through the protocol, your discussion on February the 8th, 

there is a traditional way that the Chair closes a vote, and says 

that any Members want to vote, any Members want to change their 

vote. Then, when the Chair announces the result, with the benefit 

of a tally slip, says that, ‘‘on this vote the ayes are this, the noes 

are this,’’ and then makes a declarative statement that is disposiVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:31 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 044139 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A139.XXX A139

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
16 

tive of the issue before the House. And in the case of a motion to 

recommit, it would be that the motion is not agreed to. On other 

matters, it would be that the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

Is that right? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Are you aware—we saw the videotape; 

you were in the room during Mr. Pence’s opening remarks—that 

Mr. McNulty makes two attempts to stop the vote or call the vote. 

The first time he stops after saying 214–214 and makes no declarative statement. The second time, he indicates that it is 214–214 

and says that the motion is not agreed to. 

Based upon your 27 years of experience with the House of Representatives, do those words carry any significance? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Sir, they carry significance, but we—from the 

time I came to work here, I was trained to observe the protocol for 

opening and closing a roll call vote, which includes announcements 

or statements from the Chair inquiring of the House if there is 

anyone who has not voted and would like to or who has voted and 

would like to change their votes. 

We didn’t touch either one of those bases that night. And so we, 

sort of, jumped over that point to arrive at the announcement of 

the tally. And the situation as it stands that night was that we 

were still processing well votes; we weren’t done processing well 

votes. 

And the normal sequence of events is to allow that process to 

play itself out. The Chair then makes its inquiries. We have our 

collaborative discussion as to whether or not anybody is aware of 

any Member attempting to come to the well to get recorded or not, 

change, whatever the case might be. Then we close the vote. And 

then the Chair makes his or her announcement based on the tally 

slip that, if I am the standing tally clerk, I have written for the 

Chair, and the Chair makes that announcement and then proceeds 

to close the vote finally by saying that the motion to reconsider is 

laid upon the table. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me ask you this. At the time, understanding what you just said, at the time Mr. McNulty closes the 

vote the second time—214–214, motion is not agreed—it is my understanding that you were still in communication with Mr. Anderson, the seated tally clerk, and were handing to him the well cards 

from the three Floridians who had voted, two Diaz-Balarts and 

Ros-Lehtinen. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Aside from that, was the well static at that 

moment in time? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Aside from that, the well was static at that moment, yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. I think Mr. Pence, again, in his opening 

remarks, indicated a quote that you have never seen—I mean, you 

have been through a lot of close votes in 27 years, but you have 

never seen the Chair buy into it. Do you remember uttering those 

words? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, I do. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
17 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Could you indicate to the Committee 

what it is you believe the Chair bought into? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. It is not uncommon for leadership on either side 

to have an interest in moving things along for whatever benefit 

might be implied at the time. 

Our interest is not in the disposition of motions before the 

House. Our interest is to record votes accurately and provide the 

House with a result that it can rely on and know to be true. 

When I said that, I have heard any number of times over the 

years Members, leadership or not, come to the well and attempt to 

move things along, and it is not unheard of. In fact, we pretty 

much aren’t even deterred much by it, except we take note of it, 

we are aware. We are not here to impede anything. We are here 

to move things along, but within the protocol that we were trained 

to observe: never to take shortcuts. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So what did Mr. McNulty buy into? What did 

you mean? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. The quick call on the vote was based on an observation from the summary board. Now, I can’t read his mind; I 

don’t know what made him say what he said. But the fact that he 

said it while we were still processing well votes, there was nobody 

more shocked than me. Because I knew exactly, but exactly, what 

was going to happen the minute De’Andre entered that last well 

vote. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. The Mario Diaz-Balart card. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You knew the machine was going to uptick 

to—— 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I knew exactly what was going to happen. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you mean at all that the Chair bought into 

the pressure? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, that was probably what I was trying to get 

at. I would say that, yes, I think it was a direct result. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And where was the pressure coming from? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Well, the pressure was coming, at that point in 

time, from the leadership. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And who in the leadership? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Mr. Hoyer, the Majority Leader. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And did you hear Mr. Hoyer tell the Chair to 

close the vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I did. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you hear him say that more than once? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I would say, yes, at least twice. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And was Mr. Hoyer speaking in a loud voice, 

soft voice? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. It wasn’t soft. It was declarative. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you have any difficulty hearing what Mr. 

Hoyer was indicating relative to the closure of the vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, not at the point where he initially approached the well. He was very close to where I was standing. It 

wasn’t hard to hear. 

I do know that another exchange took place, as you mentioned 

earlier, between he and John Sullivan. That took place off to the 

side of the rostrum, and it was not quite as clear to overhear that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
18 

But where he was at that point, it was clear to me that he was 

interested in moving things to a close. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. In my last 29 seconds, on pages 57 and 58 of 

your observations to us in February, I just want to read you two 

paragraphs and ask if you still agree with them today. ‘‘There was 

some stuff said, I think, maybe. And I hate to do this. I don’t even 

know if it is right. I am guessing Mr. McNulty knows better. He 

has been up there a hundred times if he has been once. He is one 

of the better Members we have in the Chair. He knows how to do 

this. Why he bought into that I don’t know. I still don’t know. I was 

stunned to hear that.’’ 

Then over on page 58, ‘‘But, again, it is the whole thing that happened that night that makes it different from any other night, is 

the Chair’s response. I mean, I have heard it a hundred times, 

‘Close this vote now.’ I have heard all kinds of admonitions and 

hurry-ups and we have things we have to do and ‘I don’t like the 

way it is going; hurry up,’ all that stuff. But I have never seen the 

Chair make an early call like that.’’ 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct. That is still how I feel about it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hanrahan, first of all, let me begin by thanking you for being 

here today. I know that you are an individual—and, frankly, a lot 

of folks in the room may not fully appreciate this, so I will open 

by making this point. The staff, the parliamentarians, the people 

who work the rostrum are neither Democrats nor Republicans. You 

all work for the House of Representatives. 

And you currently work in this Democratic Majority. You have 

worked in a Republican Majority. And then, before that, you 

worked in a Democratic Majority. Is all that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And let me begin, Mr. Hanrahan, by talking for a moment about the importance of the tally sheet. 

Mr. LaTourette gave you a document that was prepared by Lorraine Miller, the Clerk of the House. Do you still have that document in front of you? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would like you to turn to page 2, and I would like 

you to look at the same paragraph that Mr. LaTourette referenced. 

It is a paragraph that describes the process for closing the vote in 

the EVS system. Do you see that? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, this document was prepared by Ms. Miller at 

the request of this Committee. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is this kind of an explanation for how the EVS system is closed out; is this kind of a document routinely given to 

Members of the House? Have you ever known this kind of document to be in any other context given to Members of the House? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I am aware of an orientation process when Congresses begin and Members are apprised of the outline, anyway, of 

the general voting process. Of course, they are issued their voting 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
19 

cards, and that process is explained to them, locations of voting 

stations in the Chamber and that sort of thing. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you participate in that process? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. DAVIS. And do you have any knowledge of whether even presiding officers are routinely given any kind of documents summarizing how the electronic voting system closes out? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I am not aware of one, no, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And are you aware of any kind of an orientation session that presiding officers go through in which they are given the 

kind of information that Ms. Miller puts in this document? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I am not aware of one personally, no, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And had Mr. McNulty been in the Chair numerous 

times before that night, to your recollection? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, many times. 

Mr. DAVIS. Had you ever had occasion to discuss with Mr. 

McNulty prior to the night of August 2nd the process for closing 

the vote in the EVS system? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And had you ever had any occasion prior to August 

2nd for discussing with Mr. McNulty or any other presiding officer 

the importance of a tally sheet? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I think you would agree that the written rules 

of the House do not refer to the presence of a tally sheet. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. As far as I know, that is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, let me ask you a broader question. Is there any 

requirement in the rules that a presiding officer obtain the permission of the parliamentarian before he or she calls a vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Permission, no, not per se. But the protocol that 

we live with and observe on a day-to-day basis allows room for consultation to get to that point with the parliamentarians. I mean, 

I don’t think that permission is required, as much as touching 

bases in the protocol to maintain accountability and quality control 

are probably important more than permission. 

But in the sense that you can’t get to a point where the vote can 

be closed until the protocol basis has been met in order to ensure 

that accountability, I think it is maybe easy to say that, to some 

extent, there is a waiting period to move to a point where such a 

thing can occur. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I respect your perspective, but let me just ask 

you very directly: Who has the ultimate discretion to call a vote in 

the House of Representatives? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. The Chair has to have the ultimate discretion. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, on the night of August 2nd itself, let me just 

ask you generally, as you recall the moments after the motion to 

recommit went to zero and the space between that time and the 

space when Mr. McNulty calls the vote erroneously—I will go 

ahead and acknowledge he called it erroneously, and I think he will 

acknowledge that—and the gap between when the clock hits 00 

and Mr. McNulty makes his premature calling of the vote, did you 

hear any member of the staff telling Mr. McNulty, ‘‘You need to 

have a tally sheet?’’ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
20 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you personally communicate to Mr. McNulty that 

he needed to have a tally sheet? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, I didn’t. And I wish I had had the presence of mind to, in that situation, at that time. Under the circumstances, I wish I had done better. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask you—if I can get our video operator to 

begin to play the tape, because I want to ask you to look at a series 

of events and comment on them. 

And if we could go to 10:50:45. And when you have found 

10:50:45, let’s put it on the screen. Or 22:50:45, if you are using 

the military time for 10:50 that night. 

Mr. Hanrahan, you can see two TV screens, and you can take 

your pick. So we’ll go to 22:50:45. 

Just play it. 

Watch, Mr. Hanrahan, if you would. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. At the point that Mr. McNulty calls the vote, if we 

could dial back on the tape and just visually look at it for a moment. 

At the point before he calls the vote, you were standing there, 

Mr. Hanrahan, and you are processing a well card. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That appears so, yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you said that you knew that there was going to 

be an uptick in the board. The board was, I believe, 214–214. You 

believed that once that last card from Diaz-Balart was processed, 

that there would be an uptick from 215–213, if I understood you 

correctly? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct, yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. During your deposition in February, you were asked 

a question, and at one point, on page 39 of your deposition, this is 

what you said: ‘‘Nobody but us is aware—the tally clerks, I am 

talking about—is aware of whether there are any well votes to be 

processed.’’ 

What did you mean, sir? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Sir, that remark was in response to a scenario 

in which the well may or may not appear to be populated by Members who are attempting to vote or to change. But it does not speak 

to the fact that we may still be holding and processing well cards. 

And as a small, little aside here, ever since I came to work here, 

my personal preference has been to hold that yea–nay pad that we 

showed up earlier, I hold that as a platform on which to write the 

roll call number and to initial the well card as to being identified 

as submitted by the Member who submitted it and turn it in. 

It appears that—it may look like there is nobody there doing 

anything, but we are still processing votes and in the process of my 

marking them, verifying them, and handing them to the seated 

tally clerk, who in this case was De’Andre. 

Mr. DAVIS. That is something you appreciate as a tally clerk. Do 

you know whether or not the typical presiding officer appreciates 

that, Mr. Hanrahan? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Appreciate? I don’t know if I—— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
21 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, in fact, what you said in your deposition is, ‘‘Nobody but us is aware—the tally clerks, I am talking about—is 

aware of whether there are any well votes to be processed.’’ 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, okay, I see what you are getting at. Yes, sir. 

I don’t know whether the Chair appreciates it, but it is the case. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. Now, do you have any way of knowing whether 

Mr. McNulty appreciated that there was about to be an uptick in 

the vote at the time he makes his call? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I don’t have any way of knowing whether he 

knew there was or wasn’t, no. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you will remember from looking at the tape, Mr. 

Hanrahan, we can see Mr. McNulty standing there, and I assume 

you agree with me, the Majority Leader is not in the picture at this 

point. We don’t see the Majority Leader. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do we see any member of the Majority Leader or the 

speaker’s staff near Mr. McNulty at that point? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Near Mr. McNulty, no. 

Mr. DAVIS. What does Mr. McNulty appear to be doing, and not 

just at this moment, but as you watch the tape, in the moments 

before he calls the vote, what did he appear to be doing? Where did 

he appear to be looking? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. To the summary board in the Chamber. 

Mr. DAVIS. And, again, recognizing that there are people viewing 

this who aren’t in the Chamber every day, the summary board is 

the board that is on the left and right side of the Chamber that 

lists the vote score at any moment. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you agree with me that Mr. McNulty appears to 

be continually looking up at the summary board before he calls the 

vote. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And at the time Mr. McNulty calls the vote; do you 

see him appear to be receiving any instruction from the Majority 

Leader to call the vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. At that point, no, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. At the time Mr. McNulty calls the vote; do you see 

him appear to be receiving any instruction from anyone? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. Not in that picture, no. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I focus on this because that is when he calls the 

vote. 

Now, at the time that Mr. McNulty calls the vote, who are the 

members of the staff who are closest to him on his right? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. His right are the parliamentarians, John Sullivan and Ethan Lauer. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did either Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Lauer attempt to stop 

Mr. McNulty as he calls the vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I don’t believe that they did, but I also have to 

say that I don’t know that they would have had an opportunity. It 

happened very quickly. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, let me just ask you. Again, we can all watch it 

for ourselves, but do you see either of them appear to attempt to 

stop him as he calls the vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I didn’t see one, no. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
22 

Mr. DAVIS. And, obviously, it took him some seconds to state the 

iteration. He declares a number, and then he says the motion is not 

carried. Do you see anyone attempt to interrupt him as he does 

that, Mr. Hanrahan? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. At that point, no, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, you are standing here, and I think you have 

candidly and correctly acknowledged that you don’t make any attempt to stop him at this point. Let’s look at what happens next. 

Let’s play the tape from this point, and we will have you watch it, 

Mr. Hanrahan. Or if we could get to the point he calls the vote. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s stop at this point. 

To save time—and you have had occasion to review the tape before today. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I have seen it before, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you agree with me that after Mr. McNulty erroneously calls the vote, that voting activity continues in the House? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And let me back up and ask one other question for 

clarification. At the time Mr. McNulty called the vote, did you hear 

any Member yelling, ‘‘One more?’’ 

Mr. HANRAHAN. ‘‘One more,’’ no, sir. I don’t remember hearing 

that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you remember any Member yelling or saying anything that would indicate that he or she was attempting to cast a 

vote while McNulty was calling the vote at this point? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Given the noise level, I think it is hard to say. 

I don’t remember hearing that, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay, well, by definition, I am just—And, Mr. 

Hanrahan, just so we are clear, let’s go back again to what happens 

after this. Members continue to vote; is that correct? 

I think, in my opening statement, I characterized a 7-minute gap 

that occurs. Does that sound about right to you, in terms of the 

time frame between when McNulty erroneously calls the vote and 

when McNulty reads his final statement about the vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, that is approximately right. 

Mr. DAVIS. During that approximate time frame of 7 minutes, 

did some Members go to the well, fill out cards and change their 

votes? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, what is interesting is this process continues 

even after he has called the vote. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did anyone instruct you to continue to process well 

cards even though the vote had been called, if you will? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, no one instructed me, because we were 

operating under the protocol that we always operate under. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did anyone, in any way, try to prevent the process 

from going forward? Did anything happen that would impede Members from coming down to continue to change votes? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And during that time frame, which you agree is approximately 7 minutes, I assume that Members could have changed 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
23 

votes either way. They could have gone from no to yes and yes to 

no. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. There was plenty of time, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you observe any Member that night, Mr. 

Hanrahan, during the 7-minute gap, attempt to walk forward to 

change a vote and be prevented from doing so? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did any Member complain to you that night, ‘‘I tried 

to change my vote during this 7-minute period and was prevented 

from doing so?’’ 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you would remember that, wouldn’t you, Mr. 

Hanrahan? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask you a few questions about the exchanges 

with Mr. Hoyer. And just so you are clear, I will have another 10- 

minute frame to question you, and so will Mr. LaTourette. But I 

want to go to Mr. Hoyer for one second. 

You are aware that we took Mr. Sullivan’s deposition? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I know you have an enormous regard for Mr. 

Sullivan. You view him as an outstanding parliamentarian. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you view him as someone who is certainly honest 

and candid. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. He was asked during his deposition, frankly, about 

the tenor of the exchange with Mr. Hoyer. I want to briefly quote, 

if I can. Mr. LaTourette asked him the question on page 76 of the 

Sullivan deposition, referring to Mr. Hoyer, ‘‘But was he profane?’’ 

The response from Mr. Sullivan: ‘‘Not to my recollection.’’ 

I want to go to page 77. Mr. LaTourette tries it again, as we 

questioners often do: ‘‘But you don’t recall the Majority Leader 

being profane?’’ Mr. Sullivan’s answer: ‘‘No. He may have said the 

word ‘damn’ or something like that. Distinguishing between profane and vulgar, certainly not vulgar. Maybe he said, ‘You know, 

this damn place; we run this damn’—or something like that. I don’t 

know.’’ 

Are you also aware, Mr. Hanrahan, that we have interviewed 

other members of the rostrum staff that night? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Certainly. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I in no way mean to impugn or question anything about what you said. I think you are an exceptional member 

of the staff, and you have a reputation for such. 

But are you aware that no member of the staff that we interviewed has any recollection of Mr. Hoyer using profanity beyond 

the one word I just mentioned? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, I wasn’t aware of that. 

Mr. DAVIS. But these other members of the staff at some point 

would have been in position to hear the exchanges between Hoyer 

and McNulty. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Certainly. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You mean Hoyer and Sullivan? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
24 

Mr. DAVIS. Hoyer and Sullivan, yes, I am sorry. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, as I wrap up on this first round of questions, 

let me just begin to pull this together a little bit, Mr. Hanrahan. 

Was there any point that night when Mr. McNulty ignored an instruction from the parliamentary staff? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I don’t recall. 

Mr. DAVIS. Was there any point when you recall any member of 

the rostrum staff attempting to get Mr. McNulty input and him refusing or declining it? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, I don’t remember anything like that. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, do you remember after the erroneous calling 

of the vote, that Mr. Sullivan walks up, stands next to Mr. McNulty, and essentially talks him through the process for correcting 

what happened? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I am aware that he was writing a statement and 

trying to come up with something for him to recite, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did Mr. McNulty follow the statement that Mr. Sullivan gave him? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Sir, I don’t know. I don’t know what the statement said, so—— 

Mr. DAVIS. You didn’t see him showing any resistance to what 

Mr. Sullivan was saying? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No resistance, no. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you made the observation about the Democratic 

Majority wanting to close the vote down. In the 30 years—I hate 

to date you, but in the 30-some years you have worked for the 

House, it is commonplace in a close vote for the majority to try to 

close it down after zero, isn’t it? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS. You have seen Democrats be aggressive about closing 

it down, correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. You have seen Republicans be aggressive, correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. You certainly saw Mr. DeLay be aggressive at times 

by closing a vote down, didn’t you? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. My final question on this round. Mr. Boehner made 

this observation—in fact, actually, Mr. Boehner made this observation in a statement on the floor, referring to Mr. McNulty, Mr. 

Boehner said, ‘‘He is in fact one of the fairest Members who could 

ever be in the Chair.’’ 

Mr. Boehner made that statement on the floor the day after all 

this happened, that he is in fact one of the fairest Members who 

could ever be in the Chair. 

Do you disagree with that? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. DAVIS. I have no other questions, at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. LaTourette. 

I am sorry, I apologize. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Just a couple of questions, but I will, Mr. Chairman, 

be yielding the balance of our redirect time to Mr. LaTourette. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
25 

Let me ask you, Mr. Hanrahan—thanks, again, for your testimony today—a couple of points, just to make sure I am clear. 

Mr. Davis just spoke to you about—I think he used the word 

‘‘commonplace’’ for Members of the Majority to seek to close down 

a vote. In your nearly three decades of experience on the rostrum, 

have you seen that many times? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me ask again, have you ever seen the Chair disregard the longstanding procedure of waiting for a tally slip before 

closing a vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. 

Mr. PENCE. Secondly—and Mr. LaTourette delved into this significantly, and I referenced your testimony in my opening statement, which I believe you were here to hear. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PENCE. And, again, to be clear, you testified in questions 

from Mr. LaTourette that when you used the phrase that you had, 

quote, ‘‘never seen the Chair buy into it, never. I wish he hadn’t 

done it, but he did,’’ close quote, Mr. LaTourette asked you if you 

believed he had bought into pressure. You said that was correct. 

And I want to understand clearly. You believe that pressure, in 

your words, was from the leadership and specifically from Mr. 

Hoyer? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I would say leadership generally. I assume that, 

because Mr. Hoyer was in the well, that he would be the prime 

mover of that effort to close the vote down. 

Mr. PENCE. At the rostrum, you also testified under questioning 

from Mr. LaTourette, that you heard Mr. Hoyer ask to close the 

vote twice. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I did hear that, yes, two times. 

Mr. PENCE. Okay. 

Let me ask you about an exchange—and Mr. Davis is very curious about this, so I will ask about it as well. After Mr. McNulty 

announced the result at 214–214 for the first time and pulled back, 

I want to confirm, you did observe a conversation between Mr. 

Hoyer and Mr. Sullivan on the rostrum. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Off the side, essentially. 

Mr. PENCE. Off to the side. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. At least relative to where I was standing. 

Mr. PENCE. Leaving aside the vocabulary that the Majority Leader may or may not have used, how would you describe Mr. Hoyer’s 

disposition at that point? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Certainly no different than any other experience 

I have had when a leader was trying to accomplish what he was 

trying to accomplish. I don’t think it was particularly pleasant to 

be on the receiving end of it. I don’t think it was unusual to hear 

it. And so it is kind of hard for me to categorize it, because it is 

not unusual. I have seen it before. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me see if I can get to a specific question. When 

asked the question, ‘‘how would you describe Mr. Hoyer’s disposition at that point,’’ you testified with one word, ‘‘angry.’’ Would 

that still be a fair characterization? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, he was angry. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
26 

Mr. PENCE. Was that conversation within earshot of Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I would have to say, even if it was, given the 

noise level, he probably wouldn’t have necessarily heard it. 

Mr. PENCE. That angry exchange between Majority Leader Hoyer 

and Mr. Sullivan, did that take place shortly before Mr. McNulty 

called the vote the second time? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. The second time, yes. That is my recollection. 

Mr. PENCE. One last question before I yield. My question is about 

Mr. Space, who we saw on the video moving around with the yellow circle. 

How long do you recall Mr. Space had been in the well? And also, 

would it have been reasonable for Mr. McNulty to assume that if 

he had intended to vote he already would have voted? Do you remember? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I don’t even remember seeing Mr. Space in the 

well until he presented his well card. 

Mr. PENCE. Okay. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. So I don’t really have a way of answering that 

any better than that. 

Mr. PENCE. Okay. That is responsive. Thank you. 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. And just a couple of 

questions. 

And Mr. Davis asked you about the typical Chair this, typical 

Chair that, the typical presiding officer. Mr. McNulty, at this point 

in time, was not a typical presiding officer. He was one of the best 

presiding officers the Democrats had. Isn’t that fair? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And wouldn’t it be fair to indicate that the reason that people weren’t offering a lot of advice is that the rostrum 

was stunned at the call of this vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I certainly was. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, and I think—and, again, on February the 

8th, you indicated that you thought it was your impression that 

Mr. Sullivan was stunned. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I think everybody was. That is a fair statement, 

I think. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Again, the document prepared by Ms. 

Miller that we referred to, page 2, the way in which an EVS vote 

is concluded, that the last step for the seated tally clerk is to release the boards. Is that right? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is the last thing, yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And are you aware that after Mr. McNulty 

called the vote the second time and said the motion is not agreed 

to, that, in fact, the seated tally clerk was attempting to release the 

boards? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, he was. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And if we could put up—the seated tally clerk 

was De’Andre Anderson. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And during your interview in February, you 

were shown a document that Mr. Anderson prepared at the time 

of this event and asked—Mr. Anderson says, ‘‘Then I got to the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
27 

fifth step of the process, the last step, which is, ‘Are you sure you 

want to release the vote?’ I clicked and clicked and click again and 

could not release the vote. After about 5 to 10 seconds of trying to 

release the boards, more Members came into the well of the House 

to vote and submitted well cards.’’ 

Do you remember that exchange? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you remember that being what happened 

on August the 2nd? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. I will say yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And am I right that what he is talking 

about is that after Mr. McNulty says, ‘‘214–214; the motion is not 

agreed to,’’ Mr. Anderson attempted to clear the system, was unsuccessful because of a malfunction, apparently, and it is at that 

time that the three additional Democrats—Space, Gillibrand and 

McNerney—presented themselves to submit well cards? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I don’t know exactly at that point how far along. 

He communicated to me at a point, yes, that he was having difficulty getting the system to respond to his efforts to move us from 

the well voting process to the shut-down process. 

It is not uncommon at all to reach the drop-dead point and still 

even pull back. It happens routinely. 

And at that point in time, I would have to say that I don’t actually know when he communicated that to me with respect to the 

appearance of the well voters, except that it couldn’t have been 

much time. It had to have been a very short period of time. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, let me ask you this: Do you have any 

reason, based upon your observations of August the 2nd, to dispute 

that paragraph of Mr. Anderson’s statement? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. But to be perfectly fair, I was not the 

seated tally clerk that night. I don’t know what key strokes were 

pushed, and I don’t know what icons might have been clicked. And 

so the exact exchange and timeline is something that only the person seated in that chair would necessarily know. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, and that is fair. And that is why I asked 

the question, do you have any information to dispute what Mr. Anderson has written? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you receive a well card from Mr. Boehner, 

the Minority leader? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you aware that it was never processed? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I am. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you aware that, because the protocol of the 

Clerk’s office wasn’t followed, that this vote was not 212–216, as 

Mr. Sullivan eventually wrote down, it was really 211–217? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Had that vote been processed, the outcome 

would have been different. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you have any explanation for why that vote 

wasn’t processed? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, except that I will tell you that in close 

votes, such as the one we had that evening, we are not unprepared 

to watch for and wait for the leadership to appear to cast votes, 

particularly when we know or at least expect that they are going 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
28 

to position themselves for a possible motion to reconsider. And, as 

everyone here knows, you have to be on the prevailing side to make 

that motion. 

Now, he did that. But my only answer to your question—and I 

realize it is not a good one, but it is the only one I have—is there 

was so much going on in the House, at one point we simply 

stopped. We weren’t doing anything. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. But for whatever reason, Mr. Boehner’s 

change—was never—— 

Mr. HANRAHAN. It was never recorded. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Still, to this day. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Right. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. The last thing is you were asked a lot of questions by Mr. Davis about who could hear what, and was this person 

approximate to that person, and so forth and so on. 

The level of voice that Mr. Hoyer was using in communicating 

that he wanted the vote closed now, you heard it clearly? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That was audible to me, yes, because his initial 

approach to the well was right where I was standing. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. 

And I think that that is all. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just quickly pick up, if I can, Mr. Hanrahan, on the questions about Mr. Boehner and his well card. 

Do you remember Mr. Boehner raising any issue that night 

about his well card not being processed? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, he didn’t. Not to me, anyway. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you remember, for that matter, any member of his 

staff raising any issue that night about his well card not being 

processed? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I don’t recall anything being said at that time. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Pence, in his opening statement, made some assertions about what he believes the correct vote was that night. So 

let me just walk you through some basic things here. 

We have agreed that, during a 7-minute period after the vote is 

erroneously called, that Members are allowed—or continue to go to 

the well card and process their votes. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And a count was being kept as they did that. Is that 

also right? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And was Mr. Sullivan aware of that count? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I would assume that he was, yes. I don’t know 

for certain. But under standard protocol, he would be. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. So the statement for the Chair that was 

read that night, do you happen to remember whether or not Mr. 

McNulty’s statement ever actually referenced a vote number? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Not that I am aware of, no. I never did hear 

that. 

Mr. DAVIS. But you are aware there is a final vote number that 

is logged that night. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. In a tally? Yes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
29 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And what is the final recorded tally from that night 

of August 2nd? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I believe it was 213–216—212–216. 

Mr. DAVIS. And which way? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Against the motion. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. So 216 noes, 212 yeas. And is that a reflection, do you believe, of the changes that happened in the well during the 7-minute time frame that I referenced? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. I would have to say yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any reason to believe that that is an inaccurate count or that count does not reflect the will of the House 

that night? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I have to simply say that the protocol that we 

follow wasn’t followed. 

Mr. DAVIS. I understand that, but I am asking about the final 

recorded score of 216–212. Do you have any reason to assert that 

that was not the stated vote count of the 428 Members who were 

there that night? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Well, it was the stated vote count. We know Mr. 

Boehner’s card wasn’t processed. 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. But do you have any reason to believe that, 

other than Mr. Boehner’s card not being processed, which Mr. 

Boehner didn’t complain about, that that is erroneous or inaccurate? 

Mr.HANRAHAN. Other than that, I don’t have any reason to believe. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me show you one point from the tape. 

If you would go to 10:50:38, or 22:50:38, if that makes it easier. 

And I will ask you to look at this, Mr. Hanrahan. This will be 

the point where Mr. Hoyer approaches Mr. Sullivan, and he clearly 

says something that we believe is, ‘‘We control the House,’’ or something like that. Why don’t you just look at it for a moment? 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. You see Mr. Hoyer walking away. You have said you 

can’t tell if Mr. McNulty even heard this exchange. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I have no way of knowing if he heard it, no. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did Mr. McNulty call the vote, at that point? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. After that? Right after that? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. At that point, did he call the vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, he didn’t. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, at the point where Mr. McNulty calls the 

vote, I think you have acknowledged Mr. Hoyer is not in sight. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I did acknowledge that earlier, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, let me try to, perhaps, put a little bit of a larger 

perspective around this, Mr. Hanrahan. One of the things that we 

have been asked to do is make recommendations to the House 

going forward. 

Would it be helpful, in your opinion, if presiding officers were 

given some kind of regular education about the process for closing 

the EVS system? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
30 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t be helpful for everyone who presides to know how it works, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And do you think it would be helpful, going forward, 

if presiding officers were given instruction about the relevance of 

a tally sheet? I think you said that you have no reason to think 

that has happened now. Would it be a helpful thing, going forward? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. I think it would be, sure. 

I also think that—actually, a training program, I am not aware 

of a training program that explains the tally sheet as one facet of 

the voting process. I know that any Member who assumes the 

Chair and presides, they get an on-the-spot rundown from the parliamentarian as to how things will go, from time to time. I don’t 

know that it is a comprehensive plan that any Member who presides must sit through. There may be; I don’t know if there is or 

isn’t. 

Mr. DAVIS. And just so we are clear, you don’t remember there 

actually being any controversy about the presence or lack of a tally 

sheet before August 2nd, do you? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Before August 2nd? 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. As a matter of course, it was always offered up. 

Mr. DAVIS. But as a consequence—I am asking a very simple 

question. Had there been any controversy about the relevance of a 

tally sheet before that night? Had there been any question or issue 

or anything that would have alerted the rank-and-file Member to 

be aware of any issues around the tally sheet? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. If I understand your question, I would say no. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, let me go again through a series of questions 

involving Mr. McNulty. 

We have heard Mr. McNulty described as one of the fairer presiding officers, and you have said you agree with that. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any reason to believe, Mr. Hanrahan, 

that Mr. McNulty was attempting to violate the rules of the House 

that night? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. McNulty 

was attempting to prevent Members from voting or having their 

votes recorded that night? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And did you hear Mr. Hoyer give any instruction or 

suggestion that the votes of Members be ignored that night in any 

way? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you have talked several times today, in your answers to Mr. LaTourette, about Mr. McNulty buying into something. Mr. McNulty, as the presiding officer, would have had the 

discretion, and the sole discretion, as to when to call a vote on the 

night of August 2nd. Do you agree with that, sir? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Based on the past experience that we have had, 

yes, the Chair does have that discretion. 

Mr. DAVIS. I have no further questions. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
31 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to yield for a minute to the gentleman 

from Ohio. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. And I just ask unanimous consent that Artur get another minute, if that is where we 

are. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Three quick things. I mean, this whole business about the announced vote at the end, after everybody came in 

and changed the votes, was 212–216, but as we discussed, that 

wasn’t the true vote. The true vote is 211–217, because Mr. 

Boehner’s change card was not processed. Right? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Correct. Had it been processed, that would have 

been the result. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And we hear a lot about every vote should 

count, everybody should count. Mr. Boehner represents 650,000 

Americans, does he not? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, I would 

ask unanimous consent, because I don’t want to leave the record 

unclear, that this line of questioning about did Mr. Boehner object, 

did a member of Mr. Boehner’s staff object—we have interviewed 

them, and Mr. Boehner and his staff indicate that, on this night 

and for some nights after, he was not aware that his change card 

had been not processed. 

And I would ask unanimous consent that—I wish I was smart 

enough to have the pages in front of me; I will get it over the lunch 

break—that those pages of Mr. Boehner’s observations be included 

into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

had you voted in a voting station on the motion to recommit? 

A I did vote for the motion to recommit. 

Q At a voting station with your card? 

A At a voting station. 

Q And then subsequently to that, did you go down to the well for the purpose 

of entering a well card? 

A I did. I went down and pulled a red card and changed my vote from aye to no. 

Q Through testimony that has been received from other witnesses, the committee 

is aware that your changed vote was never processed, you were never recorded as 

a no. Was it your intention when you submitted the well card to be recorded as a 

no? 

A Yes. 

Q And for what purpose did you change from a yes on the motion to recommit 

to a no? 

A To be on the prevailing side of the vote in case there was a need to move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Q There was—when we had John Sullivan, his deposition, he suggested that 

that’s not an uncommon practice for leaders on either side of the aisle to—in anticipation of being on the presiding side of the votes, to make a motion for reconsideration, to submit a card for that purpose. But he also indicated there are times when 

leadership on both sides will indicate to the staff of the Clerk’s Office that only use 

the card if I signal you ordon’t use the card. 

Did you issue any instructions, observations to anybody in the Chamber that 

night whether you wanted your card to be entered onto the electronic voting display? 

A I made no comment to anyone other than moving my vote from yes to no. 

Q Through the course of that time when sort of there was a little ruckus caused 

in the House floor, were you aware at all that evening on August 2nd that your vote 

had not been changed from an aye to a nay? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
32 

A No. 

Q Are you aware of it today? 

A Yes. 

Q And when approximately did you become aware of it? 

A I don’t know whether it was days or months afterwards. 

Q And it would have been a conversation with staff or somebody else that that 

came to your attention? 

A Yes. 

Q Was it your intention as you left the floor or as you entered that well card on 

August 2nd to have been recorded as a no; you wanted to change from an aye to 

a no? 

A I assume that when I left the floor, I was a no vote. 

Q A couple of times after there is some activity, you rise to the microphone on 

the Republican side of the aisle and attempted to make a motion to adjourn, which 

is ruled out of order. You’re also heard on the tape attempting to make a parliamentary inquiry. Do you recall that? 

A I do. 

Q Do you recall what was the nature of the parliamentary inquiry you were going 

to propound on August 2nd? 

A I was going to try to get to the bottom of the mistake that I believe that had 

been made, because when McNulty was calling the vote at 214 to 214, on the board 

it said 215–213—215 yea, 213 nay, final. And I was trying to—my inquiry, if I had 

been recognized, was trying to get to the bottom of what happened right then and 

there before it was too late. 

Q And you being in the Chamber that evening actually looked up at either the 

scoreboard at either end and saw 215–213 final? 

A Yeah. I was looking at the board above the Democrat side on the east end of 

the Chamber. 

Q I don’t think I have anything further at this moment. 

EXAMINATION

BY Mr. DAVIS: 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I don’t think it is appropriate that we, sort of, 

leave it out there that Boehner was somehow complicit in the fact 

that his card wasn’t processed. 

So thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. DAVIS. I will just take my 1 minute, Mr. Hanrahan, to ask 

you this question. 

Do you have any reason to believe that any member of the Democratic leadership prevented Mr. Boehner’s card from being processed? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. No, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And if Mr. Boehner’s card wasn’t processed, could it 

have been an old-fashioned mistake? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. No further questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to have a few questions, Mr. 

Hanrahan. 

We have had some conversation about the display board or the 

summary board. When the word ‘‘final’’ appears on that board, is 

that tantamount to closing the vote? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. In a perfect world, when the protocol is observed, 

we should be moving in a step-by-step process to the point where 

the word ‘‘final’’ would appear and the Chair then moves to make 

its final statement, in this case the motion to reconsider being laid 

upon the table. 

The CHAIRMAN. But my question is: According to the—you are a 

learned professional. And according to the rules of the House and 

according to the practices of the House, is the term ‘‘final’’ equivaVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:31 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 044139 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A139.XXX A139

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
33 

lent, tantamount to the closing of a vote? Is that a parliamentary 

event? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Okay. I would have to say, just based on having 

experience with—— 

The CHAIRMAN. If you don’t know, then that is an acceptable answer. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Well, I need to embellish just a little. I don’t 

want to say I don’t know, because it is conceivable, and it happens 

routinely, that it is possible to move through the process, and a 

click of an icon at the EVS system, which would move that summary board to display the word ‘‘final,’’ can be accomplished in the 

exact same amount of time that a Member might appear to vote. 

We would have to back up. 

And so the word ‘‘final’’ would remain up there. You can’t take 

it back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. But voting can go forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have answered my question. I appreciate 

that. 

Again, I know you are familiar with the rules of the House. And 

you are familiar with Rule XX, clause 2(a)? 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Not by the cite. If you told me what it was, I 

would know it, I think. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, well, if you are not familiar with it, then— 

well, that would be the closing of the vote in anticipation of an individual keeping the vote open to prevent—well, let me retract that 

question. If you don’t know, you don’t know. 

Those are all the questions I have. Thank you, Mr. Hanrahan. 

Mr. HANRAHAN. Okay. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome, Mr. McNulty. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me formally introduce you. 

Mike McNulty is in his 39th year in elective public office. He was 

first elected in November of 1969 as town supervisor of Green Island, New York, becoming the youngest person ever to hold that office. 

Mike was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the 

23rd Congressional District of New York in 1988 and was re-elected in 1990. In 1992, he was elected to represent the new 21st Congressional District and was re-elected in November 2006 to serve 

his 10th term in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

He currently serves as an At-Large Whip in the House. He also 

begins his 15th year of service on the House Ways and Means 

Committee, where he is chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 

Security. 

Congressman McNulty also enjoys spending time with his family. 

Welcome, Mike. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. When you can fit it in. 

I understand that you have a statement. And if you could make 

your statement to the panel. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
34 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL McNULTY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Chairman Delahunt, Ranking Member Pence, Representative Davis, Representative LaTourette, for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the vote in question 

while I was serving as speaker pro tempore on August 2, 2007. 

I also want to thank Representative Herseth-Sandlin and Representative Hulshof for their service on this Committee and for 

their participation on the Committee when I gave my deposition. 

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my floor statement of August 3, 2007, be included in the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[Mr. McNulty’s statement may be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. MCNULTY. The vote in question was a motion to recommit 

the agriculture appropriations bill. To summarize, I called this vote 

prematurely, and that action caused a measure of chaos, confusion 

and anger on the House floor. 

The morning after the event, I publicly apologized on the House 

floor to all of the Members of the House of Representatives. I repeat that apology today. 

Beyond my August 3rd remarks, let me make these clarifications. 

When I announced the vote, all time for voting had expired. After 

I called the vote at 214–214, no additional votes were cast; only 

changes of votes were made. 

In my opinion, the Parliamentarian’s staff, the Clerk’s staff and 

everyone at the front desk did their usual outstanding jobs that 

evening. The problems which ensued were the result of my actions. 

When I announced the vote at 214–214, I did not do so at the direction of any other person or persons. I did so on my own in an attempt to enforce clause 2(a) of Rule XX, which states that a recorded vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole 

purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote. 

I believe that it was obvious that Members on both sides of the 

aisle were changing their votes after time had expired for the sole 

purpose of changing the outcome. My attempt to enforce clause 2(a) 

of Rule XX was the reason for not following the usual, but not required procedure of waiting for the written slip from the Tally 

Clerk. That was clearly a mistake on my part. I deem it a mistake 

because it now seems apparent that the vote change which was announced by the Clerk just prior to my calling the vote at 214–214 

had not yet been recorded by the computer, thus the discrepancy 

which ensued almost immediately after my announcement. 

Following my August 3 floor statement, Minority Leader John 

Boehner said, quote, 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. I am grateful to my 

friend, Leader Boehner, for his statement. I believe his comments 

indicate that he understands that while I erred, there was no ill 

intent on my part. I hope that when all the facts are examined, all 

the Members of the House will reach the same conclusion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. And before I go to the 

gentleman from Alabama, I just want to state for the record my 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
35 

own respect for you as an individual of integrity. I would—I know 

you to be a fair individual, a fair-minded individual. And those 

words that were stated by Leader Boehner I think embraces the 

sentiment of many of us here in Congress. 

I would, for your edification, note the statement by Mr. Blunt 

during the course of his interview. 

‘‘And I reached out’’—and these are his words—‘‘And I reached 

out and talked to him,’’ meaning yourself, ‘‘after that, and told him 

that I didn’t know anybody on either side of the House that 

thought he had intentionally done anything wrong, that was unethical, or that he should spend undue time worrying about this. It is 

just something we needed to work out and not see repeated in the 

future.’’ 

I want you to know that these were the sentiments that were expressed during the interview with Mr. Blunt. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I am grateful. He said those words to me personally as well. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me now yield to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McNulty, thank you 

for taking your time, first of all, to be here today. I know you had 

to interrupt business, family business you had in New York to get 

back here, and we appreciate you doing that. And we also thank 

you for the candor of your statement at the beginning. 

You weren’t in the room during my opening comments, but I 

previewed them by saying that you were going to do something 

that frankly very few people of our ilk ever do, which is to acknowledge an error in a public forum. And you are to be complimented 

for that. And Mr. McNulty, I want to actually pick up where the 

chairman started. And I want to quote some other observations 

that have been made by Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt regarding you 

because I think it is important for you to hear them and for other 

interested parties to hear them. 

During Mr. Boehner’s deposition, I asked him about his relationship with you. And he mentioned that you all had served for a long 

time, 18, 171⁄2 years together. And I asked him, do you believe him, 

McNulty, to be an honest individual? Mr. Boehner said yes. Do you 

believe him to be an ethical individual? Mr. Boehner said yes. Do 

you believe that he knowingly violated any rules on the night of 

August 2, any rules of the House? No, I don’t believe that he knowingly violated any rules. 

Mr. Blunt, during his deposition—there was another point that 

I want to read to you. I asked Mr. Blunt, did you have a conversation with Mr. McNulty? His answer, not that night but I did later. 

It was just more of a reassuring conversation that sometimes you 

get caught in a situation that things happen that you don’t intend 

to happen and that he should feel confident in his respect that 

Members have for him personally. 

Later on Mr. Boehner says—well, let me just stop at that point— 

Mr. Blunt. Let’s stop at that point. 

Let me try to put some context around this, Mr. McNulty. And 

I will try to move through it quickly because we have watched the 

tape several times today. You were the presiding officer on the 

night of August 2, 2007. And as I understand it, you were one of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
36 

a group of Members who regularly presided over the House at that 

time. Is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. It is. It changed a little bit. Now I presided over 

the House many, many times when the Democratic Party was previously in the Majority for my time from 1989 to 1994. And at the 

beginning of this, the 110th Congress, I was asked by the Speaker 

staff to resume that practice and that role. And as a matter of fact, 

I was one of the presiders on the opening day of the 110th Congress, and I did it quite frequently after that. After a period of time 

I was doing it quite frequently and for very long periods of time. 

I asked to have that amended so that I would be in the chair for 

shorter periods of time just because of a physical issue I have in 

standing for a long period of time. But I did do it frequently. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you agree that the leadership attempts to select 

a small group of individuals and charge them with the regular responsibility of presiding over the House and that honor is given to 

people who are regarded as being very skilled presiding officers, is 

that correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think in general that is correct. But also I have 

encouraged the leadership to expand that group and to get more 

Members into the chair and develop a bigger pool of individuals 

who can serve in the chair. Obviously when I first served in the 

chair, it was my first time. I was new and I had to learn. And I 

encouraged the leadership to reach out to more of the newer Members. 

Mr. DAVIS. Give me some sense—because one of the things that 

we are trying not to lose sight of, Mr. McNulty, is all of us on this 

Committee have spent a lot of time looking at these facts. And we 

have spent a lot of time looking at the video. And the few interested parties that may be paying some attention to this outside of 

this Committee, frankly may not have a real sense of even what 

the floor of the House is like. I am always astounded how many 

people, for example, assume that Nancy Pelosi is the person who 

is in the chair every day. 

So can you just give us some sense of what a presiding officer 

does, particularly with respect to what is relevant here, the calling 

or closing of a vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, the presiding officer basically follows the 

parliamentary rules and moves the business through the House of 

Representatives. And we get a lot of help from that in the chair 

from the Parliamentarians. I think just about everyone who has 

served in the chair—certainly I rely very heavily on the Parliamentarians in order to work through that process. 

If you do it quite frequently, you become more and more familiar 

with it. It is the process of repetition, and you get to a point where 

you are familiar with those little slips that the Parliamentarian 

gives you about how to proceed with certain things. Well, if you are 

experienced in the chair, a lot of times you don’t even need those. 

You know those by rote. But the basic job is to move the process 

and the business of the House. Sometimes that is routine. Sometimes it is fairly quiet in the Chamber. And sometimes it is a little 

busier. 

Mr. DAVIS. Who has the responsibility for calling a vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. The person in the chair. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
37 

Mr. DAVIS. And give me some sense based on your extensive experience as a presiding officer how the person in the chair goes 

about making the decision as to when to call a vote. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, first of all, you have to wait for the minimum time to have expired, whether it is 15 minutes or 5 minutes 

or in some cases 2 minutes. And then the vote can be called any 

time after the minimum amount of time has elapsed. 

Mr. DAVIS. Any time after zero? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Any time after zero. And—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just stop you at that. Are the rules of the 

House any more precise on this point as to when a vote should be 

called? Do the rules speak with any level of precision as to when 

a vote should be called once the clock has passed zero? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is it pretty much the custom and protocol of the 

House that the presiding officer makes the discretionary judgment 

as to when to call a vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. What are some of the factors that a good presiding 

officer takes into account after zero? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, I will give you an example of last week, the 

first vote of the week—or the first vote of the day. When it is the 

first vote of the day, it occurs in the morning. A lot of times Members are still coming in from their homes, and so on, or their offices. And usually you are a little bit more lenient in the amount 

of time for people to get to the floor to vote. 

There are times when all the time has expired and the Chair is 

made aware that, for example, the Appropriations Committee, subcommittee is working on a particular bill. They can’t get to the 

floor right away. You have to wait an extra few minutes. We always accommodate that sometimes. 

It can be something like a bill signing at the White House where 

a number of Members are attending that event. If they are not 

back in time, you will hold a vote open for that. Things of that nature. 

Mr. DAVIS. So if I understand you correctly, the presiding officer 

after zero, after the clock has hit zero tries to make some assessment of whether all Members have cast votes who wish to? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And if a presiding officer has made the determination 

that all Members have cast votes who wish to, does he then have 

discretion to call a vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Certainly. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me take you to the night in question, August 2, 

2007. We know the subject of the vote that night was a motion to 

recommit. As I understand it, you had not been in the chair very 

long that night at the time this motion to recommit was called, is 

that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. That evening I was only going to be in the 

chair for the motion to recommit and the final passage of the bill. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I remember noticing during your deposition that 

you said frankly you weren’t even sure what the subject of the motion to recommit was, is that correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I was not until I got to the floor. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
38 

Mr. DAVIS. And when you got down to the floor, did you receive 

any special instructions or did you receive any particular guidance 

that there might be something unusual or novel about this vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. The only communication that I remember 

was during the course of the vote Catlin O’Neill at one point saying 

to me that the vote was going to be close or I think she—and somebody pointed out to me she used the word ‘‘tight.’’ 

Mr. DAVIS. And Catlin O’Neill works for the Speaker’s Office, is 

that correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And it is not uncommon for Catlin O’Neill or people 

who work for the Speaker’s Office to have some routine interaction 

with the Chair, is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me direct you—if we can have our video operator 

turn the video on. I am going to actually point you to the time, Mr. 

McNulty, when the clock literally hits zero, which I believe is 

22:49. If we can get to 22:49. 

Let’s just let it play here. Just watch, Mr. McNulty. You will see 

it is 200 to 209. Let’s just watch. Unfortunately we can’t see the 

time because of the way the screen is configured. But if you will 

just watch. 

You will notice at this point it is 210 opposed, 203 in favor. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Okay. That is just the usual announcement: Are 

there any other Members who wish to vote or to change their 

votes? 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. Let me stop right here. What you see at this 

point—again, unfortunately because of the way that the VCR is set 

up we can’t see the actual time. I will represent to you that we 

have a timeline the staff has prepared that suggests that the clock 

reaches zero somewhere around this time frame, around 22:49. You 

will notice at this point that based on the vote total on the screen, 

the motion appears to have been defeated, 213 to 211. Can you explain for people who do not watch C–SPAN or pay attention to this 

every day why you didn’t just call the vote at that point? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, because I had just made an announcement 

or—and asked the question, were there any other Members who 

wished to vote or to change their vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. You believed there were Members who had not voted, 

is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Either had not voted or who might wish to change 

their vote. You usually wait a little period of time to make sure 

that no one is in the well attempting to vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. And let me ask if you recall that there had been a 

long sequence of other votes that night, is that correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. There had been, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. There has been testimony from the Majority Leader 

that the vote total in the earlier vote series had been 427, that that 

had been the consistent number of people who were voting in the 

earlier series. Does that sound about right to you? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I didn’t have that number in my head at the time 

but it would seem logical to me because 428 people voted on this 

vote. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
39 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. And again, what is important is frankly your 

sense that night, not so much your sense now. But do you recall 

having a sense, even at this point, 211 to 213, that that iteration 

was less than the number of Members who had previously voted? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t recall having—— 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. But at this point you don’t call the vote and 

you said you don’t call it because in effect you believe other Members had not voted. Is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Oh, well, you would wait—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. 

Mr. MCNULTY [continuing]. A bit of time just to make sure. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Let’s watch. 

At this point the clock has passed zero. The boards narrow to 212 

to 213, still in the negative. What are you doing right now, Mr. 

McNulty? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I was waiting to see if there were any other votes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now at this point, the yeses take a temporary lead 

of 214 to 213. And you still don’t call the vote, is that correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Catlin appeared to say something to me at that 

point or me to her. I am not sure. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you remember what it was? 

Now let’s stop at this point. At this point you appear to begin to 

call the vote but you stop. Can you tell us why you stopped? 

Mr. MCNULTY. It would be because I would have some indication 

that someone else wanted to vote. Someone probably said one more 

vote or—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. Is it commonplace, Mr. McNulty, from what 

you have seen that sometimes presiding officers begin to call a vote 

and someone will yell out, one more or something to that effect? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That has happened many times. 

Mr. DAVIS. And in effect that is what happens here, you are 

about to call the vote and in effect you stop because you hear motions suggesting other people are wishing to vote. Is that correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now let’s watch the tape again. 

You see Members at the well. 

Let’s stop right here. We see Mr. Hoyer, the leader, who walks 

up. You saw that a moment ago. He walks up to Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t see that right now but—— 

Mr. DAVIS. You saw that a moment ago. He wasn’t speaking to 

you. He was speaking to Mr. Sullivan, is that correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Were you able to hear their exchange? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I did not hear what he said. Now I have seen 

printed many times and quoted many times what he said. And I 

have no reason to doubt that. But if you were to ask me to say 

from my own recollection to say what he said, I would not be able 

to tell you. The noise in that Chamber that night was deafening. 

And on that point, I just want to say about Kevin’s testimony, 

because I think he is one of the finest employees of the House of 

Representatives. But I think he made an assumption which is not 

reasonable. He said something about something he heard Mr. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
40 

Hoyer say from the well. Well, if I couldn’t hear Steny Hoyer when 

he was standing where John Sullivan is, I certainly didn’t hear him 

say anything from the well. So I wanted to get that on the record 

as well. 

Mr. DAVIS. And is it certainly fair to say, Mr. McNulty, that at 

this point that we see on the screen or either moments before this 

that Mr. Hoyer is not giving you any instruction as to when to call 

the vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. He absolutely did not give me any instructions. 

Mr. DAVIS. And at this point—you have reviewed the tape before 

today, is that correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I have. 

Mr. DAVIS. What happens after this, Mr. McNulty, is that you 

stand there—let’s just watch it for a moment. You stand here. 

There is no one around you, correct? There is no one close to you, 

no Member, no member of the staff, is that correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Except for the Parliamentarians. 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. But he is not engaged with you? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s play the tape. 

What are you doing at this point? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I am waiting for the votes to be tallied. And I had 

made the determination at this point that after these votes were 

announced I would attempt to call the vote again. In order to enforce clause 2(a) of Rule XX. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s stop at this point. You say that at this point you 

made the determination that you would call the vote after you believe that the last well change had been processed, is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Tell me about rule 2(a) and why you felt it was operative in this instance. First of all, tell us what rule 2(a) is. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, I will read it exactly. 

Clause 2(a) of Rule XX states quote, a recorded vote by electronic 

device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the 

outcome of such vote. 

Now, in my own mind, there was no violation of clause 2(a) of 

Rule XX because I was attempting not to hold open the votes for 

the purpose of changing the vote. I was attempting to close the 

vote. I was doing the opposite. But I wanted to avoid the appearance of any violation of clause 2(a) of Rule XX because that had 

been brought up as an objection by Members of the House several 

times since its enactment at the beginning of the year 2007. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. Let me stop you and set some context. At this 

point—and again, I apologize because of the way the screen is configured, we can’t show the audience how much time had elapsed 

after zero. But zero had lapsed for several minutes, is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And was it your concern, Mr. McNulty, that the Minority might allege that the vote was being kept open in violation 

of rule 2(a)? 

Mr. MCNULTY. It was. 

Mr. DAVIS. And in response to that concern, you were of the 

mindset that once the last well change card had been processed, 

you were going to call the vote? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
41 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you do call the vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I do. 

Mr. DAVIS. Tell us why that was a mistake. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, it was a mistake because after the Clerk announced Mario Diaz-Balart’s vote, which I believe was the last vote 

change at that time, I banged the gavel and called the vote. What 

I believe to have happened at that time was that although Mario’s 

vote was recorded and announced, the computer had not yet caught 

up with that. In other words, apparently it takes a few seconds for 

it to go through the process, and maybe it took even a little bit 

more that night because there were some problems with the voting 

machine. As a matter of fact, it failed on the next vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now let me slow you down for a moment. You were 

looking at something. What were you looking at, Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I am looking at the tally on the side. 

Mr. DAVIS. And what did you see? 

Mr. MCNULTY. 214–214. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you believe that the tally on the board accurately 

reflected the votes of 428 Members of the House of Representatives? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And would you have called the vote—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. And I believe that included the vote of Mario 

Diaz-Balart, too. 

Mr. DAVIS. That was exactly my next question. Would you have 

called the vote if you thought that Mr. Diaz-Balart’s vote had not 

been processed? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I have heard this in previous questioning. When 

I—I have taken pains every time I have ever been in the chair to 

make sure that every person’s vote has counted. I have waited on 

votes that were non-controversial and not close for Members not in 

the well but coming down the aisle, waving their cards. Because 

when I see that, I do not see one person. I see 650,000 American 

citizens. And they have a right to have their vote counted. And so 

I have always taken great pains in the hundreds of hours that I 

have been in the chair to make sure that everyone’s vote counts. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. McNulty, at the time that you started to call the 

vote, obviously it takes several seconds to say the magic words. At 

the time you were saying the magic words, 214 to 214, the motion 

is not carried, did you hear any Member yell out, ‘‘one more’’ or 

anything to that effect? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you see any Member standing in the well attempting to change a vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did any Member manifest in any way an intent to 

come down and change a vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Not that I saw, no. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did any member of the parliamentary staff or any 

member of the rostrum staff try to stop you while you were calling 

the vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
42 

Mr. DAVIS. Now after you called the vote, I think it is safe to say 

there is a lot of consternation in the Chamber. There is a lot of 

noise. Several Members, Republicans are yelling ‘‘shame, shame’’ or 

something to that effect. When did you first get a sense that something was awry with your calling of the vote, Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, I knew it was wrong when I looked up at 

the board again. 

Mr. DAVIS. And then you saw 215–213—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. The board didn’t say 214–214 anymore. It said 

215–213. And I believe that the Minority had a right to be upset. 

Mr. DAVIS. We have heard a lot of testimony about the custom 

and practice of a tally sheet. When you were in the chair on the 

night of August 2, 2007, did any member of the parliamentary staff 

inform you that you could not call a vote without a tally sheet? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. In your years as a presiding officer, had any member 

of the parliamentary staff ever told you that it was a prerequisite 

that a tally sheet be presented before you called a vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. And as a matter of fact, the next day—the 

one question I asked John Sullivan was whether there was anything in the rules that required that because I wanted to make 

sure that I didn’t violate any rules of the House. And the answer 

to that question was no, that it is not required in the rules. That 

does—so I am just answering your question. In my own mind, that 

does not excuse my error. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me try to give you a chance again to put this in 

some context because we have certainly heard Mr. Hanrahan say 

and we will hear Mr. Sullivan I believe saying that it is custom 

and practice that a tally sheet be presented. Perhaps you heard 

while you were in the room, perhaps you heard Mr. Hanrahan say, 

I can’t recall a single instance when a tally sheet has not been 

handed up to a presiding officer. 

I want you to give us a sense of why you called the vote without 

a tally sheet. 

Mr. MCNULTY. It was not so much a conscious decision not to 

have the tally sheet. I really wasn’t thinking of that at the time. 

I was fixated on enforcing—or at least acting in such a manner 

that there would not be the appearance of me holding the vote open 

for the purpose of changing the outcome. And therefore, I made 

that decision to call the vote after the last vote change had been 

announced, and I just went ahead and did it. And—— 

Mr. DAVIS. And let me just—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. And I think in my own mind looking back on it, 

I was overly fixated on the enforcement of that rule and that 

caused me to make an error which was—which I regret. 

Mr. DAVIS. And let me just stop you at that point. Rule 2(a) obviously is a part of the codified rules of the House, is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. A tally sheet is not part of the codified rules of the 

House. 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. So in effect you have a written rule that you needed 

to enforce and a custom and practice. And you chose the written 

rule, is that right? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
43 

Mr. MCNULTY. I did. 

Mr. DAVIS. We have lots of noises and buttons around here, Mr. 

McNulty, even when we are not in session apparently. 

Now at this point again—we won’t waste time going through the 

videotape because of our time constraints. But we see on the tape 

that Mr. Sullivan walks up to you and you and Mr. Sullivan engage in an exchange about how to make this right. Is that a fair 

characterization? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. What happened—after I looked up at the 

board and saw the different total, I knew that I had committed an 

error. And I first started in the chair under Bill Brown when he 

was the Parliamentarian, and I remember him fondly for him 

spending a lot of time with me when I was in the chair and things 

were quiet and him tutoring me about things. And one of the 

things that I remembered that he said that popped into my mind 

at that very moment was, when in doubt do what the Parliamentarian says. And I knew that I had committed an error that had 

caused this chaos in the House. And I made the determination at 

that moment that I wasn’t going to make any other ruling on that 

vote without the concurrence of the Parliamentarian. And what 

John said to me was, I am going to write out a statement for you 

to read. And I decided to wait until that was completed and to read 

it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now while Mr. Sullivan is writing out a statement, 

is it correct to say that Members went down to the well and 

changed their votes? 

Mr. MCNULTY. They did. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, at least three Members went down to the well 

and changed their votes. I represent in my opening statement and 

Mr. Hanrahan agreed with me that about 7 minutes lapses between your premature calling and your final announcement of the 

vote. 

Does that seem about right to you? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That would seem about right. 

Mr. DAVIS. During that approximate 7-minute timeframe, do you 

know of any Member who attempted to cast a vote whose vote was 

not counted? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. The only thing that I heard about later and 

I didn’t really remember it at the time was what Steve brought up 

about the Leader Boehner’s vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you realize at the time that there had been some 

issue with Mr. Boehner’s vote. 

Mr. MCNULTY. No, I didn’t. Not at the time. 

Mr. DAVIS. During the 7-minute time frame or for that matter at 

any time that night, did Mr. Boehner manifest any concern that his 

vote had not been—his well card had not been processed? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, I don’t know if he did to anybody else. 

Mr. DAVIS. But you don’t know that, do you? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. During the 7-minute time frame that we are referencing, you have said that you don’t know of any Member who 

attempted to cast a vote and who was disenfranchised. To this day, 

Mr. McNulty, has any Member of the House of Representatives 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
44 

come up to you and said, Mike, I tried to cast a vote that night or 

I tried to change my vote and I was prevented from doing it? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Has any Member come up to you to this day and said, 

Mike, I tried to process a vote with my well card and your actions 

prevented me from doing it? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Was there ever any point—well, let me just actually 

close out this first round of questions. You have heard some testimony today about how this matter resolved itself. You remember 

that Mr. Hoyer goes to the floor and in effect makes a motion to 

set aside a vote. Do you remember that? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think he verbally asked to vacate first. And 

there was objection to that. 

Mr. DAVIS. And what happened after that? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think we then moved to a motion to reconsider. 

Mr. DAVIS. And what was the result of the motion to reconsider? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think he made that request before I actually 

read the statement, and I think that John then said I needed to 

read the statement first to establish what the vote was. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you did that, you read that statement to establish the vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I read that statement, the conclusion of which 

was that the final vote was 212 to 216. 

Mr. DAVIS. And that included the well cards that had been processed in the 7-minute period I referenced? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And at some point there was a motion that Mr. Hoyer 

makes that actually was voted on the floor, is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. What was that motion? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I believe it was a motion to reconsider. 

Mr. DAVIS. What would the effect of a motion to reconsider have 

been? 

Mr. MCNULTY. It would mean you would then proceed to a revote 

on the motion to recommit. 

Mr. DAVIS. So in other words—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. Because the motion to reconsider passed. 

Mr. DAVIS. So in other words, there is a procedural motion or a 

procedural vehicle that would have had the effect of setting all this 

aside and starting over, is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did the Republicans agree to invoke that vehicle? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, there was objection to the motion to vacate. 

And then I believe that during the motion to reconsider, I think 

that is when the walkout occurred. But the vote eventually went 

on. 

Mr. DAVIS. But you mentioned as the vote was going on, even 

though the vote would have had the effect of setting the Democratic victory aside and starting over—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. Instead of participating in the vote, the 

Republicans walked out. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, some did. Not all did. But some did. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
45 

Mr. DAVIS. My time has concluded for the first round of questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, before you recognize Mr. Pence, 

can I be recognized for a unanimous consent request? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. In Mr. Davis’ questions, I just 

want the record to be clear, he referenced the votes on amendments 

that took place prior to Roll Call 814 and indicated that I guess 

there was a question that on those votes there were 427 Members 

present and voting. I would ask unanimous consent—because I 

think the record shows otherwise—that the staff be directed to accumulate the vote totals from Roll Call Vote 803 to 813 and reflect 

in the record the number of Members who were present and voting 

on those roll call votes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. 

[The information may be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to welcome 

our colleague Mr. McNulty to this Select Committee for the second 

time. 

I would ask, cognizant of the challenges of your schedule, do you 

need a break at this point? Would it be helpful for you to have—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. I am fine. 

Mr. PENCE. Very good. I am going to ask a few questions, and 

then I will yield the balance of our time to Mr. LaTourette. 

Let me begin simply by thanking you for your cooperation with 

this Select Committee. Many of our colleagues and many commentators thought this Select Committee would never even meet, 

let alone engage in a thorough and thoughtful examination of the 

events of August 2. 

And while there are issues that need to be resolved, I want to 

say publicly that I believe that your cooperation, your humility and 

the humanity that you have displayed have greatly facilitated this 

inquiry. And the Members of the Minority of this Select Committee 

are grateful for that. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you. 

Mr. PENCE. I believe that your cooperation with this Select Committee and the seriousness with which you have approached it 

speaks volumes about your commitment to this institution and, as 

you prepare to conclude your career in the House of Representatives, that you will leave here with the respect of this Member for 

that. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I thank the Ranking Member. 

Mr. PENCE. Because I believe you are an honorable man and I 

have always respected you, I wanted to raise a couple of key questions, things about which we want to be clear about your testimony 

as we try and resolve and rebuild the events of that evening. 

Number one, both in your written statement that you provided 

us on April 9 as well as your statement today, you said, ‘‘when I 

announced the vote at 214 to 214 I did not do so at the direction 

of any other person or persons. I did so on my own in an attempt 

to enforce clause 2(a) of Rule XX,’’ et cetera, et cetera. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
46 

In that same interview before this Committee, you further stated, ‘‘no one instructed me to call that vote at any time that night 

that I recognized. I will be perfectly honest with you. Earlier on I 

was hoping to get some direction but it never came, so I used my 

own judgment at the time.’’ That appears on pages 23 and 24 of 

your deposition. 

Later on, on page 49, you added, ‘‘no member of the staff or 

Member of the Majority told me when to call that vote. I wished 

they had.’’ 

Mr. MCNULTY. Right. Because it is not uncommon to get a cue 

from Leadership when to wrap up a vote. But I never got any input 

from them. And all of this folklore about Steny directing me—if he 

wanted to get a communication to me, he could have done it. To 

take what Kevin—now again, I have the highest respect for Kevin. 

He may have very well heard Steny say something and Steny may 

very well have said something from the well apparently. How I 

would have been expected to hear something like that in the din 

that was going on in the Chamber that night I think is really a 

stretch. Because I didn’t. So I used my judgment. I am talking 

about now—let’s focus here. I am focusing on the key part, when 

I announced the vote and announced the result of the vote. I am 

saying nobody—nobody that I recognized gave me any direction to 

do that. I took that initiative on my own. I have acknowledged, not 

9 months later or 8 months later when we met privately but the 

day after, that I made a mistake and I apologized for it. But I 

made the error. And let there be no mistake about it, it is not the 

fault of the Parliamentarians or the Clerk’s Office or Steny Hoyer 

or anybody in the leadership as to why we are here today. It is because of the action that I took. 

Mr. PENCE. I thank you. That is very clear. 

Did Catlin O’Neill of the Speaker’s staff give you any instruction, 

direction about when the Leadership wanted the vote closed? 

Mr. MCNULTY. The only thing I remember, as I mentioned in my 

prior testimony, about Catlin is that she did say to me at some 

point that the vote was going to be tight. And I think that was before the vote was even over with. So that would have no direct 

bearing on, you know, several minutes later when I made that decision to call the vote. 

Mr. PENCE. And I want to understand—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. In other words, to be clear, she didn’t say to me 

prior to me calling that vote, do it now or anything like that. That 

did not happen. Or if she did, it was way out of earshot of where 

I was. 

Mr. PENCE. But to borrow from a statement that you just made— 

and correct me if I am misstating it—that would have been fairly 

common for someone in her capacity to do to give guidance to the 

Chair? 

Mr. MCNULTY. It would be common to say, wrap up a vote. But 

obviously what I did that night was not common. Remember, doing 

it as quickly as I did without the benefit of the tally sheet, that 

was a mistake. It was a mistake on my part. Steny Hoyer is not 

responsible. Catlin O’Neill is not responsible. She didn’t tell me to 

do that. I did that on my own, and I was wrong. And no one else 

is responsible for that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
47 

Mr. PENCE. You testified earlier today under Mr. Davis’ questioning, you said that Mr. Hoyer, ‘‘absolutely did not give me any 

instruction.’’ 

I think you are aware of some of the work this Committee has 

done. You may not be aware that as many as six witnesses have 

testified to this Committee that they were both aware of the Majority Leader’s disposition and they were aware of his desire to close 

the vote. My question to you—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. And where is the evidence that he communicated 

that to me? 

Mr. PENCE. Let me get to that question if I can. But the preamble to my question is that we have six witnesses who were 

aware of both his angry disposition and of his desire to close the 

vote. I want to understand your testimony. You were not aware of 

his disposition—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. I didn’t say that, Mike. And I think I said in 

my private testimony that he came up and he had some conversation with John and he didn’t appear happy, but I couldn’t even 

make out what he said because there was so much noise in the 

Chamber that night. But he obviously didn’t look happy to me. So 

no, I am not making that characterization that he wasn’t upset. He 

probably was upset. 

Mr. PENCE. Well, the only thing that I would be curious about, 

and you just answered it, is whether you were aware of his disposition. And secondly would be—if—and I am very clear that your testimony is that neither Catlin O’Neill of the Speaker’s staff nor the 

Majority Leader instructed you or directed you to close the vote. 

But were you aware that he was instructing anyone else of his desire to see the vote closed? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. But I mean, looking back on it now, looking 

at tapes and so on, and listening to all of the testimony you are 

giving, maybe that was his intent. It was not imparted to me that 

night. 

Mr. PENCE. Okay. I will move on to two more quick questions. 

You are very aware of the Rules of the House, it would not surprise 

you if clause 2(a) of Rule XX also provided that, ‘‘the Clerk shall 

conduct a record vote by electronic device.’’ That language should 

not be unfamiliar to you necessarily, would it? Or are you aware 

that that—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think almost all of our votes are by electronic 

device. 

Mr. PENCE. But the language in the House rules, were you aware 

of the language that says, the Clerk shall conduct a record vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think we do that every time, don’t we? 

Mr. PENCE. Okay. Good. You referred to this tally slip we have 

been talking about now for months. And you have been very candid 

about your mistake. And I would associate myself with Mr. Davis’ 

statements about your sincere regret about that error. You said it 

is, ‘‘usual but not required.’’ 

Mr. MCNULTY. I only say that because of the conversation I had 

with John Sullivan. 

Mr. PENCE. Okay. Let me just ask you as a factual matter. You 

referred to your career in the previous Democratic Majority that 

you presided over the vote many, many times I think was your 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
48 

characterization. Had you ever in any time serving in the chair 

closed a vote without a tally slip? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Last question. At any point during Roll Call 814 did 

you ever receive a written tally slip prepared by the Tally Clerks? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t believe so. I think the only tally that I had 

was the one that was written at the bottom of the statement that 

John Sullivan gave me, which I subsequently read. 

Mr. PENCE. Very good. Thank you. I will yield the balance of our 

time to Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. Mike, welcome. And I 

want to just chime in that I don’t think anybody on either side 

thinks that you set out to break the rules or intended to break the 

rules. I happen to think you are one of the best presiding officers 

that the Democratic Party has and I was pleased, as I expressed 

on the record, that you, under the auspices of the Speaker, have 

resumed those duties because I think you are good at it. 

Having said that though, I do want to say that when I listened 

to Mr. Davis and agree with him that you didn’t intentionally do 

anything, sometimes a mistake can lead to a violation of something. And just to give you an example, the other day I was driving 

in Ohio and I thought that the speed limit was 25—or excuse me— 

35, and it actually turned out to be 25. I was mistaken in that regard. And the police officer who pulled me over wasn’t impressed 

by my mistake of fact. So to be clear, I don’t believe and I don’t 

think anybody believes you intentionally created this difficulty or 

made the mistake, but a mistake can also be a difficulty, and that 

is what this Committee is charged with. 

Mr. MCNULTY. But there is another difference there which is 

that you violated a rule and I don’t believe I did. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, we are going to get to that, and I intend 

to walk you through that pretty aggressively. 

Let me go to—oh, and I should mention because we had some 

trouble when we were interviewing you before about eyesight and 

who was where. The parties have stipulated that if I show you clips 

from the video that—and I will give you—I will have the staff give 

you the sheet so you can follow along. But Catlin O’Neill will have 

an orange halo around her. Jerry Hartz will have a yellow one. 

Steny Hoyer red. Nancy Pelosi blue. John Sullivan green. Kirsten 

Gillibrand purple. And Zack Space because we ran out of colors is 

white. And you don’t have one. Do you have that in front of you? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So when I ask you—when we roll the tape a 

little bit later and I will ask you if you say that you don’t agree 

that Catlin O’Neill has orange around her, then please tell me. But 

otherwise to move expeditiously through it, I think that that is 

what I would like you to understand. 

You indicated that when we interviewed you before and again 

have reinforced today that the only communication from Catlin 

O’Neill during the course of that evening was that it is going to be 

close and maybe stay on your toes. 

Mr. MCNULTY. It is the only one I remember, Steve. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
49 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Then I would ask the staff to play for us in— 

first chapter 4 and then stop it right after chapter 4. I ask you to 

watch chapter 4 on the monitor. 

Okay. Chapter 4, to my observation, the orange circle, which we 

have stipulated is Catlin O’Neill, comes down the aisle from the 

Majority side and approaches the rostrum and appears to be engaged in conversation with you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you remember that conversation? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That may very well have been when she made the 

statement about I think this is going to be a close vote. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. But just—I don’t want to be tricky but— 

you know that that conversation happened sometime during the 

evening. Do you have a reasonable certainty that it was during 

that sequence? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think it was—a reasonable certainty, yes. Because I think that is the only time she came that close to me and 

had a direct conversation. I think there was one other time when 

she was further away. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Let’s go to—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think that was the one where she mentioned it 

would be a close vote. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Let’s go to—please play chapter 5. 

Okay. Chapter 5, again, the orange circle which is Catlin O’Neill 

leaves the Democratic leadership table, rises to the rostrum and, 

from my observation, was having a conversation with you. Do you 

agree with that? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. What did she and you talk about? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I would have to be guessing at this one. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I really don’t want you to guess. Do you have 

any recollection as to what that conversation was about? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t. The only other common thing that it 

might be would be to say when to—to ask for additional votes or 

something after time has expired. But something routine like that. 

But I don’t remember anything beyond that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. But to be clear, that is a guess. You don’t remember? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. That is a guess. I don’t remember. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. If we could play chapter 6, please. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your question you described the exchange, if 

there in fact was one, as a conversation. Can we determine if the 

tape runs the duration of that conversation? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am sure we can. I would be happy to ask 

unanimous consent when my clock isn’t ticking that we have the 

staff determine that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Chapter 6, please. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Now I think in that one she is not talking to me. 

It looks like she is talking to Ethan. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
50 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You can stop there. So my question is, you 

don’t recall what we have just played, chapter 6 being a conversation between Ms. O’Neill and yourself? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. And I think it looks obvious that it is not. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, I don’t want to dispute—it is obvious she 

comes up the stairs to the rostrum, you look at her and you get 

up. I think if we played it a minute more or a couple seconds more, 

you are going to bang the gavel. But you don’t remember having—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And lastly, chapter 7. Could you stop it 

there for just a second? You now see sort of the marriage of the 

orange and red circle sort of in the manner of the Olympics. And 

again, looking at our cue sheet, the red circle belongs to the Majority Leader, Mr. Hoyer. And Mr. Hoyer has indicated in his testimony or in his deposition with the Select Committee that he believes he was expressing a desire to Ms. O’Neill that the vote be 

shut down when we are ahead. Okay. Could you continue to play, 

please? 

Stop it there. Okay. Again, the orange circle appears to go up. 

You lean over, and would you agree that it appears that there are 

words being exchanged between you and Ms. O’Neill? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I leaned forward a couple of times that night in 

order to hear things. But I am not sure, Steve, on that one. The 

other ones, it was obvious that there was a communication. On 

that one, I am not sure. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. So again, since you are the witness and 

I am not, I would just say that you don’t recall that interchange 

between yourself and Catlin O’Neill. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t recall—— 

Mr. LATOURETTE. There being one? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Great. You do, in fact, during the course 

of that—and I would be happy to rewind it for you and replay it— 

but you do in fact gesture to someone with your hand. Did you notice that? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Do you have any idea—do you recall 

talking to anybody if it is not Ms. O’Neill at that moment in time? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I just don’t remember that one, Steve. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is fine. Again, from the testimony of 

other people, including the Majority Leader, the Majority Leader 

indicated that when he entered the Chamber and came down to the 

well, that he yelled that he wanted the vote closed and closed now. 

I have understood you to say that if the leader was in the well you 

didn’t hear him? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I did not hear that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And I think what Mr. Pence was getting at is 

that all of the other Members of the rostrum who have been interviewed did, in fact, hear that direction. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, they were all closer than me. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, including I would say Ethan Lauer, who 

was standing next to you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, I did not hear that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
51 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is what I am saying. So I just want to 

tell you—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. I absolutely did not hear that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is where I think Mike was going in that 

discussion. 

Now I want to get to this—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Would the gentleman yield for one second? I don’t 

want to use this time to obviously argue about the facts. But Mr. 

LaTourette’s observation that Mr. Lauer was next to you. Mr. 

Lauer is actually in the same place that Mr. Sullivan was. I mean, 

he is a little bit removed from him. So to suggest they are in a very 

close position is absolutely inaccurate, Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, and I appreciate that and I thank the 

gentleman for bringing it up. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Lauer 

would be further away than Mr. McNulty at the time that the Majority Leader was in the well making his observations. But I thank 

the gentleman for making my point. 

I want to get to this 2(a). 2(a) was a much publicized response 

to the 3 hour and some Medicare Part D vote in which it was alleged arms were broken, and so forth and so on. But at the end 

of the day the protocol that Mr. Hanrahan testified about was followed, a tally sheet slip was handed up, the computer was shut 

down appropriately, the Chair read from the tally slip, and we 

were done. And to purge the House of the culture of corruption, the 

new Democratic Majority determined that they would put in clause 

2(a). I think that as we have explored this matter as a Committee, 

we have found—I have referred to it as a soup sandwich in that 

it says for the sole purpose of influencing or affecting the outcome 

of the vote. And it is a soup sandwich because the presiding officer 

could come up with any reason. He could say, because it is Tuesday, because my wife laid out a blue tie today, because I thought 

people were at the White House. 

Are you a lawyer? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I am not a lawyer. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you familiar with something called mens 

rea in the criminal law. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Well, in my mind, the only way that this 

clause 2(a) can be definitively violated is if the occupant of the 

Chair says, yeah, I did it. I mean, that is it. Because we have to— 

you know, unless we can get Mr. Spock and do the Vulcan mind 

meld and, you know, say that you know this is what happened, 

that the person in the Chair has to say, I held it open for the sole 

purpose of influencing the outcome of this vote. I don’t ask you to 

agree with that, but that is my sense of 2(a). 

Mr. MCNULTY. You are probably right, but what I was trying to 

do was to avoid even the appearance of impropriety with regard to 

that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And I know you were. 

But I want to get to your mens rea, and this goes to my opening 

observation about mistaken, not intentional, and everything else; 

and that is, you indicated to us in your interview, and you have 

reaffirmed that here to today, that as a presiding officer you were 

cognizant of rule 2(a). 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
52 

Mr. MCNULTY. Very cognizant, maybe overly so. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And you wanted to make sure that nothing 

you did ran afoul of clause 2(a)? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I will repeat, I wasn’t so much worried about running afoul of it, because I knew in my own mind that I was not 

violating clause rule 2(a), but that there could be the appearance 

of a violation of clause—of rule 2(a)—clause 2(a) of Rule XX. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. But let me walk you again to your interview 

and your statement today, and let me go back. 

You called the vote twice before John Sullivan’s statement. But 

the first time you say 214–214, you don’t speak the magic words, 

the motion is not agreed to, and you stop? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And based upon your earlier interview, you 

said you stopped because you became aware of people calling one 

more, or activity in the well, that evidenced that other Members 

wanted to vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And, as a matter of fact, five Members do then 

vote with well cards; two Democrats and three Republicans. There 

comes a time after the conversation between Mr. Hoyer and Ms. 

O’Neill that you call it a second time without benefit of the tally 

slip by referencing the board, and you call it 214–214 again, and 

this time you say, and the motion is not agreed to? 

Mr. MCNULTY. But that had nothing to do with anybody else’s 

conversations. That had to do with my—what was going through 

my mind about the enforcement of clause 2(a) of Rule XX and my 

determination in my own mind that after the last vote change was 

announced, I was going to call that vote; not what it was, I was 

going to call that vote. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And I am not saying that you buckled to pressure. 

Mr. MCNULTY. And I wouldn’t even know in my own mind what 

that vote would be until it was done. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is exactly right. But that is what I want 

to get to. And that is, because you told us this, and I think this 

is important; and you may not agree with me, but I think this is 

important. 

You have indicated to us that in your mind the application of 

rule 2(a) was going to cause you to call that vote after the Mario 

Diaz-Balart card had been entered. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I would say the appearance of—I mean, I have to 

say to you, Steve, there was never any question in my mind a violation of clause 2(a) of Rule XX would be if I was holding the vote 

open for the purpose of changing the outcome. 

I was in the process of closing the vote down; I was doing the 

opposite, so there was no violation of clause rule 2(a) in my mind. 

But I could understand, and as a matter of fact, expected later on 

that there could be the appearance of that, particularly if the Majority side prevailed and I was holding the vote open. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. No, I get it, and I don’t think we are disagreeing. But I had understood you to say in your interview that 

you, as the presiding officer surveying the well, seeing that after 

Diaz-Balart and Ros-Lehtinen came down, submitted well cards, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
53 

you told us that you had reached the conclusion, as the presiding 

officer, you were going to call the vote after those votes were processed, and that you were concerned that to keep the vote open after 

that would have given this appearance of a violation of rule 2(a). 

That is what you told us. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t disagree with that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. That is all I want to say. Okay. 

Now, but clearly—and so when you called the 214–214, the clock 

upticks, or the thing upticks. 

Mr. MCNULTY. That’s correct. Because I believe that Mario’s vote 

had not yet been recorded by the computer. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That’s right. But you would agree that within 

moments, and certainly today, you understand that what you read 

off the display was not right, the votes that had actually been processed into the system at that point in time, once the computer refreshed, was really 215—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, that is a technical question. I mean, when 

I called the vote, it was 214–214. So you are asking a technical 

question whether a vote is counted before it is recorded. I don’t 

really know the answer to that question, but that vote had not yet 

been recorded. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Well, we will ask somebody else that. 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is a technical question. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think that Diaz-Balart, Mario, his card is in 

the system. 

Mr. MCNULTY. It was certainly my intention to count his vote. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. And then I think—could you put up 

the—we have sort of a time sequence of when votes were in and 

recorded and everything else. And quite frankly, when Mario DiazBalart’s card goes in, it makes it 215–213. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Now, at that point in time you, as the 

presiding officer, because Mr. Davis asked you if anyone told you 

not to close the vote or close the vote or anything else, but when 

you attempted to call it the first time, nobody told you to call it the 

first time, right? The Parliamentarian didn’t say, call it now? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. It was my same mind-set about clause 2(a), 

Rule XX. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And when you closed it the second time, the 

Parliamentarian—I mean, Mr. Davis’ observation is, nobody told 

you not to do it; well, nobody told you to do it, either. 

Mr. MCNULTY. That’s right. And I have always taken responsibility for that. I did it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. And you, as the presiding officer invested with the discretion in terms of when to close that vote down, 

you had a choice at that sort of pivotal moment; and that is, you 

read off the board, 214–214. 

I will ask somebody else, but for purposes of this question I am 

going to ask you to assume that it really was 215–213 in terms of 

votes being in the system and just not making it from Anderson’s 

computer to the screen. 

You could have re-called the vote at 215–213 and that the motion 

is agreed to; you had that discretion as the presiding officer, did 

you not? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
54 

Mr. MCNULTY. If John Sullivan had told me to do that, I would 

have done it in a New York minute. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I understand that. 

Mr. MCNULTY. And I described earlier what my mind-set was at 

that time, was that I made a serious error, and I wasn’t intent on 

making another one. And I decided at that point to heed the words 

of both Bill Brown and Jim Wright, who both said to me, when in 

doubt, follow the instructions of the Parliamentarian. 

On the rest of that vote I was going to follow the instructions of 

the Parliamentarian. And the Parliamentarian said to me, he was 

going to write a statement for me to read, and I did not make any 

ruling until he finished composing that statement and me reading 

it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. When did he tell you he was going to write a 

statement for you? 

Mr. MCNULTY. You can probably find that on the tape. I think 

he came up and said something to me—I think. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you think it was contemporaneous with 

when you made the mistaken call? 

Mr. MCNULTY. It was very shortly after that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. But the last question—I have heard what you 

said, that you sort of said, from this moment on you are going to 

do whatever the Parliamentarian. But do you disagree with the observation that you could have re-called the vote based upon the 

votes that were in the system, 215–213, motion is agreed to; and 

there still would have been available a motion to reconsider by the 

Majority party made by one of the 19 Democrats that voted for the 

motion? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think all of that could have happened. It is just, 

Steve, that at that point in time I knew I made a serious error. I 

felt terrible about it, and I didn’t want to complicate the situation, 

so I waited to get instructions from the Parliamentarian. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I’ve got you. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me pick up Mr. 

McNulty directly on Mr. LaTourette’s last set of questions to you, 

because I was a little bit struck by them. 

He asked you, well, once you saw the uptick went from 215–213, 

why not just change what you said and announce that the motion 

is carried? Did anyone hand you a tally sheet showing the vote was 

215–213? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. And perhaps I am wrong, but I thought we were 

hearing all day from Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Pence and Mr. 

Hanrahan how important a tally sheet was. 

If you had called the vote at 215–213, you would have been doing 

it without a tally sheet, correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. The only difference is, their side would have won and 

not ours, but there still wouldn’t have been a tally sheet either 

way, right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. If I just made that pronouncement on my 

own, it would have been without the benefit of a tally sheet. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
55 

Mr. DAVIS. And let us just for a moment actually go back one 

more time into the tape. 

Mr. Operator, if you can go back to the time that Mr. McNulty 

calls the vote at 21:50 or 10:51:56. 

Or 22, I am sorry. 22:51—is it 26 or 56? 26. Just get to that 

point. 

And I want you to note Mr. McNulty, frankly, how quick a time 

frame elapses before other Members go up there and start changing their votes again. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. McNulty, at 22:51:31, you complete your sentence 

saying the motion is not carried. Ten seconds later what do you see 

in the well? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I see, I believe it is Zach Space and Kirsten 

Gillibrand. 

Mr. DAVIS. Within 10 seconds of your prematurely calling the 

vote, at least two Members go to the well, do you agree with that? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. LaTourette asked you why you didn’t just call the 

vote again apparently without a tally sheet at 215–213. If you had 

called the vote without a tally sheet at 215–213, that would have 

meant that both Gillibrand and Space would have been prevented 

from changing their vote; isn’t that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And if prevented Gillibrand and Space from changing 

their vote, as they clearly stand in the well, you would have been 

disenfranchising them; is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I believe so. 

Mr. DAVIS. And just for the record, it is not just the two of them, 

another Member comes forward—Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. So we have at least three Members—McNerney, 

Gillibrand and Space—who go on to change their votes. If you had 

called the vote during the 7-minute window, all three of them 

would have been disenfranchised. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I believe so. 

Mr. DAVIS. You were asked a number of questions about whether 

Ms. O’Neill communicated any instructions to you to close the vote 

out. 

Mr. McNulty, you have been in the House for 20-some years or 

for 19 years, is there anything improper or unusual about a member of the Speaker’s staff suggesting to a presiding officer that the 

vote be closed out? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. It is fairly routine. 

Mr. DAVIS. As I understood your testimony, though, you are not 

saying the communication did—you are not saying it was an improper communication, you are simply saying you don’t recall receiving it. 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. 

And there may have been, like I said at the beginning, just an 

indication of a call for the additional votes or changes of votes, 

something like that, which would have been very routine. But no 

one instructed me to call the vote when I called the vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. And for the record—though Ms. O’Neill can speak for 

herself, since Mr. LaTourette took the care to characterize other inVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:31 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 044139 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A139.XXX A139

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
56 

dividuals’ testimony—I represent to you that Ms. O’Neill in no way 

contradicts that. 

Now, as far as Mr. Hoyer goes, as a 19-year Member of the 

House, is there anything unusual about a Majority Leader or Majority Whip suggesting that a vote should be closed out, anything 

improper about that? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, it would only be improper if someone was 

in the Chair and that was suggested and someone else was trying 

to vote. But other than that, it would not be unusual. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, what is interesting to me is, for all the questions about what Mr. Hoyer did or didn’t do, this doesn’t change 

if you look at the tape 50 times, 100 times or one time, when you 

call the vote, you were looking up at the board; and I can’t see the 

gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Say that last part. 

Mr. DAVIS. At the time that you call the vote, I don’t see Mr. 

Hoyer anywhere in sight; and I see you looking up at the board, 

correct? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t see him, but I have got a block on my 

screen here. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I am not talking about this moment on the 

screen. That is a different point. 

But at the time when you called the vote—you have seen that 

several times—I see you looking at the board. I don’t see Representative Hoyer anywhere. So for all the questions about whether 

he pressured you or influenced you, I don’t even see his physical 

presence. 

Do you agree with that? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t recall his physical presence, and I know 

that he was never successful in communicating anything to me. 

Mr. DAVIS. So even if there were some admission or exhortation 

from the Chair to call a vote, Mr. McNulty, it seems to me, frankly, 

that you either didn’t hear it or ignored it. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I never heard anything as far as a direction to me 

from Steny Hoyer. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, one final set of questions. 

There is some question from Mr. Pence about the atmosphere in 

the Chamber that night, and I think Mr. Pence read Mr. Hoyer’s 

comments about whether his agitation might have created some 

sense of pressure. 

What was the pressure that you felt when you were evaluating 

when to call that vote, Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. MCNULTY. The possible charge later on that there might 

have been a violation of clause 2(a) of Rule XX. That is what I was 

concerned about. 

And today I feel as though I was overly concerned about it. 

Mr. DAVIS. But in other words, the pressure you felt that night 

wasn’t from the leadership to call a vote prematurely. The pressure 

you felt was that if you kept the vote open too long, the Minority 

might have objected to a violation of 2(a); that sounds like what 

you are saying. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. I will yield the balance of my time to the Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pence. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
57 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple more questions from me, and then I will yield to Mr. LaTourette and be able 

to let you go. 

One point of clarification for my colleagues: Mr. Davis suggested 

that the Minority would have preferred for you to call the vote. 

And I am paraphrasing my friend, but I think in his dialogue with 

you, he just suggested that the Minority would have preferred that 

you call the vote at 215–213 even without a tally slip. 

Let me be very clear. It is the judgment of the Minority that at 

the time you used your discretion following Mr. Diaz-Balart’s vote 

being presented, at the time that you decided to close the vote, we 

believe the vote, had it been properly processed into a tally slip and 

handed to you, would have reflected 215–213. And Members of the 

Minority are not and have not advocated overturning—that you 

should have overturned that long-standing tradition that would 

have meant we would have won. 

I think Mr. LaTourette’s point there is that, had the tally slip 

been created at the moment that you clearly today have expressed 

your intent to close the vote, following Mr. Diaz-Balart’s vote, that 

it is our judgment the vote at that time was 215–213. 

Let me move on to my questions. 

Mr. Hoyer stated during his interview that he told Catlin O’Neill 

that he wanted the vote closed when the Majority was prevailing. 

That is on page 44 of his deposition, for the record. 

There is a brief conversation visible—as Mr. LaTourette walked 

you through the video, there is a brief conversation visible between 

Mr. Hoyer and Ms. O’Neill at the rostrum. She appears to—well, 

she does immediately turn and appears to be saying something to 

you, although your testimony today is that you cannot recall what 

that was. 

You know, it strikes me as highly unlikely that if the Majority 

Leader of the House of Representatives told an employee of the 

Speaker’s Office that he wanted the vote closed, as he stated, and 

she immediately turned and said something to you, that Mr. Hoyer’s wishes would not have been conveyed during that conversation. 

Does that strike you as unlikely, as well, or unusual? 

Mr. MCNULTY. No. I am just telling you what I recall as I recall 

it. And there was no communication from Catlin to me that Steny 

Hoyer was directing me to close that vote. That did not happen. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. But given the Majority Leader’s testimony that he had—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. There are a lot of things that you can look at on 

the tape and interpret stories and so on, but some of them are true 

and some of them are not. That one is not. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me push on to the question of when we had the 

opportunity to interview you before, you were asked, and I think 

this appears on page 62 of—one moment. 

Just for clarification, you were asked in your interview how 

would you characterize Mr. Hoyer’s demeanor during that interaction with Mr. Sullivan, and we are referring to that point in the 

tape where we see them having a conversation. Your reply was agitated. Did you know—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think I said that earlier, too, something to that 

effect. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
58 

Mr. PENCE. You did. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I wasn’t happy or something. 

Mr. PENCE. You did. 

Did you know—do you recall knowing what Mr. Hoyer was agitated about? 

Mr. MCNULTY. You know, things were happening so rapidly that 

evening; and I was fixated on not violating the appearance of 

clause 2(a) of Rule XX, and I was looking at the board constantly. 

So, no, I didn’t hear what he said to John. I know he said something. He didn’t look happy to me. If you were to ask me to independently, say what his words were, I couldn’t tell you of my own 

knowledge. 

I can tell you what they are now because they have been published umpteen times; but if you were relying on me to be the 

source of that, I wouldn’t be able to truthfully tell you that I remember him saying that. It was just very, very loud and I was concentrating on other things at the time. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me ask this one other way, and then you can say 

‘‘no’’ again. 

Did you suspect that Mr. Hoyer was upset because you had not 

closed the vote while the Majority was prevailing? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Let me put it to you this way: If he wanted to 

express that thought, why couldn’t he have turned his head to me 

and told me that? He didn’t. 

Mr. PENCE. During his interview with this Committee, when I 

asked Mr. Hoyer whether his demeanor or actions, quote—and this 

was my question—‘‘may have unintentionally created an environment of more pressure on Mr. McNulty to close a vote,’’ the Majority Leader merely replied that that was, quote, ‘‘certainly possible.’’ 

Mr. MCNULTY. I felt no pressure from Steny Hoyer that night. 

My concentration was on enforcing the rules of the House, including the new rule. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. That probably answers my last question. 

So Mr. Hoyer’s, what many have characterized as angry demeanor—you characterize it as agitated—it is your testimony it 

had no effect on your decision to prematurely close the vote? 

Mr. MCNULTY. That is absolutely true. And if he wanted to communicate anything to me at the time he was having the conversation with John, he was close enough to me to turn to me and say 

something. He did not. 

Mr. PENCE. I think that is all I have. 

Mr. LaTourette, do you have anything further? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I do. 

Just three quick lines of inquiry, Mike, and thank you for your 

patience and your answers to the questions. 

When we talked to you earlier, on page 27 of your testimony, you 

were asked, do you think it was significant that there wasn’t a 

tally sheet; and you say, I think it was pretty darn significant; I 

didn’t wait for it because I felt that if I allowed additional time in 

between the time after Mario had voted, that other Members of the 

House might be persuaded on both sides of the aisle to change 

their votes; so we can get into one of those situations where a couple change on one side, a couple change on the other side, time 

keeps going on and I could be subject to criticism for violating 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
59 

clause 2(a). So I decided after Mario’s vote when I saw no one in 

front of me with a card—attempting to get a card ready to vote, 

that I would call the vote. 

And then you have reinforced that today. That was your mindset at the time? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And let me, if we could play chapter 8 of the 

tape, please, and just ask you to watch chapter 8 for a second. And 

I would ask you to pay particular attention to the time, which is 

22:51:14, when you announced for the second time—hold on a second—when you announced the second time the vote to when Mr. 

Sullivan opposes it. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. LATOURETTE. We are now at 22:52:39, which is about a 

minute and a half after you gaveled the vote for the second time. 

It didn’t appear to me—and at this moment in time that we have 

frozen it, it appears that Mr. Sullivan is writing the statement that 

you referred to and you subsequently read. It appears to me that 

that is the first time that Mr. Sullivan, since your calling of the 

vote at 214–214, the motion is not agreed to, had any contact with 

you; is that right? 

Mr. MCNULTY. It appears that way. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So again, you know, and you know what is 

troubling us—I mean, what is troubling us is, you called the vote 

214–214, when it is really 215–213. And then in that intervening 

time, wherein the Parliamentarian does not appear to be giving 

you any instructions, three Democratic Members come to the well 

and change their votes, three Democratic Members who you say 

weren’t attempting to change their votes when you made the decision that you would be criticized for violating clause 2(a) if you 

didn’t call it after Mr. Diaz-Balart’s vote. And on page 60 of your 

interview with us earlier, I said—I asked you this question, can 

you as the presiding officer indicate for what purpose you kept the 

vote, that vote, open beyond your declaration of 214–214 other than 

for the sole purpose of having the outcome of the vote affected. 

Your answer is, I did it for the sole purpose of following the directions of the Parliamentarian after I had committed an error. 

I don’t see the Parliamentarian giving you any direction. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Which is what I said today. But let me clarify 

what was in my mind then, Steve. 

After I committed that error, which was very obvious the moment that the changed vote appeared on the board, I made the determination in my mind that I committed an error, that it was a 

serious error, and I wasn’t going to compound it by committing another one, and that I made the decision in my own mind I was not 

going to make no further ruling on that vote until and unless I was 

directed to do so by the Parliamentarian. 

So I made that decision to wait until the Parliamentarian gave 

me further instruction. That is the sum and substance of my mindset at the time. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. I appreciate it and I thank the Chair. 

Thank you, Mike. 

The Chairman. Mr. McNulty, thank you for your testimony 

today. And I can appreciate the experience that you had and the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
60 

fact that you probably chose the wisest course of action, which was 

seeking the advice and listening to the guidance and the suggestions of Mr. Sullivan, whom we will hear from this afternoon. But 

thank you, Mike, again for your testimony. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I thank all of the Members, and I apologize for 

being the reason that you are here. Thank you. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mike. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are excused. 

And we will recess until 2:00, at which time we will reconvene. 

[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Committee recessed, to reconvene 

at 2:00 p.m. the same day.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome, Leader Hoyer. I am going to give a formal introduction, and then we will go to the Minority side. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. We are actually starting on your side. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me formally introduce the Majority 

Leader. 

Congressman Hoyer represents Maryland’s Fifth Congressional 

District. He is currently serving his 14th term in Congress. In November 2006, he was elected by his colleagues in the Democratic 

Caucus to serve as House Majority Leader in the 110th Congress, 

becoming the highest ranking member of Congress from Maryland 

in history. 

He has held positions of great responsibility in the House Democratic leadership. Prior to being an elected Majority Leader, he 

shared as Whip Chair of the Democratic Caucus, co-chair of the 

Democratic Steering Committee and candidate recruiter for House 

Democrats. 

Welcome, Steny. 

And we will go right to the vice chairman of the Committee, the 

gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Leader, welcome. 

Mr. HOYER. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. 

Mr. DAVIS. And let me. Just so you understand the agreement 

that we have made with respect to time today, I am going to have 

approximately 30 minutes to question you for a direct exam, if you 

will; then the Minority will have 30 minutes. 

The Majority side will reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal and the 

Minority will have an additional 10 minutes. 

Let me begin, Mr. Leader, by saying that we are very appreciative of your cooperation in this matter. As you recall very well, 

you spent approximately 3 hours of your time, when we promised 

you 1 hour, when we took a deposition in your office; and you know 

how long-winded your colleagues can be. 

But you have been extremely gracious with your time. You have 

been gracious enough to orient your schedule today to be here. The 

House is in session today. There are a number of things you could 

be doing, and we are genuinely appreciative of your cooperation. 

Mr. HOYER. In terms of long-windedness, some people say I live 

in a glass house. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Leader, you are aware that the Select Committee 

was empowered by the House to investigate alleged voting irregularities regarding the Roll Call Vote 814 on the night of August 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
61 

2nd. And we have had extensive depositions; we have deposed over 

20 witnesses, including yourself. 

We have heard testimony from one of the Clerks, Kevin 

Hanrahan, today. And we have just heard testimony from Mike 

McNulty, the presiding officer. And there will be other witnesses; 

Mr. Sullivan, the Chief Parliamentarian, will testify and two of his 

staffers will testify. 

So those in this room have gotten a little bit fatigued with seeing 

the tape many times today. And I am going to try not to spend too 

much time with the tape, but to ask you some more general questions. And I want to begin by trying to get people a little bit focused on what it is we are even talking about. 

I had a chance to talk to my office, and I got a instructive call 

from a viewer. Apparently this was carried on one of the C–Spans 

earlier; and someone called in and said, I get most of what you all 

are talking about, but nobody has ever told me what this ‘‘motion 

to recommit’’ business is. And the person is like—it is like trying 

to follow a tennis match without knowing what the rules are. 

So I am going to ask you to begin by setting a little bit of context. 

Exactly what is a motion to recommit? 

Mr. HOYER. Well, a motion to recommit is a motion that the Minority usually makes. A Majority can make a motion to recommit, 

a Majority Member, but it is reserved to the Minority at the end 

of the consideration of the bill to make a motion to recommit. 

There are two types of motions to recommit—or, I suppose, three 

types. One is a motion to recommit without instructions, in effect, 

send the bill back to Committee. 

The second is a motion to recommit to report back forthwith. 

That simply means that an amendment that might be attached to 

that motion would be voted upon, and if it prevailed, it would immediately come back on the floor. And the bill, as amended, would 

then be passed. So that it is like the adoption of an amendment. 

There is a third type, which the motion that night was, a motion 

to recommit and report back promptly. The difference between 

‘‘forthwith’’ and ‘‘promptly’’ is that the bill actually for ‘‘promptly’’ 

goes back to Committee; it does not actually go back to Committee 

with a ‘‘forthwith.’’ And as a result of going back to Committee, it 

will delay that bill for a very substantial period of time—in this 

case, more than 30 days because we were about to leave. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, let me again stop you and put this in context 

for people that don’t follow the House every day. 

You are saying, in effect, that a motion to recommit ‘‘promptly’’ 

has the effect of killing the bill? That is what you are saying in 

plain English? 

Mr. HOYER. It has the effect of killing, really—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Or substantially delaying? 

Mr. HOYER [continuing]. Substantially delaying. 

Mr. DAVIS. The motion to recommit that was offered by Republicans this night of August 2nd, as I understand it, was a motion 

to recommit that would have had the effect of substantially delaying the bill; is that right? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. The bill that was on the floor was the Agriculture Appropriations bill; is that right? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
62 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, one of the things I want to clarify—because, 

again, I tend to listen to calls to my office because it means somebody in some cave was listening—several people said to me, I heard 

the Republicans say in their opening statement that they want to 

keep illegal aliens from getting benefits, and why are you Democrats against that? Several people come off and ask, why are Democrats for illegal aliens getting benefits? 

Now, without getting into loving detail on this, can you explain 

exactly what it was the Republicans were trying to do on their motion, substantively, and why most Democrats were opposed to it? 

Mr. HOYER. The bill of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee 

was relatively non-controversial. It had bipartisan support. The bill 

really had nothing to do with illegal immigration and certainly did 

not allow anything that was against the law for illegal immigrants. 

Democrats were not opposed to the expression—when I say 

‘‘Democrats,’’ I don’t want to speak unanimously. The motion effectively has been used relatively frequently by the Republicans for 

the purposes of, from our perspective, adding what are not necessarily germane amendments in a motion to recommit, which have 

to be somewhat germane; and they try to make them so. 

In this case, as Congresswoman DeLauro, who is the chair of the 

subcommittee pointed out, A, the bill would have been effectively 

very substantially delayed—this is an appropriation bill; we wanted to get it over to the Senate—secondly, that the subject matter 

of the motion on illegal immigrants really had little, if anything, 

to do with this bill—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just slow you down and ask you a few things 

and see if you agree with them. 

It is already illegal for people who aren’t U.S. citizens to get benefits from the U.S. Ag Department; is that correct? 

Mr. HOYER. The last thing I was going to say:—and it also replicated existing law. 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. So the motion to recommit was unnecessary 

because it is already against the law for illegal aliens to receive 

government benefits. You agree with that? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And do you agree, Mr. Hoyer, some people have said 

that motions to recommit of this nature are frankly brought for the 

purpose of embarrassing certain Members in the casting votes that 

may be hard to explain. 

Without spending a lot of time on that, have I got that right? 

Mr. HOYER. I won’t spend a lot of the time. 

It is my perception that—and very frankly, leadership staff of 

Mr. Boehner and Mr. Blunt have asserted this in a newspaper article covering motions to recommit—that these are made for political 

reasons or purposes of putting certain people, mostly Democrats, in 

a political dilemma of supporting the proposition, but not wanting 

to kill the bill in the same process. 

Mr. DAVIS. And one—— 

Mr. HOYER. If the motion were made, for instance, to do it ‘‘forthwith,’’ that would not have had that effect. The reason the ‘‘forthwith’’ is used, is so that Democrats are put in a position of killing 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
63 

the bill that had bipartisan support or voting against a proposition 

they may otherwise agree with. 

Mr. DAVIS. And one other point before we move from the definition of ‘‘a motion to recommit’’: 

If anyone were really serious about adding a provision that, for 

whatever reason, felt the need to restate current law, there is a 

Committee process and that amendment could have been offered in 

Committee; is that correct? 

Mr. HOYER. It could have been offered in Committee, but even 

simpler, they could have been offered a motion ‘‘forthwith.’’ 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. HOYER. And had the amendment been adopted, it would 

have been immediately attached to the bill. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Now that you have explained what it is that 

we were arguing about on the floor that night, I want to ask you 

a little bit about the duties of a presiding officer, because you know 

that Mr. McNulty’s actions have been at issue. 

He was the presiding officer, and I think you are aware that he 

made the decision to call a vote that night. And he has acknowledged that when he called the vote, it was an error. And he said 

today that it was an error, not of a willful nature, not out of any 

intent to disenfranchise, but I was looking up at the board, and I 

believed that it reflected all the vote changes that were going on, 

had ended up in a 214–214 score. 

And he said this morning, I just missed the fact that the gentleman from Florida had changed his vote, and the tally board 

didn’t reflect it. That is what Mr. McNulty told us. 

I want you to give everyone a little bit of a sense of exactly what 

a presiding officer’s responsibilities are with respect to the termination of a vote. 

Mr. HOYER. The duties of a presiding officer are obviously to 

manage the deliberations of the House, whether it is the Speaker, 

the Speaker pro tem or the Chair of the Committee of the Whole 

House or the House meeting as the Committee of the Whole House. 

In furtherance of that responsibility, obviously the calling of the 

vote—that is, asking for Members to start voting on a proposition 

that is before them after the debate is concluded—under the rules, 

providing for the 15 minutes that the rule says is a minimum for 

Members to be given the opportunity to vote; and then—in his or 

her discretion to then close the vote at the conclusion of the vote 

from the Speaker’s or presiding officer’s perception. 

Mr. DAVIS. And when a presiding officer exercises that discretion 

to close the vote, as an experienced Member of the House, as a 

former presiding officer yourself, what are the factors that a good 

presiding officer takes into account? 

Mr. HOYER. Well, first of all, the rules require 15 minutes. It 

says it shall be a minimum of 15 minutes. So the threshold of the 

Speaker and the presiding officer is to assure themselves that the 

15 minutes has run. 

Beyond that, there has been a practice of the House to add some 

more time. In this instance, most of the Members were on the floor. 

There were—as you know, there were 428 Members voting on all 

of these votes—relatively unusual that nobody left and nobody 

came in. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
64 

The presiding officer then has to make a judgment that Members 

have, in fact, voted. It does so by seeing whether there are Members in the well. The presiding officer then, upon his conclusion 

that the votes have been cast, has the responsibility of calling the 

vote and announcing that vote to the House. 

Mr. DAVIS. You are familiar with rule 2(a) of clause XX of the 

House of Representatives? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. That is a rule that the new Majority adopted last 

year. 

Would you characterize the rule, Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. HOYER. Well, the rule provides for the vote not being held 

open for the sole purpose of allowing Members to be opportuned or 

urged or encouraged to change their vote to change the outcome of 

the vote. 

Now, that is hard to interpret for the presiding officer as to exactly why somebody wants to change their vote; whether they want 

to change their vote because they made a mistake, whether they 

want to change their vote because they have changed their mind 

on the substance of that vote, or frankly, whether they personally 

have decided they want to change their vote because they want 

their side to prevail. 

It is very difficult for the presiding officer to sort of get into the 

mind of the voter; and in fact, the rules essentially say that we 

cannot question the motives of another Member and their vote. 

I think that it is appropriate that we can’t question their motives. I personally believe that that rule is almost impossible to enforce. 

And both sides obviously believe they are right in their position; 

and not only Members of the leadership, but other Members are 

talking to other Members throughout the course of a vote saying 

why they ought to vote ‘‘aye’’ or ‘‘nay’’ on a particular proposition. 

So the rule is a very difficult one to enforce. But it clearly says 

that if the presiding officer perceived that the rule was being violated, that the presiding officer would have a responsibility to ensure the enforcement of the rules. 

Mr. DAVIS. Difficult rule to enforce, difficult rule to interpret, but 

it is the presiding officer ultimately who has the power to interpret 

and enforce; do you agree? 

Mr. HOYER. I think the presiding officer is the sole determinant 

of that issue, yes. 

Ultimately, the House would be if there were an appeal of the 

ruling of the Chair, but certainly, in the first instance, the sole authority is in the presiding officer’s hands. 

Mr. DAVIS. There has been a lot of testimony today and some argument in the course of this morning that a tally sheet is indispensable to the calling of a vote. As you know, Mr. McNulty called the 

vote that night without a tally sheet. For that matter, even when 

he made the final calling of the vote, there was no tally sheet. 

There was never a tally sheet prepared that night. 

It is my understanding that the rules of the House contain no 

reference to a tally sheet, is that right— 

Mr. HOYER. That’s correct. 

Now, I don’t know that a tally sheet was never— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
65 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. In the context of closing a vote? 

Mr. HOYER. In this vote there was not, as I understand. I did not 

know at the time, because I think I have said when I appeared before you last, I did not know, for a couple months later, that there 

had not been a slip. 

Mr. DAVIS. The Speaker’s Office selects a group of Members—— 

Mr. HOYER. Can I make a comment on that? 

The tally slip, my observation over a long period of time and last 

week is that the person who fills out the tally sheet looks at the 

board, puts the number down, and hands it to the Parliamentarian. 

Mr. DAVIS. The Speaker’s Office assembles a group of Members 

who are part of the roster of regular presiding officers; is that correct? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. McNulty was a part of that group, as of August 

2, 2007? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And do you have any knowledge that presiding officers are given any kind of instruction or any kind of information 

stating to them that there must be a tally sheet before they call 

a vote? Have you ever heard of that kind of instruction being given 

as a matter of course to presiding officers as they are trained? 

Mr. HOYER. No. And, of course, my belief is that while it is the 

best practice to follow, it is not essential. 

Mr. DAVIS. And if we can jump ahead a little bit, you have reviewed the videotape, Mr. Hoyer, of that night several times? 

Mr. HOYER. We have all done the instant replay, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you recall the point where Mr. McNulty calls the 

vote erroneously; as he acknowledges. He says, 214–214, and the 

motion is not carried; you recall that moment? 

Mr. HOYER. Can I make a point though? Mr. McNulty called 

214–214 twice. 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. That’s right. 

Mr. HOYER. In his first instance, I think he was absolutely accurate in his count. I am absolutely convinced that the voting machine reflected a count of 214–214 subsequent to the Speaker’s voting. And, very frankly, I am not sure why the vote was not concluded at that time. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. 

Now, let me go back to the point, though, where he says, the motion is 214–214 and adds the critical language, the motion is not 

carried. From your review of the videotape, did any Member of the 

parliamentary staff approach Mr. McNulty and say, you have to 

have a tally sheet? 

Mr. HOYER. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you remember the Tally Clerks or anyone else trying to stop or interrupt Mr. McNulty at all? 

Mr. HOYER. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. DAVIS. And as Mr. McNulty makes his calling of the vote— 

for that matter, the first time when he says, 214–214, and then 

stops himself; or the second time, when he uses the words, the motion is not carried, do you have any recollection of any member of 

the parliamentary staff that night intervening and saying, stop, 

Mr. McNulty, you need a tally sheet? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
66 

Mr. HOYER. I want to be precise in my answer because the answer to your question is ‘‘no.’’ Did I perceive members of the parliamentary staff intervening? I didn’t know what they were intervening, but my perception was, there were discussions between the 

Parliamentarian and the presiding officer. 

Mr. DAVIS. But you don’t know the content and you have no 

memory of anybody saying, you have got to have a tally sheet to 

call this vote? 

Mr. HOYER. No. As a matter of fact, I would be surprised if somebody said that because it is not necessary to have a tally sheet. 

It is, as I have said, the best practice to have a tally sheet. I do 

not know of an instance and I believe there is no instance where 

the board does not reflect the vote. 

In the second 214–214, what happened, from my perception, was 

contemporaneously with Mr. McNulty reading from the board, 214– 

214—this is the second time he did it, 214–214—contemporaneously, almost instantaneously as if it was being done the same 

time, the clerk entered into the machine, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart’s 

vote, making it 215–213. 

But my own view is—what happened is, at the same time Mr. 

McNulty read the 214–214, almost instantaneously after he had 

gotten out 214–214, the board changed. 

The board was accurate in both instances. 

Mr. DAVIS. There have been a lot of questions this morning about 

the appropriate relationship between the Majority Leader and the 

presiding officer as far as the calling of a vote goes. 

Could you give us a brief description of what the role of a Majority Leader would be in the context of closing a vote? 

Mr. HOYER. Well, the Majority Leader obviously has the responsibility, first of all, of scheduling legislation. 

The Majority Leader also is responsible for helping to manage 

the business on the floor and to speak on behalf of the majority, 

at times to state our position or to, frankly, try to put us in a position of prevailing on the questions that we want to prevail on or 

defeating the questions we want to defeat. 

The Minority Leader has the same role on his side of the aisle 

to do the same for his party. So that in terms of a vote, as Mr. 

Blunt stated the day after, August 3rd, on the floor, that for 4 

years, he said, it was his role when the vote should quit. Those are 

his words, not mine. 

But essentially, in my opinion, what he meant was that—and 

you have had testimony from the Parliamentarians—that where 

there was a nod or shake of the head or, you know, it is time to 

cut it off, both sides try to manage the vote so they can prevail. 

Again, within the rules, within fair consideration of those who may 

be seeking to vote, both sides have, over the years, conveyed their 

thoughts as to when the vote should come to a close within the 

rules. 

Mr. DAVIS. And when the Majority or Minority convey a sense 

that a vote should close, is it fair to say that it is still up to the 

presiding officer whether or not to follow that admonition? 

Mr. HOYER. Absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS. The night of this vote in question, there has been a 

lot of scrutiny as to your interaction with Mr. McNulty that night. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
67 

Let me take you through a brief set of questions and simply ask 

you for a brief answer to each of them. 

Was there a point that night when you in some way verbally 

communicated to anyone in the Chamber that you felt that the vote 

should close? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And to whom did you make that communication. 

Mr. HOYER. Generally toward the Chair. I didn’t have a discussion with Mr. McNulty. I was in the well, and at the time the 

Speaker voted, I wanted the vote to come to a close. 

Mr. DAVIS. How did you communicate that? 

Mr. HOYER. I think I said, it is time to shut it down. It may have 

been something like that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Were you standing close to Mr. McNulty when you 

said, time to shut it down, or words to that effect? 

Mr. HOYER. Close. Probably, what? Do you think 20 feet away? 

Maybe a little less than that if you are in the well. 

I was essentially by the microphone on the Majority side when 

I said that. And I said it probably a couple of times. 

I said it loudly enough, so I thought it could be heard by anybody 

who wanted to know what I thought. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did Mr. McNulty follow the admonition? 

Mr. HOYER. He did not. 

Mr. DAVIS. What did he do instead? 

Mr. HOYER. Well, I am not sure exactly when I said to do it. He 

waited, and after the Speaker voted, he then—and was read across 

as having voted, he called the vote at 214–214. As I said, I believe 

the vote was then 214–214. Sixteen minutes and 1 second had 

transpired, the minimum period had transpired. I think he was 

within his right. My own view is the vote should have come to a 

close at that point in time. 

Obviously, as you have heard testimony, and we have all experienced, votes don’t necessarily come to close when they are announced. And the reason for that is the Speaker, in the exercise of 

fairness, tries to assure the fact if there are additional votes, to 

allow those to be cast. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now after you—let me make sure I fully understand 

your testimony. You are in the well, you are not standing up next 

to the presiding officer. 

Mr. HOYER. I am in the well. 

Mr. DAVIS. And there is a lot of voice. I am not saying you spoke 

loudly, but it was a very noisy Chamber that night. 

Mr. HOYER. I think it has been referred to as chaos. I am not 

sure it was exactly chaos, but it was loud and contentious. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, is it fair to say that numerous Members were 

saying, close the vote, or call the vote, or something like that? 

Mr. HOYER. There were a large number of Members on my side 

of the aisle who were urging that the vote terminate. 

Mr. DAVIS. Was there ever a point when you climbed up to the 

rostrum and walked close to Mr. McNulty and instructed him to 

close the vote? 

Mr. HOYER. No. I did go to the rostrum, as you know—actually, 

I didn’t go to the rostrum, the Parliamentarian, as you know, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
68 

stands down the step and about 4 or 5 feet from the presiding officer, and as everyone knows, I did go up to talk to Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, just so we are clear, Mr. McNulty attempts 

to call the vote. He begins to call it at 214–214 at approximately 

10:50 that night. Do you have any way of knowing how close in 

proximity that was to you orally saying, close the vote down. Was 

it a minute, second? 

Mr. HOYER. It was a relatively short period of time we are talking about. This vote took about 24, 25 minutes, as I recall, somewhere in that time frame. If it was 16 minutes, it was probably 

leading up to that, or shortly after. I can’t recall specifically that 

time frame within that 30 to 60 seconds. It was probably undoubtedly within that time frame because I perceived that when the 

Speaker voted, we had prevailed, and I wanted the vote to come 

to a close. 

Mr. DAVIS. So, just so I am clear, in the instance when you recall 

communicating in some fashion that the vote was closed, Mr. 

McNulty did not follow the instruction, is that right? 

Mr. HOYER. No, he did not. 

Mr. DAVIS. Later on, Mr. McNulty does call the vote in a definitive way at 22:51. We have seen the tape several times, and I will 

represent to you that you are not physically visible in the tape at 

the time that Mr. McNulty calls the vote. Do you agree with that 

from what you have seen? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. You are not near Mr. McNulty. You can’t be seen. Do 

you agree with that? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you agree that Mr. McNulty appears to be looking 

up at the board as he is waiting before he appears to call the vote 

the second time? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Was there any oral instruction from you that was 

close in proximity to the time that Mr. McNulty calls the vote the 

second time? 

Mr. HOYER. No. I never talked to Mr. McNulty prior to, I think, 

the conclusion of this event. 

Mr. DAVIS. At the time Mr. McNulty calls the vote, you recall 

there is much consternation on the floor, and one of the points of 

contention is that several Democratic Members went into the well 

and they cast vote changes. Do you recall that happens? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I think there has been agreement among all witnesses that roughly 7 minutes lapses between the time that Mr. 

McNulty calls the vote at 214 and the time that Mr. McNulty reads 

the final vote. Is that roughly consistent with your memory? There 

has been widespread agreement it is about 7 minutes. 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. During that 7-minute time frame, three Democratic 

Members, Space, Gillibrand and McNerney go into the well to 

change their votes. The question has been asked, Well, why were 

they allowed to go into the well and change their votes? Would you 

agree, Mr. Hoyer, that that 7 minutes allowed ample time for any 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
69 

Member to change their vote, regardless of what side of the issue 

they were on? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you know, do you have any recollection that night 

of any Member coming to the well seeking to change a vote from 

yes to no, and being denied the opportunity to do so? 

Mr. HOYER. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any memory that night of any Member 

of either party coming to the well, holding up a card, or in any way 

manifesting an intent to change their vote and being denied the 

right to do so? 

Mr. HOYER. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Before that 7 minutes, during that 7 minutes? 

Mr. HOYER. No. My conclusion is that the final vote that was 

called 212–216, again, the 428 that were voting that night, everybody had an opportunity to vote, everybody had an opportunity to 

vote as they chose, and Mr. McNulty was, I think, accurate in his 

final call, which I say, was 216–212. With the exception, of course, 

which I know has been discussed earlier today, of the fact that Mr. 

Boehner’s vote was not counted, which would have made it 211– 

217. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s put this in some context. If Mr. Boehner’s well 

card had been processed, what would the effect have been of processing Mr. Boehner’s change of vote? 

Mr. HOYER. It would have had no effect on the outcome, but 

what it would have done, and why Mr. Boehner did it, it would 

have put him in a position to make a motion to reconsider as a 

member of the prevailing side. 

Mr. DAVIS. You ultimately made that motion yourself, didn’t you? 

Mr. HOYER. I previously informed the parliamentarian that I was 

either going to ask that the vote be vacated after the second call 

of 214–214, and then almost, as I said, contemporaneously, the display on the board of 215–213. The Minority was rightfully angry 

and upset by that disparity, by that contradiction, and it was my 

view that, given that, in fairness, we ought to revote the issue. The 

vote went on, as you know, from that point on. But I told Mr. Sullivan shortly after that occurred that it was my intention to try to 

vacate by unanimous consent or move to reconsider. 

Mr. DAVIS. So there were several options that night for making 

the situation right. There was a motion to reconsider that could 

have been advanced, is that correct? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. There was a motion to vacate that could have been 

advanced. 

Mr. HOYER. Not a motion, but a request for unanimous consent. 

Mr. DAVIS. That was one other option. Were the Republicans 

amenable to any of those options? 

Mr. HOYER. I heard, when I made—ultimately, when I made the 

motion, the unanimous consent request to vacate the vote, there 

were a large number of objections I heard from behind me to my 

right. Now, I don’t know who objected because I was looking at the 

Chair and asking for unanimous consent from the Chair. But there 

were a lot of objections to that. And there may have been some on 

my side. I don’t know. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
70 

Mr. DAVIS. But ultimately, you did make a motion that night, 

and there was a vote on it, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. HOYER. Immediately, yes. I don’t know whether immediately, 

but very, very soon, I then made the motion to reconsider. 

Mr. DAVIS. If I could just finish out this line of questions before 

I yield my time, Mr. Chairman. What did the Republicans do as 

that motion to reconsider was being voted on? 

Mr. HOYER. Most of them left the Chamber. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you remember what Mr. Boehner did? 

Mr. HOYER. I don’t. 

Mr. DAVIS. If I represent to you rather than cast a vote on the 

motion to reconsider that supposedly he had attempted to make, 

that he left the Chamber too, would you disagree with that? 

Mr. HOYER. No, I wouldn’t disagree with it because I was not 

looking at Mr. Boehner or, frankly, behind me at that point in 

time. I was facing the Chair. When the Republicans started to walk 

out, I did look around and watch them march out. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just end with one observation and ask if you 

agree with it. After Mr. McNulty makes what he acknowledges is 

an error, whether you believe it is an error or not, he acknowledges 

it was an error, there were several procedural options that were 

available that would have had the effect of creating another vote 

or setting aside the vote. You, at the risk of losing the vote and 

vote those options, even though, frankly, you didn’t know that 

night how many Democratic Members even remained, did you? 

Mr. HOYER. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. If there had been a revote that night, there was a 

very real risk that the Democratic side, if you will, would have lost. 

Is that right? 

Mr. HOYER. There was certainly a risk. 

Mr. DAVIS. Despite that risk, you attempted to reopen or create 

another vote, and you took on that risk yourself, didn’t you? 

Mr. HOYER. I did. I thought that it was important to correct— 

the mistake that Mr. McNulty made was a mistake not of animus 

or intent, but of timing. The Diaz-Balart vote, he thought—I don’t 

know what he said, but my perception is he thought it had been 

cast. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Hoyer, one final question, if you would give me 

a brief answer. Can you give me any explanation of why the Minority would have, instead of just letting the vote be set aside and 

have another vote that night, can you give me any explanation of 

why they would in effect decline those options and come out and 

ask for an investigation that has lasted 9 months and has cost half 

a million dollars? 

Mr. HOYER. I don’t have the answer to that question. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you suspect it is politics? 

Mr. HOYER. There is no doubt in my mind it is politics. I think, 

frankly, the Minority party was very badly stung by keeping the 

floor open for 3 hours on a vote. No slip was ever passed up; apparently never asked for. For an hour and 45 minutes the Democratic 

side was prevailing on the issue. A vote was never taken by the 

Speaker. My own view is the Speaker was acting within the rules. 

But I think it was an abuse of power, as I have said in my previous 

comments. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
71 

I think that the Republicans were upset. It is tough being in the 

Minority, particularly in the House of Representatives, which, unlike the Senate, has a Rules Committee and can put pretty tight 

controls on the Minority, and is frustrating. Having served in the 

Minority for 12 years, I can feel their pain, if you will. I don’t say 

that in any way as mocking. I really do. It is a frustrating situation. I think they were frustrated that night. I think the bill was 

not itself controversial. But this was, as I said earlier, a political 

effort to put some of our Members in a position of voting against 

something they otherwise would have been for solely because they 

didn’t want to kill the Agriculture appropriation bill. 

So my speculation is that when that occurred, they got angry and 

they decided to pursue this matter. I was the one who made the 

decision not to table the motion to have this investigation, because 

in my opinion—or panel—because, in my opinion, what was done 

was proper, and looking at it to the extent that it cleared up this 

matter was not a problem. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to recognize Mr. Pence at this point 

in time. Without objection, the Chair will grant the Minority an additional 4 minutes since the Majority went past the 30-minute 

limit. 

Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

I want to thank the distinguished Majority Leader for appearing 

before our Select Committee today. I also want to thank you for 

your cooperation from August 3 forward. I sense in your testimony 

today a questioning of our motives, about politics being our motivating factor, but let me take this opportunity to thank you for not 

moving to table the resolution creating this Select Committee, 

thank you for supporting efforts to properly fund this Committee 

so that we could do more than 20 interviews, review thousands of 

documents, and pay the kind of careful attention to the integrity 

of the vote on the floor of the House of Representatives that I think 

all of us that care about the institution want to preserve. 

I also want to thank you for your candor both in your previous 

interview with the Select Committee and your candor again today. 

I think you know that in our nearly 8 years of service together, 

that I see you, our political differences notwithstanding, I see you 

as a man deeply committed to both the principles you have come 

to Washington to advance, as well as the institution. 

Mr. HOYER. Thank you. 

Mr. PENCE. And I welcome you. 

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PENCE. I am going to ask you just a couple of questions, Mr. 

Leader, and then I am going to yield the balance of our time to—— 

Mr. HOYER. The hardworking Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you so much. 

Mr. PENCE. During your interview—— 

Mr. HOYER. Talking about my initial appearance? 

Mr. PENCE. Your initial appearance before the Select Committee, 

which took place on April 16, 2008, you were very candid about acknowledging that after Speaker Pelosi cast her vote, and I expect 

Mr. LaTourette will take us all through the video one more time. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
72 

Mr. HOYER. Look forward to it. 

Mr. PENCE. You were very candid in acknowledging after Speaker Pelosi cast her vote in making the total 214–214, you said towards the Chair, in a voice, as you reiterated this afternoon, loudly 

enough, to use your phrase, loudly enough to be heard, you said it 

a couple of times, was your testimony moments ago, words to the 

effect of, ‘‘Close it down.’’ You said today you—— 

Mr. HOYER. Shut it down or close it down, one of the two 

phrases. 

Mr. PENCE. Time to shut it down. 

Mr. HOYER. My intent was, I think, clear. 

Mr. PENCE. You communicated that toward the Chair. 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me support your testimony by saying that by our 

recollection, fully a half a dozen officers of the House working at 

the rostrum recall hearing you communicate words to that effect. 

Mr. HOYER. They recall accurately. 

Mr. PENCE. You also stated that you had a conversation with 

Catlin O’Neill, an employee of the Speaker of the House, not an 

employee of yours. 

Mr. HOYER. Works for the Speaker. 

Mr. PENCE. You had a conversation with Catlin O’Neill shortly 

thereafter in which you were, and I am quoting you now, ‘‘Clearly 

saying to Catlin that we need to shut down the vote when we are 

prevailing.’’ Is that still your recollection? 

Mr. HOYER. Essentially, yes. The only thing, I want to make it 

clear that my communication not directly to the Speaker, but I 

think the presiding officer could hear me, was that I was cognizant 

of the rule and I was cognizant of the fact of whether anybody was 

in the well. But when those two circumstances were met, there is 

no doubt I wanted the vote concluded within the rules when we 

were prevailing. 

Mr. PENCE. Understood. Thank you. 

Mr. McNulty has testified before this panel once in deposition 

and once earlier today. He reiterated today again, and I will paraphrase with leave of my colleagues, and be happy to be corrected 

in a subsequent record, but he, in effect, has testified consistently 

that while he was aware of your presence, he was aware of conversations that you had with particularly the Parliamentarian that 

had been reported widely. That he was not aware of your desire 

that the vote be closed, and let me quote from his interview. He 

said, ‘‘No one instructed me to call the vote at any time that night, 

I recognize. I will be perfectly honest with you. Earlier on I was 

hoping to get some direction, but it never came. So I used my own 

judgment at the time.’’ That is on page 23 and 24 of the April 9 

interview with Mr. McNulty. 

Would that come as a surprise to you, Mr. Hoyer, that Mr. 

McNulty at no time during the course of the vote was ever aware 

of your express intention that the vote be closed? 

Mr. HOYER. Surprise? Disappointment. But I don’t know surprise. As I think it has been referenced it was at that point in time 

pretty loud in the Chamber, a lot of moving around on both sides 

of the aisle, a lot of people urging action to be taken at one time 

or another, so that I certainly wouldn’t dispute Mr. McNulty in his 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
73 

assertion. I don’t know what he saw or heard. All I can say is what 

I saw. 

Mr. PENCE. Your testimony is you, at a minimum, would have 

been disappointed. 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Pence, if I can, in reading, in hearing of some 

of the testimony, apparently there was some testimony from the 

Parliamentarian about the Republican side of the aisle, and of 

course, Mr. Blunt indicated for 4 years it was his role to determine 

when the vote should quit, as he said; end. I accept that. Whether 

it is conveyed by, time to do it, or shaking of the head affirmatively 

its time to shut it down, or a sign, sort of let’s cut it off. A lot of 

staff give that to me when I am speaking. I did not use hand signals. I was trying to communicate. Now whether Mr. McNulty 

heard it or not, I don’t know. 

Mr. PENCE. I expect this will come up in further conversations 

before the panel today, but in reviewing Catlin O’Neill’s testimony, 

she also did not recall receiving any direction, instruction from you, 

relative to when the vote would be closed. Would that surprise you? 

Mr. HOYER. No. As I said in my deposition, it would not surprise 

me that she said she didn’t receive instructions from me. After all, 

I am not in a position to instruct Ms. O’Neill. Ms. O’Neill is the 

Speaker’s staffer, very competent. Her grandfather, obviously a 

former Speaker of the House. But we did have a conversation. It 

was not a long conversation. She may have—she stands pretty 

much down between where I was standing. If you go up the stairs, 

you are going to pass her because she stands pretty much down at 

the bottom left as you are looking at the rostrum. As I went by, 

I am sure I conveyed to her that I wanted it shut down. Whether 

or not she believed that was direction or not, I don’t think I have 

the authority to direct her. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HOYER. I think she knew my sentiment. 

Mr. PENCE. I would be pleased to yield. 

The CHAIRMAN. We continue to use the term conversation. By 

agreement between the Majority and the Minority, we have requested that the staff examine on the video the duration of what 

would appear to be verbal exchanges between parties. I guess my 

question would be: Do you remember at the time that Mr. Pence 

is referring to—— 

Mr. HOYER. A conversation? 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember saying something to her, and 

if you did, do you remember any response from Ms. O’Neill? 

Mr. HOYER. I think it was more an observation as I was going 

by. I am certain I didn’t have a conversation, but I well could have 

said I want this shut down, it ought to be shut down. Again, I want 

to reiterate—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Not to interrupt, but to interrupt, you are using 

the term as you were going by. I think it is important to not fall 

into the belief that these were extended conversations whereby you 

and her or any other individual took time to discuss tactics or 

strategy or what should occur next. 

Mr. HOYER. I want to be candid with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are asking for that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
74 

Mr. HOYER. My expression that it ought to be shut down was not 

to a limited audience. That was my belief. It remains my belief. 

And I conveyed that. Catlin was in the vicinity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Others have noted that your expression conveyed 

that with clarity. 

Mr. HOYER. With clarity. I thought it was very clear. 

Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. One more question and then I am going to yield to Mr. LaTourette. 

Let me return. I don’t know that you had the opportunity to answer my question before the chairman interjected, and I would 

clarify that even from her interview she indicated that she did not 

recall receiving even a signal from you, whether it be signal, instruction, a directive, a word about closing the vote. 

Would it surprise you that Catlin O’Neill testified that she received no direction from you to close the vote? 

Mr. HOYER. Well, I think I did not give her direction. If anything, 

I was directing direction, desire to the presiding officer. I don’t 

need to go through Catlin O’Neill, with all due respect to Catlin, 

she’s wonderful, but I don’t need to go through her. The Majority 

Leader, I think, not only has the right but responsibility to communicate, as Mr. Blunt said he did for 4 years, and as Mr. DeLay did 

before him, that based upon our responsibilities to our party and 

to the propositions we want to see prevail or fail, to try to manage 

those efforts. 

Again, I stress within the rules in a manner that we are successful. I think that is my responsibility. But I can understand because 

I don’t think I gave her direction. I think she is probably accurate 

in that. 

Mr. PENCE. For the record, she also indicated you never signaled 

her to close the vote. 

Mr. HOYER. I didn’t signal anybody. I was articulate or lacking 

in articulateness. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me say, I think on behalf of the Minority of this 

Committee, Mr. Leader, that we do believe, as Mr. Davis used the 

term earlier, that it is perfectly commonplace for Members of the 

leadership in the Majority to indicate a preference about when 

votes should be closed, and appreciate very much your candor before this Committee about your repeated and, to use your phrase, 

loudly enough communications toward the Chair to make your intentions clear. 

Let me ask one more question. The videotape on the vote shows 

a fairly heated exchange. We have spoken with you about this on 

the record in the past, and I would say for the record today, I have 

appreciated your humility and regret about that moment, and it is 

not my purpose to be judgmental about that evening from an emotional standpoint. 

Mr. HOYER. I am judgmental about my own conduct. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me say, we know the heated exchange to which 

we are referring with Mr. Sullivan on the rostrum, the uncontroverted statement you made to him, was, ‘‘We control this House, 

not the Parliamentarian.’’ Specifically on that issue is it fair to say 

that that exchange was in close proximity to Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. HOYER. Certainly in close proximity. As I explained, we all 

know where the Parliamentarian sits. Mr. Sullivan was not seated, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
75 

he was standing, because he was not acting as the Parliamentarian, Mr. Lauer was at that point in time. He is the Parliamentarian. Mr. Lauer is an assistant Parliamentarian or deputy—assistant Parliamentarian, I guess. 

The conversation clearly occurred—I want to withdraw that. It 

was not a conversation. Mr. Sullivan may have responded, but I 

don’t think so. It was a one-way assertion, me to him, that the Parliamentarian does not run the House, we do. By that, I meant the 

Majority party, and the Speaker. I believe that then, I believe it 

now, and I believe to have it otherwise would not be in the interest 

of the House of Representatives or our democracy. But it was not 

a conversation, it was a one-way assertion, and we all looked at the 

tape, it was relatively brief; I was there a matter of seconds, made 

my point. I was angry. 

This is not a confessional, as it was referred to earlier in the 

paper today, but it is, as I have told you, had I been calmer and 

cooler, I think I would have been less loud in my representation of 

what I believed to be the fact as it relates to the relationship between the parliamentarian and the Speaker. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Leader. I will yield, Mr. Chairman, to 

Mr. LaTourette for the balance of our time and have a few followup questions in our next round. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Leader, welcome. As you know from our 

interview, I am not a nitpicker. We are going to just move through 

some details. I hadn’t thought I needed to ask some of these questions, but a couple of things during Mr. Davis, and I love Mr. 

Davis, he is a great questioner, but he asked some things that I 

don’t want you to be mistaken, and the one was we have stipulated 

that there were a number of 2-minute votes on amendments to the 

Ag approps bill before we got to this moment in time. That is not 

a static number. It went from anywhere from 422 members voting 

to 431. 

Mr. HOYER. What I was referring to, on each of the votes on the 

motion to recommit there were 428 votes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is correct. I thought I heard you say there 

was always 428 Members in the Chamber. 

Mr. HOYER. On those three votes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Second of all, this whole notion of promptly 

versus—— 

Mr. HOYER. Actually, four votes. 214s twice, 215, 213 referenced 

on the board, which was never called, and then the final vote. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. In reference, just this whole business 

about the education of the C–SPAN community on what a motion 

to recommit is, you are not indicating in the 12 years that the 

Democratic party was in the Minority in this House you didn’t craft 

a motion to recommit to sort of put members of the Majority party 

in a difficult situation through those votes, are you? 

Mr. HOYER. We did. As a matter of fact, we offered in the 12 

years almost exactly the same number that you have offered in 15 

months. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, we are professional writers. Let me ask 

you this too; when Mr. Gephardt was the Minority Leader—— 

Mr. HOYER. In the eye of the beholder. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
76 

Mr. LATOURETTE. When Mr. Gephardt was the Minority Leader, 

do you recall walking out of the Chamber en masse with your colleagues because you were disgruntled over something that had occurred and you were aggrieved by the Majority at the time? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes, I do. I remember thinking to myself at the time: 

This is silly. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you regret it now, Mr. Hoyer. 

Mr. HOYER. I don’t know whether I regret it, but I thought it was 

silly then and didn’t make much of a point with the public. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Lastly, this business about the Ag approps bill 

being delayed. This vote occurred on August 2nd. The Ag approps 

bill didn’t pass in its final form through the House until December 

19 as part of an appropriations omnibus bill. And so it didn’t pass 

in August because we weren’t here, it didn’t pass in September, it 

didn’t pass in October, it didn’t pass in November. So this delay of 

30 days or so really wasn’t the lynchpin that—it certainly didn’t 

kill the bill. I grant you that they would have had to have brought 

it back after we got back. But nobody seemed to be in any big rush. 

Then Mr. Pence’s observation—— 

Mr. HOYER. May I comment on that? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Of course you can. Sure. 

Mr. HOYER. Thank you. You are absolutely correct that the bill 

didn’t pass until later in the year in December, I suppose it was. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. 19th. 

Mr. HOYER. However, I believed it important and we believed it 

important to get it to the Senate because, of course, the fiscal year 

ends on September 30, and as you know, the House last year 

passed every one of its appropriation bills on or before August 2. 

We thought it was important to do that to get those bills to the 

Senate so they could consider them. Unfortunately, as you know, 

that did not occur, and therefore we had a very late passage ultimately of all the bills. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, and you are now experiencing—we used 

to have an expression when we were in the Majority that the 

Democrats are our opponents but the Senate is our enemy, and you 

are now discovering, in fact, they don’t always move according to 

the calendar you would wish. 

Mr. HOYER. We have found agreement. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Two other things. I think Mr. Pence asked you 

about whether or not you would be surprised that Mr. McNulty 

didn’t hear. If I could have the picture of the Chamber, the rostrum 

put up. I think that that question was generated by the fact that 

six other people heard you, who were on the rostrum, and including—you are familiar with Mary Kevin Niland, who is the Reading 

Clerk. You know who she is. 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Would you agree with me she is the woman in 

yellow? 

Mr. HOYER. I would. She lives in my district. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mary Kevin Niland was able to hear your attempt to communicate with the Chair. I think that is where the 

question came from. Not saying that Mr. McNulty did anything 

wrong. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
77 

I want to go to the first call of the vote. Could somebody give the 

distinguished Majority Leader this color-coded thing. Since we saw 

you last, we have made some improvements in the videotape so we 

don’t have to rely on eyesight. If you look on the back, there is a 

color coding and we have put halos around people. And you will be 

honored to know that you are a red halo and Catlin O’Neill is an 

orange one. That should help you sort of navigate what I am going 

to ask you to watch. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield for a moment. I am 

going to ask that the volume be turned up so that we all have a 

better perception or comprehension of the noise level that existed 

at the time. I understand that there was an enhancement done of 

the comments by Mr. Hoyer to Mr. Sullivan. But I do think it is 

important that we hear the noise, the din, if you will, that some 

described as deafening. I think that was Mr. Hanrahan’s testimony, in the Chamber at the time. So, Hugh, if you would ratchet 

up the volume. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank the gentleman. 

We are going to roll chapter seven, please, with volume—— 

Mr. HOYER. When you say chapter seven. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. It is to get him to the right place. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Stop it there, please. I have indicated that before this moment in time, which is 22:49:48.10, it appears that the 

orange and the red circles are pretty close to each other, as they 

have become concentric circles, and that is you and Catlin O’Neill, 

just for reference. 

Carry on. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. HOYER. The green is Mr. Blunt? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. The green is Mr. Sullivan. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. Let me know if you disagree, but what it appeared occurred was that you and Ms. O’Neill 

came to within close proximity, and you know whether you had a 

conversation or not, and I will ask you about that in a minute. She 

then departed that space where you are located and engaged Mr. 

McNulty in something. Mr. McNulty leans over. And then the 

Speaker’s vote is read. 

Mr. HOYER. Can I make—— 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me finish this statement. Mr. McNulty 

calls it 214–214 after the Speaker’s vote is announced. What would 

you like to say? 

Mr. HOYER. I couldn’t tell. Maybe Catlin has testified to that, Ms. 

O’Neill has testified to that. I couldn’t tell where she was facing. 

We came together for obviously a second or two, as I said, testified 

earlier. Now whether or not she then went and spoke to Mr. 

McNulty, I don’t know. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And we will get that from other people. 

But does that look like the time when you might have been saying 

to her what you have said before, and that is, When we are ahead, 

we need to get out of this thing. Would that have been the likely 

moment in time? 

Mr. HOYER. Could have been. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
78 

Mr. LATOURETTE. In fact, Mr. McNulty brings down the gavel, 

calls it 214–214 after the Speaker’s vote is announced, and your observations, and I think you are exactly right, that that was perfectly within Mr. McNulty’s right to do, in that all votes had been 

recorded and announced and there appeared to be no one in the 

well attempting to change their vote. 

Mr. HOYER. Right. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. McNulty did not complete the vote at that 

moment in time. You agree with that. 

Mr. HOYER. I agree that he did not say the magic words. I don’t, 

by the way, adopt the premise of the magic words. They are useful 

to have words that we all understand triggers a reaction, but I 

don’t think there are any magic words. The rules don’t have magic 

words, I don’t think. 

But what you notice is that immediately upon his announcing 

the 214–214, the vote screen disappears. Now I am not sure who 

makes that determination. But somebody obviously made a determination. They thought at that point in time, the vote was concluded. Absent the magic words, they drew that conclusion themselves. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. But let me ask you this. Do you think that the 

vote was over at that moment in time? 

Mr. HOYER. I don’t think he articulated clearly enough that the 

vote was concluded, and therefore—and he obviously believed that 

as well because he allowed the vote to then continue. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Which was within his province as the presiding officer. 

Mr. HOYER. Absolutely. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. When we talked to you before, one of the 

things that apparently got your blood pressure going was you believed that at this moment in time the parliamentarian had 

stopped Mr. McNulty from completing the vote. 

Mr. HOYER. That was my perception. I don’t know that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. If I told you that Mr. McNulty said that didn’t 

happen and the parliamentarians will testify later and say that 

didn’t happen, and your perception was wrong, is that surprising 

to you? 

Mr. HOYER. No. If they said that didn’t happen, then I was incorrect. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You were incorrect. 

Mr. HOYER. But I was not incorrect that that was my perception. 

The reason—that was my motivation for reaction. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I know that. That is what you said. But Mr. 

McNulty actually indicated that he stopped because he heard people yelling, One more, and he believed that other people wanted to 

cast ballots, which would be an appropriate response by the presiding officer if that is what he or she believed. 

We then go to the second vote, the second call of the Chair by 

Mr. McNulty. He calls it 214–214, and I understand you disagree 

with me on the magic words, but he does say, And the motion is 

not agreed to. He is in error at that moment in time because although the three Floridians have turned in their well cards, the 

seated Tally Clerk is still entering Mr. Diaz-Balart’s well card and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
79 

the uptick that occurs a minute later is what really makes it 215– 

213. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. There are some choices here and all the 

choices go the way we sort of talked about. One is the Chair would 

have been within his rights to say, Oh, I made a mistake. He could 

have demanded a tally slip to be brought up to him that said, 215– 

213, the motion carries. Is that correct? 

Mr. HOYER. I think he could have. Those are options available, 

I presume. Not presume, I believe those options were available to 

the Speaker. However, my view would be he never called the vote 

at 215–213. He never articulated a 215–213 count. He realized his 

articulation of 214–214 was in error and he subsequently indicated 

he called the vote prematurely. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. 

Mr. HOYER. But that is not unusual, because Speakers do this 

on a regular basis, in light of that, his determination was to continue the vote to assure that all Members who wanted to change 

their vote were given that opportunity and were counted. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Almost. We will get to that in just a second. 

Relative to the rights that you would have had as a member as the 

Majority party, if Mr. McNulty had demanded a slip be sent up to 

him, 215–213, which was within his rights and certainly would 

have comported with the rules and would have reflected what the 

vote actually was at this moment in time, any one of the 19 Democrats who had voted on the prevailing side could have made the 

motion to reconsider and we would have had the revote. Is that not 

a correct statement of the rules of the House? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Now we get to this sort of nagging and troublesome—let me just go to this motion to reconsider because this is 

troubling me a little bit. It has sort of been presented—and you 

were very magnanimous and I think you deserve a lot of credit as 

the Majority Leader for recognizing a serious wrong had been committed and going to attempt to rectify it. The problem that I have 

is that all of your attempts to rectify had you guys winning. By 

that, I mean, a do-over, a motion to reconsider quite frankly is like 

playing a football game over. Every vote is different. There is a dynamic. The floor is like a living creature. You are trying to get your 

guys to vote some way, we are trying to get our guys to vote. There 

is a lot of pressure that builds towards the banging of the gavel. 

A motion to reconsider, I mean, unless all your guys went out for 

pizza, you are always going to win the motion to reconsider because 

there is more of you. And as a matter of fact, the way you got from 

215–213 to 212–216 is three people did that walk of shame, 

Gillibrand, Space and McNerney. They went down and said, It’s 

going to be tough, I am having to have to explain to the Chillicothe 

Gazette why I think illegals should have food stamps. But I am a 

party guy. So I don’t think—— 

Mr. HOYER. The three previous people who did that, Ms. RosLehtinen, Mr. Balart, and Mr. Balart will all have to go home and 

explain why for 15 minutes, for 16 minutes and 30 seconds, they 

believed that your motion was not a good motion. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
80 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Listen, I agree with you 100 percent. But that 

gets me to this new rule you all have put in place, clause 2(a) of 

Rule XX. 

Mr. HOYER. Oh, yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. In response to the horrendous Part D Medicare 

vote, which was held open for a very long, but as you indicated, 

didn’t violate the rules of the House. I think you might have 

misspoke because a tally slip was handed up, but it was handed 

up after 3 hours. A tally slip actually concluded that vote. 

Mr. HOYER. Can I comment? What I said was we weren’t ahead 

for 1 hour and 45 minutes. At no time then was the tally slip asked 

for or handed up. The reason it wasn’t is because Mr. DeLay wanted to wait until you had the votes. As soon as you had the votes, 

the vote came quickly to a close. I think you were within the rules. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I do too. I guess that leads me to implicit in 

that answer is, and I believe Representative Hastings of Washington was in the chair during that extended period of time, is it 

your belief that Representative Hastings of Washington as the 

Speaker pro tempore at any time during that 3 hours could have 

demanded of the Tally Clerk and the Parliamentarian he be provided with a tally slip that indicated that you had prevailed? 

Mr. HOYER. It is my position that at any time during that period 

of time Mr. Hastings has the authority to gavel the vote to a close 

and announce the vote from the board. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Perfect. 

Mr. HOYER. At no time in the 27 years that I have served, have 

I ever heard of the board being at variance with the tally sheet. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. I heard you say that. And just because 

you told us that before and I just wanted to indicate because I 

thought you made a great point when we were interviewing you— 

that I have seen it too. The standing Tally Clerk will look at the 

board and write the numbers down on the pad from the board. 

We had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Hanrahan today, and he 

indicates while that is right, that is so that the standing Tally 

Clerk can sort of make sure the well is static, you don’t have more 

people running up there, but he only writes those numbers down 

after he has received confirmation from his partner that no more 

votes are in. 

So it is not a matter of as Mr. McNulty did. So that is why you 

have never gotten an uptick, because they don’t begin to write 

those numbers down until the system is closed. 

Mr. HOYER. I don’t want to quibble with Mr. Hanrahan. If that 

is what he says he does, he does. But my perception, and this happened last week, and I looked very carefully, Mr. Hanrahan with 

pad in hand looked at the board, wrote the number down, turned 

and gave to the Parliamentarian, who was advising the Speaker. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think he would agree with you, but he would 

also indicate there is a step in there where the seated Tally Clerk 

says, System closed, no more votes. Which is different than what 

happened August 2. 

When we chatted with you earlier, on page 28 of your interview 

we were probing this 2(a) business, and the ability of the Speaker, 

and I think indicated to you our dissatisfaction, and I think from 

your comments your dissatisfaction with 2(a) is you almost have to 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
81 

crawl in the head of the guy or the gal that is in the Chair. The 

only way that there can be an actionable violation of clause 2(a) is 

if the person in the Chair says, ‘‘You’re right, I did it, and I don’t 

care.’’ Right? 

Mr. HOYER. My view is that 2(a) is not enforceable, and frankly, 

I would not be unhappy if this Committee recommended, because 

it’s unenforceable, that we delete it. Both sides do it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Pursuant to the vast authority that is given to 

the presiding officer, I asked you on page 28, ‘‘Mr. McNulty testified to us that it was his judgment that to keep the vote open after 

Mario Diaz-Balart’s well card was entered would have been violative of rule 2(a), and he intended to close the vote after Mario DiazBalart’s vote was entered. 

If that is Mr. McNulty’s position, which he has reinforced here 

today, that as the Presiding Officer that you say is invested with 

the authority to close the vote, if that was the testimony, that the 

vote in his mind was closed when he said 214–214 because he mistakenly believed the Mario Diaz-Balart card was in, and the motion 

is not agreed to, I asked you would you dispute his authority to do 

that. You said no. Do you have any different answer today? 

Mr. HOYER. No. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. It is your belief that the Presiding Officer is 

the sole interpreter of 2(a), as bad as it may be? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Davis asked you about 9 months and half 

a million dollars and the fact that this is just political. I think as 

somebody who has worked hard on this Committee, I find that a 

little offensive. We know that Mr. Boehner’s card was never counted. Having listened to a lot of people give speeches about every 

vote counts and every vote should be counted, and one of my colleagues contesting the second election of President George W. Bush 

based upon the fact 125,000 votes in Ohio wasn’t enough, this, 

whether mistake, accident, anything else, disenfranchised 630,000 

people who didn’t have the opportunity to have their vote recorded 

the way that he intended on that evening, for whatever reason he 

chose to do it. Right? 

Mr. HOYER. Can I respond to that? I absolutely agree with you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I know you do. 

Mr. HOYER. But I want to go a little further. Somebody, not a 

Member, made a determination not to count that vote. My anger 

that you saw displayed was exactly along that point. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I know that. 

Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. Davis, do you have any follow-up questions? 

Mr. DAVIS. A little bit, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hoyer, let me pick up on that last point because, again, all 

this procedural talk can sound confusing to people, including Mr. 

Boehner’s constituents, perhaps. Mr. Boehner initially voted for the 

motion to recommit, is that right? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. When the well card that we have been talking about 

wasn’t processed, and let’s make sure we are clear about something, he was trying to change his vote against the motion to reVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:31 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 044139 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A139.XXX A139

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
82 

commit. Now let’s forget the procedural effect of that, but that is 

what he was trying to do. He was going from saying, I feel so 

strongly about the illegals that I think we need to put a redundant 

proposition in there to keep them from getting benefits, to Whoops, 

so I can make a procedural move on the floor of the House. Now 

I am going to change it and say the opposite of what I said earlier. 

This whole question of how his constituents felt about the issue 

and whether his constituents would have been disenfranchised, I 

just want to make sure they characterize what his vote would have 

been. 

Let me move on to one last set of questions here. 

Mr. HOYER. Can I say something? In fairness though, Mr. 

Boehner cast his vote for procedural reasons, not substantive reasons that way. He tried to change his vote, and I understand that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now the picture that I think some people may have, 

Mr. Hoyer, listening to the testimony today, may be a picture that 

there is a point when you are walking around loudly and obviously 

say, Close the vote, End the vote, and that basically anybody with 

an eardrum that night would have heard you. That is kind of the 

picture we have. So I want to play a critical portion of this tape 

and ask you a few questions about it. I represent to you that a time 

line prepared by the staff says that at 10:47 Mr. McNulty says, 

Two minutes. Members have 2 minutes in which to vote on the motion to recommit. 

So I am going to make an assumption that is plausible, that 

there are roughly 2 minutes left on the board, maybe a little bit 

less, maybe a little bit more. So I am going to ask that we go to 

22:49, and I want to ask that the volume be turned up frankly as 

high as we can turn it up and I want you to just watch from 22:49 

until I tell him to stop. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you see yourself, Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. HOYER. Standing there in the orange. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are in the red. 

Mr. DAVIS. Can you spot yourself, Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. HOYER. Not yet. 

Mr. DAVIS. The circle will come into view when you come into 

view. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you see yourself now, Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s stop at this point. 22:49. Approximately 33 seconds before you even come into view. Do you agree with that? Another 33 seconds lapses before you even come into view at this 

point. 

Mr. HOYER. I am in view now. 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. I am just asking if I counted right. 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Keep playing here. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Hoyer, I never heard you. Did you hear yourself 

during this stretch we just watched? 

Mr. HOYER. No. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
83 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Hoyer, I never saw you walk toward the rostrum 

and approach Mr. McNulty. Did you see yourself walk toward the 

rostrum and approach Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. HOYER. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. This was turned up the highest volume we can possibly turn it. I never heard your voice. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. HOYER. I agree with that. 

Mr. DAVIS. The reason that stretch is critical is that is the 

stretch before Mr. McNulty makes his first calling of the vote. 

Now continue to play, if you would, sir. 

[Playing video.] 

Mr. DAVIS. We may turn it down a little bit. Keep it playing, 

though. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Stop. 

Mr. Hoyer, do you see yourself at that point? Do you see yourself 

go up there and quickly walk away? 

Mr. HOYER. I missed that. 

Mr. DAVIS. If you would just do that again. 

Mr. HOYER. Oh, to Mr. Sullivan? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. HOYER. I don’t see it right now. But I was there. 

Mr. DAVIS. Please restart. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Stop. 

Mr. HOYER. As you can see, it was not a conversation. 

Mr. DAVIS. I did hear you then, and I heard you say something 

to the effect, We control this House. I did not hear you say, Call 

the vote. Did you hear yourself say call the vote? 

Mr. HOYER. I did not say that. 

Mr. DAVIS. I don’t see you turn toward Mr. McNulty and give 

him any instructions. 

Mr. HOYER. I was not focused on Mr. McNulty, nor did I turn to 

him, nor did I say anything to him. 

Mr. DAVIS. So, if I can simply end, Mr. Hoyer, by making this 

observation, I understand that there may have been a point that 

night when you, with some level of vigor, communicated that the 

vote should be called. 

What I will represent to you and everyone in this room is that, 

if you look at the tape, it is very clear that in the minutes prior 

to both of the vote callings by McNulty, you don’t hear you a single 

time. 

And I will yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I will yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple more 

questions for the leader. And I want to repeat my gratitude for his 

public-mindedness and cooperation over the course of the past 8 

months. 

I am not entirely sure where Mr. Davis was going with that line 

of questioning. 

Can I just ask you one more time—you said—— 

Mr. DAVIS. You can ask Mr. Davis if you would like. 

Mr. PENCE. In your testimony here today, you communicated 

that it was, quote, ‘‘time to shut it down.’’ You said it, quote, ‘‘a 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
84 

couple of times.’’ You said it, quote, ‘‘loudly enough to be heard.’’ 

You said it, quote, ‘‘toward the Chair.’’ 

Is that still your testimony? 

Mr. HOYER. That is still my testimony. But in listening to the 

tape, there was so much noise that perhaps I need to go to hand 

signals. I say that not facetiously. 

If this hearing is about whether I tried to convey to the Speaker 

that I thought the vote ought to be concluded, we needed no hearing. I tried to convey that to the presiding officer. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me ask, were you close enough to Catlin O’Neill 

to be heard? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. PENCE. By her? 

Mr. HOYER. I am sure. I thought I was close enough to the 

Speaker to be heard, but he says he didn’t hear me. And when you 

listen to it—I had not listened to it that way—you can see how 

much noise was in the Chamber at that period of time. 

But I believe that everybody is telling the truth here. The problem is, we all see it a little differently from our vantage points. 

And, you know, I—— 

The Chairman. And predispositions. 

Mr. HOYER. Well, and predispositions. But my view is that if this 

hearing is about whether I wanted to convey something to the 

Speaker, there ought not to be a hearing, because I absolutely tried 

to do that. I believe I was within my responsibility, and I wanted 

to do it. 

And I wanted the vote shut down after the Speaker voted. There 

was nobody in the well. And consistent with the rules, as Mr. 

LaTourette has said, Mr. McNulty would have been within his 

rights to conclude the vote at that time. He didn’t, and we now 

have the issue of the 215–213. 

I thought that was a legitimate problem. I appreciate your comments about my taking that position that it needed to be corrected. 

Mr. PENCE. Well, respectfully to the Majority Leader, I would say 

what this hearing is about the fact that your testimony is that, as 

is the common practice of leadership throughout the years on the 

floor of the Congress, you repeatedly, and at one regrettable moment even angrily, conveyed your desire that the vote be closed. 

And the net effect of that was the vote was closed in a manner that 

ignored the longstanding practice of the House floor to allow the 

Clerk to complete a record vote. 

Let me slide to that question, if I can, and I would really like 

to get your sense of it. And then one more question after that, and 

I will yield to Mr. LaTourette and let the leader go about his business. 

We talked a lot about clause 2(a) of Rule XX. There is another 

piece of that that simply provides, quote, ‘‘The Clerk shall conduct 

a record vote by electronic device.’’ That is in the House rules. 

In your testimony—and forgive me for not having the page—but 

you referred to the Clerk and the Parliamentarian as ministerial 

officers. And I don’t take issue with that characterization. 

Mr. HOYER. I did. 

Mr. PENCE. But when you approached the Parliamentarian, frustrated as you were after the first call of 214–214 was stopped, you 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
85 

said and have confirmed you said angrily to the Parliamentarian, 

‘‘We control this House, not the Parliamentarian.’’ 

As recently as last week on the House floor, you, again, reiterated, in another controversy, a frustration over votes being changed 

and indicated to the Members gathered on the House floor that you 

thought it was within the purview of the Majority to close the vote. 

And I guess my specific question for our purposes, if I may—let 

me ask the question, and then you can comment however long you 

need to—do you believe the majority can close a vote with or without the assent of the Clerk of the House in, quote, ‘‘conducting a 

record vote’’? 

Mr. HOYER. Absolutely. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me ask—— 

Mr. HOYER. The rules says ‘‘conduct.’’ In my view—and I have 

reread the rules since Mr. Hulshof asked me the question while we 

were having the depositions. 

Conducting the vote, turning on the machine, making sure it is 

working properly, seeing the votes as they are cast either by voting 

card or by paper card, the green or red cards, is the ministerial 

duty of opening up the machines, making sure the levers work, 

things of that nature. But the conduct of the election, in the sense 

of when it starts, when it closes, and the ultimate determination 

of calling the vote, is the Speaker and the Speaker’s alone. It is not 

the decision of the Parliamentarian or the Clerk or any other of the 

ministerial officers. 

I believe that emphatically. And to believe otherwise, I think, undermines the democracy of the House of Representatives and turns 

it over to people who are not elected but who are critically important employees of the House in conducting our business, but they 

are not the decision-makers. 

Mr. PENCE. And I appreciate the clarity and consistency of your 

position. But I want to understand it, that your testimony is you 

believe the Majority can close a vote even without the assent of the 

Clerk of the House. 

If I may ask—— 

Mr. HOYER. Absolutely. 

Mr. PENCE. In plain English, who would count the vote? 

Mr. HOYER. You said close the vote without the assent of the 

Clerk. The assent implies that the presiding officer needs the approval or consent of the Clerk to close a vote. I absolutely reject 

that premise out of hand. The Speaker can close the vote within 

the rules—I keep stressing within the rules—at such time as the 

Speaker makes a determination to close the vote. 

The paper slip is not necessary. I asked this morning where this 

paper slip was. It does not exist. Why doesn’t it exist? Because it 

is thrown away as soon as it is done. Why? Because it is not the 

official record of anything. The official record is the tally sheet that 

is kept, which is a large document which is not passed to anybody. 

The slip is what Mr. Hanrahan or somebody else—he could make 

a mistake. But I have never seen, in 27 years, there be a discrepancy between the board and the machine. I don’t think there has 

been that I have ever heard of. 

In this instance—and this is all about a split instance where Mr. 

McNulty saw 214–214. Why did he see 214–214? Because the tally 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
86 

machine at that point in time, that second in time, had counted 

214–214. The problem that resulted was—and the confusion and 

the anger and the upset feelings, which I fully understand, resulted 

because a split-second—less than almost a second, almost contemporaneously with his seeing 214—we all believe Mike McNulty is 

one of the most honest, high-integrity, principled Members of this 

body. He saw 214. He reported 214–214. 

He made a mistake. He made a mistake not consciously, not intentionally, not in any way to skew the vote inaccurately, but because he did not know that Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart’s vote had not 

been computed. And it came up almost instantaneously. 

And, frankly, from my perspective, he did what a person of his 

integrity would do. He later announced that he had called it prematurely, and he was going to further allow people to either 

change or confirm their vote as they saw fit. 

Mr. PENCE. And I think, as the leader acknowledged today with 

the response, he could have—one of the options he could have done 

to remedy that would be to request a tally slip that reflect the moment that he spoke the words, ‘‘The motion is not agreed to.’’ And 

as Mr. LaTourette raised with you and you acknowledged with the 

words, he could have— 

Mr. HOYER. He could have done that. That is accurate, and I responded that. I think he could have done that. 

Mr. PENCE. And the Republican motion would have passed. 

Mr. HOYER. What he did was—and as Mr. LaTourette pointed 

out, one of our people could have moved to reconsider, so we could 

have been in the same position. 

But having said that, he could have done that. That was an option available to him. He was not compelled to do that. He took the 

alternative to assure that every Member was able to vote that 

wanted to either change their vote because he had called it prematurely at 214–214. 

215–213 never had magic words applied to it. Somebody not 

elected determined and pushed the button ‘‘final.’’ Somebody not 

elected determined at 214–214, the first time, to take the voting 

screen off the television. 

Neither compelled the Speaker to take action. That was a decision made in error, as it turns out, but not with any animus. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me—and I know this came up in our interview 

with you before. I think the Majority Leader would be aware, and 

we will likely hear it in testimony from the Parliamentarian momentarily, that there is no contemporary memory of the previous 

two Parliamentarians of any vote being closed without a tally slip 

until the night of August 2nd. 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Lauer, in his testimony before you, did indicate 

he thought there may have been one other instance. 

Mr. PENCE. Well, let me—— 

Mr. HOYER. I believe that is the case. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me just push away from the table for just a second and get to the issue of why that occurred in this instance and 

ask you—you made a comment that I thought was both admirable 

and candid during your interview. The chairman of the Committee 

began this hearing this morning speaking about the search for a 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
87 

culprit. Mr. LaTourette said that there may be several culprits, in 

this instance. 

One of them, I will grant, could be the confusion of the moment; 

disagreement about interpretations of the rules and traditions of 

the House. 

But another—and I say this with great respect—another theory 

is that the reason why Mr. McNulty abruptly closed the vote when 

the Clerk of the House was still counting the votes of Congressman 

Diaz-Balart was because of the possibility that your demeanor and 

your behavior, particularly in connection with the Parliamentarian, 

might have—and I will use the words that I used in our interview—may have, quote, ‘‘unintentionally created an environment of 

more pressure’’ on Mr. McNulty to close the vote. 

You responded, I thought, generously when I asked, ‘‘Do you 

have anywhere that maybe inadvertently you created an environment where he felt more pressure to drop the gavel than he would 

have otherwise?’’ Your response then was that was, quote, ‘‘certainly possible.’’ 

Mr. Leader, on reflection, do you believe that your behavior that 

night could have contributed to pressure on Mr. McNulty that resulted in the vote being called prematurely and at odds with the 

vote total that the tally clerk was preparing? 

Mr. HOYER. I think the answer to that is it could have, but I take 

Mr. McNulty at his word that it did not. 

Mr. DAVIS. I thank the leader and Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I see our time has expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. It has expired. If the gentleman from Ohio has 

a few—— 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I just have two questions, and one has two 

parts. And I will attempt to be very brief. 

The CHAIRMAN. Two parts and two different questions. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would ask for additional time, frankly, if you have 

that much. Because, honestly, the point I would make to the Chair 

is the leader has been here for a very long time, we have both gone 

over time, and I would ask that the witness be excused. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am going to extend to the gentleman from 

Ohio an additional 2 minutes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you so much for your courtesy, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. Leader, a couple of times, I have heard you reference testimony and what people have said to this Committee. Have you had 

the opportunity or your staff been afforded the opportunity to review the testimony that has come before this—— 

Mr. HOYER. I have seen some of the testimony, yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And here is the two-part question, and 

it deals with rules versus customs and traditions of the House. 

You have heard that the two Parliamentarians have indicated for 

40 years a vote has never been called with a tally slip. You correctly say that is not in the rules; that is not part of Rule XX. 

When I had the pleasure of presiding when we were in the Majority, there is a practice when the leader of either party or the 

Speaker of the House is recognized, he or she is usually yielded a 

minute, and they don’t seem to talk for a minute. No disrespect for 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
88 

you, but I have heard you talk longer than a minute when you 

have been yielded a minute. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you have been yielded 2 minutes, Mr. 

LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is right, and I have a 1:08 left, buddy. 

And I don’t find that anywhere in the rules. And would you agree 

with me, that is not a rule of the House? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. It is a custom practice, courtesy, that the person presiding is told to, if you—and, as a matter of fact, leaders of 

both sides are pretty good, because if the manager on the Republican side only has 2 minutes left, he knows that if he gives Mr. 

Boehner a minute, then Mr. Boehner could talk for 20 minutes. 

And the same courtesy is afforded to you and to Speaker Pelosi, 

right? 

Mr. HOYER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So that is a custom practice. I was just wondering what your reaction would be the next time you were yielded 

a minute and you exceed that minute, if someone were to object, 

make a point of order, do you think that would be appropriate? 

Mr. HOYER. No. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. 

Mr. HOYER. Can I comment on your observation? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. It is now up to the chairman. 

Mr. HOYER. I would like to comment on your observation. If Mr. 

Delahunt would prefer that I didn’t, because he wants end my testimony, I would understand that. 

I think the paper slip is a useful best practice to rely on. I reiterate that I do not believe it is necessary, nor do I believe it is 

more accurate than the board. I have never, in 27 years, found a 

distinction between the two. 

I believe this was not a question of the slip. Much has been made 

of the slip. The question is whether or not on the 215–213 it was 

a final vote. The Speaker never called 215–213 at any time during 

his presiding. He called a 214, a second 214, and a 212–216. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. 

Mr. HOYER. 215–213 was never called by the responsible authority to end the vote at that number. 

The slip is a useful, important device to confirm the vote. But I 

believe he was right each time that he called the vote at the instant he called it. 

As I have said, in the second 214, contemporaneously almost, the 

vote changed. He missed that. He made a mistake. He said that. 

We all acknowledge it. And I, therefore, tried to correct that mistake and did, in fact, correct that mistake, I thought, by either 

vacating the vote by unanimous consent or asking that it be redone 

to assure every Member the opportunity to vote as they saw fit. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. 

Mr. HOYER. Can I close by simply saying—— 

The CHAIRMAN. No, because I am going to ask unanimous consent to allow myself to have a minute and a half. 

And I am going to ask—I know, at one point in time, the ranking 

member at the beginning of a question made some assumptions 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
89 

that I believe were assumptions only and not supported by any 

facts. 

But I am going to ask the reporter if she could return to the final 

question or the next-to-final question by Mr. Pence and read it 

aloud, so that I can pursue that with Mr. Hoyer. 

[Reporter reads back as requested.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That will be fine. 

I don’t know if you are aware of the testimony this morning by 

Mr. McNulty or his interview before the Committee that was done 

in private, but let me represent to you that, if you intended to 

bring pressure, according to Mr. McNulty, he did not hear what 

you said. You were unsuccessful. 

Mr. HOYER. It is my understanding that he said he didn’t feel 

pressure. 

The CHAIRMAN. And there had been statements made that the 

vote was overturned due to pressure from the Democratic leadership. Would you care to comment on that? 

Mr. HOYER. Which vote, the 215–213? 

The CHAIRMAN. No. Well, the 215 to the 213, the 214 to the 214, 

the second one. 

Mr. HOYER. Well, the 214, of course, we wouldn’t want to overturn that because we would have prevailed on the proposition, because, in a tie, the proposition fails. 

On the 215–213, as I have reiterated on a number of occasions, 

Mr. McNulty never called that vote. Somebody, not an elected 

Member, decided to put up on the board that that was the final 

vote. They made the conclusion then, as did the person who has the 

vote screen up at the time of the vote at the end of the first 214– 

214 that the vote had concluded. 

Both were in error. That doesn’t mean that they were doing 

something wrong. They made a mistake. Mr. McNulty made a mistake, as he acknowledges, by calling the vote early. I don’t believe 

there is a culprit here, in the sense of culprits. I think a series—— 

The CHAIRMAN. To inform the leader, my reference in my opening remarks was that the culprit might be in the form of a wellintentioned rule that was in response to perceived abuses on other 

occasions. 

However, I concur at this juncture with both the leader and the 

gentleman from Ohio, in terms of the difficulty of enforcement and 

the practicality of the operation of that rule. And it might be very 

well a recommendation by this Select Committee to review that 

particular rule. 

Having said that, I thank the Majority Leader for his testimony, 

and we will see you on the floor later. 

Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, before you recess—I don’t need 

the leader for this. 

Thank you so much for your cooperation. 

Mr. HOYER. Thank you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I know you are going to take a little recess. 

Could I just ask before we reconvene, because there was one matter that came up in the leader’s testimony that I feel the need to 

discuss with the Members, not in an open session yet. And maybe 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
90 

we could take a 10-minute break, and, for 5 minutes, we all could 

just have a brief conversation. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Why don’t we reconvene at 4:05? And 

the members of the Office of the Parliamentarians can be seated 

at their seats. 

We will recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome, gentlemen. 

The crowd seems to be thinning. 

The Committee is now in order. 

I enjoy reading these biographies. It has all kinds of vital information, like the Parliamentarian was born in Chicago in 1952. I 

am saying that with a certain facetiousness, obviously. He resides 

in Virginia. He is the third of nine children of James Patrick Sullivan and Mary Claire Wiley. He attended the United States Air 

Force Academy and the Indiana University School of Law. He is a 

member of a variety of bar associations, including the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Armed Services. 

Mr. Sullivan was appointed as the Parliamentarian of the House 

in 2004 after having served as Deputy Parliamentarian and as Assistant Parliamentarian. Before joining the Office of the Parliamentarian, he served as a trial and appellate lawyer in the Air Force 

and as counsel to the House Armed Services Committee. 

Ethan Lauer is a native of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, and obtained 

his undergraduate degree from the University of Wisconsin. He 

later went on to study law at the University of Minnesota and was 

admitted to the Wisconsin Bar in 1999. 

He joined the Office of the Parliamentarian in 1999 and serves 

as Assistant Parliamentarian in the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Max Spitzer currently serves as Assistant Parliamentarian 

in the House of Representatives. Prior to joining the Office of the 

Parliamentarian in 2006, he studied law at Duke University and 

completed a clerkship in the State of Pennsylvania. 

As part of his studies, Mr. Spitzer served as research assistant 

and summer associate at law firms in the United States and 

abroad. He has written several academic works in the area of law 

and history. 

Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for your attendance here 

today to help us with our mandate. 

And let me begin by yielding the time to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis. 

Let me first inquire of the panel. Mr. Sullivan, do you, as the 

Parliamentarian, have a statement that you wish to make? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Fine. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me welcome all three of you. And let me begin, frankly, in 

the spirit with which we started today. 

One of the things that has been enhanced by the work the six 

of us have done on this Committee is our collective appreciation of 

what you gentlemen do. Frankly, a lot of us tend to lapse into the 

routine of seeing you all up there but not necessarily paying a 

whole lot of attention to what you do or, more importantly, fully 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
91 

appreciating what you do. And sometimes it takes an unexpected 

set of events like August 2, 2007, to crystallize the importance of 

the very excellent staff we have to the process. 

So I want to begin by thanking all three of you, and reiterating 

something that, frankly, may not be understood by the public, that 

the staff, the Parliamentarian, tally clerks, reading clerks don’t 

work for the Majority. They work for the House of Representatives. 

And all three of you have conducted yourselves that way when you 

work for a Congress that was run by Republicans and now that you 

work for a Congress run by Democrats. And I think all of my colleagues would share those sentiments. 

The way I intend to structure my questions today, Mr. Sullivan, 

I am going to use military rules and essentially speak to the commanding officer who is here, since you are the Chief Parliamentarian, and I am going to direct my questions at you. If Mr. Lauer 

or Mr. Spitzer want to jump in and interject observations, they are 

certainly free to do that. And I will give them a chance at the end 

to see if they wish to differ from your testimony in any way. 

But out of deference to you as the Chief Parliamentarian, I am 

going to direct my questions to you, sir, if that is appropriate. 

And you have to actually audibly answer. I have to get you in 

the habit of that for the record. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That would be fine. Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me begin by asking you about the issue that we 

have talked about all day long, and it is the question of a tally 

sheet. 

As you know from your deposition, as I think you know from becoming aware of the disputed facts in this case, there is an argument that has been made that a tally sheet is a standard custom 

and practice of calling a vote. You described it as the ultimate quality-assurance mechanism for determining the accuracy of a vote in 

your deposition. 

I want to ask you some questions about, frankly, Member awareness of these issues around tally sheets. 

It is my understanding as Parliamentarian that you sometimes 

have occasions to brief presiding officers and to have discussions 

with presiding officers about the nature of their duties. Am I right 

about that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Give me just an estimate in 2007 of how many presiding officers you sat down with and had some briefing with them 

about what it means to be a presiding officer. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would estimate maybe 50. 

Mr. DAVIS. Of that 50 Members, approximately how many did 

you discuss—with whom did you discuss a tally slip? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Probably none. 

Mr. DAVIS. Probably none. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The reasons—the briefings I am speaking of are 

mainly to orient the Member to the physical plants that they are 

going to be operating in and who is going to be there to assist them 

and the extent to which we will have prompts prepared for them 

in writing or rather using the mute button and prompting them 

verbally. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
92 

I usually will cover the very essential aspects of presiding officer 

practice: How to confer recognition and how to do so tentatively, 

and to discover for what purpose recognition is being sought before 

conferring it; the very narrow set of occasions in which the Chair 

takes initiative to enforce the rules of the House, rather than 

awaiting a point of order from the floor; the technique to use with 

the gavel to apprise a Member that her time has expired and bring 

her speech to a close—very essential things. 

I assure them that we will get as deep in the weeds with them 

as they like over time. And there will be object lessons as they 

wade in to the practice of presiding. 

But I don’t recall any occasion to get into the weeds of the tally 

slip and its role in the closing of a vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you remember a single one of the approximately 

50 Members with whom you have met asking you about the electronic vote system and how the electronic vote system closes down 

a vote? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. So you would agree that, in the briefings that you 

provided for Members, you didn’t discuss tally slips and you didn’t 

get into the EVS system? Would you agree with that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me go to the night of August 2, 2007. I take it, 

based on that answer, that prior to that night you had never had 

any occasion to discuss with Mr. McNulty the advisability of a tally 

slip? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t believe I had. 

Mr. DAVIS. And prior to that night, had you had any occasion to 

discuss with Mr. McNulty the fine points of how the EVS system 

closes a vote down? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Had you had any occasion prior to the night of August 2, 2007, to discuss with Mr. McNulty even the relevance of the 

board and the vote totals that are announced on the board? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t believe so. In recent years, we have begun 

a practice of using prompting sheets for the Member who is closing 

out a vote if they are new to it. And on that sheet, we, even before 

these events, had begun to have some sort of mention of, ‘‘Don’t 

look at the scoreboard. Look at the slip in your hand.’’ That was 

just to keep them from jumping the gun by looking at the scoreboard. 

But in the case of Mr. McNulty, because he had a fairly good rote 

recitation of those incantations, I don’t think we would have put 

one of those sheets in front of him. 

Mr. DAVIS. Had you had any occasion prior to August 2nd to say 

to Mr. McNulty, don’t ever view what is on the board as being the 

ultimate determination of what a vote count is in the House? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you remember having any occasion to tell any presiding officer prior to August 2, 2007, that it is inadvisable to look 

at the board? Do you have any recollection of raising that issue 

with any presiding officer? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
93 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, if I saw a presiding officer who looked like 

he might be thinking of announcing a result from the scoreboard, 

I would say, ‘‘Don’t look at the scoreboard. Wait for a final slip.’’ 

Mr. DAVIS. Had you ever done that with McNulty? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, I don’t believe so. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Boehner testified during his deposition that his 

belief that the accurate score that night, that 215 in favor of the 

motion and 213 against, was based on his looking up at the board 

and seeing 215–213 final. 

Does it surprise you that Mr. Boehner would have that mistaken 

belief about the board? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is not surprising. Mr. Hoyer has the same 

sort of attitude. 

And it is correct that if there is a slip extant, it is not going to 

vary from the board. But it is the fact that that slip is extant that 

tells you that the number on the board has become static, is no 

longer a moving target. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just ask you this question before I move on. 

You obviously interact with Members, and you have gotten to know 

a lot of us from the expertise that you provide. 

Do you think it is fair to say, Mr. Sullivan, a significant number 

of Members, experienced and inexperienced, believe that when they 

see a number go up on the board, it is actually an accurate count 

of what is going on on the floor? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe they do. I think the question here is, is 

it still in motion or has it come to rest? 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, you know I believe that Mr. McNulty has acknowledged that he made an error that night. He did it today. In 

fact, he did it the day after the vote. Is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I listened to that part of his testimony this 

morning. 

Mr. DAVIS. Describe for me, if you would, what you think is the 

error that Mr. McNulty made. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. If I may, first, I would like to say that I let Mr. 

McNulty down. And he is a very upright man to lay all the blame 

on himself, the way he did this morning, but I think it was too 

much. 

But the error was to announce a number, a pair of numbers that 

had not settled from a source that had not been documented as settled. 

Mr. DAVIS. And if I can repeat, it seems that Mr. McNulty’s position is that he believed that when the Diaz-Balart card was processed, that it was reflected in the tally that was on the board, and 

that when he looked up and saw 214–214, he felt empowered to 

call the vote because he thought that Diaz-Balart’s card was counted. 

Have I essentially captured his testimony right, as far as you recall? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe that is what he said. 

Mr. DAVIS. And the error rests in the fact that, actually, DiazBalart’s card had not been processed and, indeed, was processed at 

almost the same instant he called the vote. Is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is right. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
94 

Mr. DAVIS. You have known Mr. McNulty for a while now. Do 

you view him to be an individual of the highest integrity and ethics? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS. And was your sense of that reinforced by his appearance here this morning? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did he strike you as someone who testified here honestly and credibly? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. His testimony this morning was absolutely in 

character for him. That is how he is. 

Mr. DAVIS. After Mr. McNulty made his error that night on the 

floor, the video makes it very clear that you spent some time in 

consultation with him, that you spent some time having a conversation with him. Do you have a ballpark memory of what it is 

that you said to Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I told him an ostensible result had been announced. It included the language that would make an announcement final, but that, in my judgment, it could not be accorded legitimacy. 

What was wrong with the announcement was not the particular 

numbers it contained, but that it contained unsettled numbers. 

And, in my judgment, to just introduce a different pair of unsettled 

numbers would not solve the problem. 

So what I was doing was waiting for the numbers to settle and 

using that time to compose a statement that, in my mind, was 

going to serve as a final tally slip with explanation of error. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, let me stop you at that point, because you said 

something that I think is very important, given some contention 

that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? 

Could you please, John, pull the microphone closer, speak into it? 

Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. That would help, Mr. Sullivan. 

I want to go back down this road of what you just said, because, 

given some contention today, I think it is important. 

One of the issues that has been raised is the fact that several 

Democratic Members went into the well and changed their votes. 

You recall from watching the videotape Mr. Space, Mr. McNerney 

and Mrs. Gillibrand all go into the well to change their votes. 

Do you recall that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Well, I don’t recall that. I learned that from 

the tapes. I have no independent recollection of it. 

Mr. DAVIS. You said that it was your belief that the vote had not 

settled, that the vote was still dynamic. Do I take that to mean 

that you felt that there were still Members in the process of changing their vote or Members who manifested an intent to change 

their vote? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I based it almost entirely on the fact that, as soon 

as Mr. McNulty completed the full form of announcement, the 

board changed, which told me that the system had not been closed 

to further input. And I didn’t know whether that uptick was the 

last uptick. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
95 

Mr. DAVIS. And not only did the board change, but our timeline 

reflects that within 7 to 10 seconds you can physically see Ms. 

Gillibrand walking forward to turn in another card. Does that 

sound about right, from your recollection? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t have any recollection of that. I was rocked 

back on my heels, and—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you hear people—did you hear the Clerk announcing changes in votes, though? Does that register with you? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I certainly have observed that by watching the 

videotape at this date. But I don’t think, when I try to play back 

a tape in my head from my actual recollection, I don’t know that 

I recall that. 

I do recall going through the process in my mind of diagnosing 

that we had an illegitimate situation and then figuring out why it 

was illegitimate. It felt illegitimate; I had to figure out why it felt 

illegitimate, and then what would tend to correct it. And that took 

me a little longer than I would like. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just show you one part of the tape, so we can 

be crystal-clear about this. 

If you would go to 22:51. 

And if you would just watch, Mr. Sullivan. 

You can start it. 

[Video was played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. You will note that two individuals changed their 

votes, in effect: Mr. Space and Mrs. Gillibrand. Is that a correct 

representation of what you just saw? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is there anything that you believe to be inappropriate 

about those individuals being allowed to process their changes of 

vote at this point? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, in critiquing my own performance, that was 

30 or 40 seconds, I think, that I was trying to figure out what the 

situation ought to be. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am sorry, you were saying what? 

Mr. DAVIS. You need to lean directly into the microphone. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Figure out what we ought to be doing. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you see the Democratic leadership—well, let me 

ask the question differently. The fact that Gillibrand and Space 

changed their votes, in effect, that was a function of the fact that, 

in effect, nothing is going on here. In effect, there is a dynamic period where a vote has been called, but obviously Members are still 

proceeding to change their vote. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And was that a function of any instruction or order 

by the Democratic leadership that these individuals be allowed to 

change their votes? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. It was a totally anomalous situation in which 

a putative result was extant. I mean, the Chair had said the words 

that ordinarily would end that proceeding. But they were so immediately and so forcefully contradicted by the scoreboard that I 

thought that it could not stand, and we had to let the thing play 

out. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
96 

Mr. DAVIS. In effect, the changed votes of three individuals— 

McNerney, Gillibrand and Space—were counted that night. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And to this day, do you believe that that was inappropriate or in any way a violation of the will of the House to count 

those three votes that were changed? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t know that I can judge what the will of the 

House was. It was a bad way to conduct a vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. But during this period of time—and I will represent 

to you that there was widespread agreement today it is about a 7- 

minute period in between Mr. McNulty’s erroneous calling of the 

vote and the time that he announces the right result. During that 

7 minutes, any Member who wished to change could have done so. 

Is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is right. 

Mr. DAVIS. It would have been equally open to Members to go off 

no on aye and off aye on no. Is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is right. 

Mr. DAVIS. Was there any point that night, Mr. Sullivan, when 

you attempted to give Mr. McNulty an instruction and he ignored 

you or refused to follow your instructions? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Was there any point when you suggested that he do 

something and he refused to do it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. There has been a lot of questioning about your exchange with Mr. Hoyer that night. There was a heated exchange 

with Mr. Hoyer. Is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think I had five exchanges with Mr. Hoyer. One 

of them was the one that everybody seems to focus on, and that 

had a little heat to it. 

Mr. DAVIS. The exchange that we saw, he seems to say something of the effect that we control this House, or words to that effect, not the Parliamentarians. 

Did Mr. Hoyer act in an abusive manner to you at any point, Mr. 

Sullivan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did Mr. Hoyer use any profanity toward you at any 

point? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t believe so. 

Mr. DAVIS. I think you say in your deposition, he might have 

used a word that starts with ‘‘D’’ and ends in ‘‘N’’ that we have 

heard sometimes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The question was repeated enough times that I 

thought, you know, there was something—and I said, well, if there 

was something, then maybe he said ‘‘this damn place’’ instead of 

‘‘this place.’’ But I don’t have any particular recollection. 

Mr. DAVIS. And just to put it in some context, did a Republican 

Member of the House approach you last week and have a heated 

exchange with you? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. I think some of the heat was from me, 

though. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
97 

Mr. DAVIS. Without naming that individual, as I don’t want to 

embarrass him, which would you say was the more heated, provocative encounter, the one that you had last week with this individual or the one you had with Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think the one last week, but I think I exacerbated the situation. 

Mr. DAVIS. What was the individual doing last week that exceeded what Mr. Hoyer did? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I felt that he was accusing our office of manipulating the form of the question that the Chair puts on an appeal. 

Mr. DAVIS. Had you ever had that kind of an allegation ever 

made by Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Has any Democratic Member ever made that kind of 

allegation to you? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Probably. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right, probably. All right. But not Steny Hoyer? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Yield back, Artur? 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. But not Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t believe so. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. 

And one final set of questions, Mr. Sullivan. Was there any 

point—I figure Mr. LaTourette asked so many questions he didn’t 

know the answer to, I would try at least one to balance it out. 

But let me just ask this observation. Was there any point that 

night when either Mr. McNulty or Mr. Hoyer did anything that you 

felt was an intentional violation of the rules or the customs of the 

House of Representatives? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. No further questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pence, I will yield the balance of my time, 

as well as your 20 minutes, to you and your side. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome this panel. And I know I speak for everyone 

on the Committee when I say that we are grateful for your cooperation, and we are mindful of the discomfort that being questioned 

by Members of Congress that you serve would present to all of you 

professionally. 

And I want to say that my take-away from this inquiry is to have 

a higher opinion of each of you and a higher opinion of those who 

serve at the rostrum than I had before this inquiry. And I expect 

that will be broadly shared by members of this Committee and 

Members of the Congress. So I thank you for your service and your 

cooperation. 

Mr. Sullivan, a couple of quick questions, and then I just had a 

couple questions for Mr. Lauer. And I will yield, as has been my 

practice, to Mr. LaTourette. 

Very specifically, Mr. Sullivan, did the tally clerks prepare a 

tally slip for Roll Call 814? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Prior to Roll Call 814, have you ever seen a vote 

closed without a tally slip being prepared? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t recall ever seeing that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
98 

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Davis asked an intriguing line of questioning 

about the preparation that you provide for Members who serve as 

pro tem in the chair. You said that you personally as Parliamentarian would not have discussed the tally slip. Is that because it 

is not a significant element of a record vote or because it is so deeply entrenched in the traditions that you would not have mentioned 

it, or if you have a third response. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think the latter. I think it is part of the DNA 

of the way the House proceeds. 

Mr. PENCE. You have testified during your interview with this 

Committee that the tally slip, consistent with your immediate previous statement, is, quote, ‘‘probably the most important quality 

control device in the announcement of a vote.’’ 

Could you elaborate on that? Why is the tally slip so important 

to maintaining the integrity of the voting process in the House of 

Representatives? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The electronic voting system has 47 input devices: 

46 boxes at which Members use smart cards, and the Tally Clerk’s 

terminal at the rostrum. And they are closed down from the periphery so that at some point or other during the electronic vote 

the seated Tally Clerk closes the 46 boxes and all further transactions are conducted by ballot card in the well. And then toward 

the end, very near the end, the seated Tally Clerk closes down even 

the 47th input device, his terminal at the rostrum, and then tells 

the standing Tally Clerk, I just shut the entire system down to further input, it is safe for you to look up at the board and capture 

a result. The standing Tally Clerk waits for whatever length of 

time constitutes a computer refresh cycle. I think it is 1.5 seconds 

or .5 seconds, but they wait a beat, assure themselves that they 

have a static number and write it on a tally slip. And that tally 

slip once extant is a marker to all of us that somebody captured 

a result from a system that had been closed to further input. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. Last question for you, Mr. Sullivan. I believe you were seated here in the hearing room when the Majority 

Leader testified on the topic that I would like to raise with you. 

I specifically asked the Majority Leader, do you believe the Majority can close a vote with or without the assent of the Clerk of the 

House, quote, conducting a record vote? As Parliamentarian, would 

it be your view that a Majority of the House can close a vote without the assent of the Clerk of the House conducting a record vote? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t have an understanding how the Majority 

has anything to do with it. I would think in terms of presiding officer. And I would observe that the role that is assigned to the Clerk 

in clause 2 of Rule XX is that of an agent. And her principal is the 

presiding officer. So when the rule says the Clerk shall conduct the 

vote, the Clerk shall make sure the electronic voting system is 

properly employed and everything, she is operating at the direction 

and control of the gavel—the presiding officer. And I suppose it is 

true that the presiding officer could say I am going to depart from 

best practice, I am going to—when I think the numbers have settled—announce a result. But until this occasion that has never occurred. 

Mr. PENCE. Until this occasion it had never occurred without the 

assent of the Clerk. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
99 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Not to my knowledge. The only precedent I found, 

I think it is the only one, that mentions the tally slip in particular, 

not a tally sheet as they use in a manual call of the roll. On one 

occasion the presiding officer, there was a motion to adjourn, and 

he had the tally slip in his hand and was about to announce that 

the House had adjourned, but he paused and entered a leave of absence request on behalf of a sick Member. And someone complained, ‘‘wait a minute, you have a tally slip in your hand, you 

can’t do that, your duty is to read the tally slip.’’ But other than 

that, it is largely intramural lore. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. That is very helpful. Let me ask Mr. 

Lauer a quick question. There has been a lot of talk about pressure 

that the Chair may or may not have felt. In your deposition you 

were asked the following question. You appear from the video to be 

standing at the rostrum and you are close to where the rather 

heated exchange took place between Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Sullivan. 

In your opinion was there a palpable sense of pressure to close the 

vote? You responded yes. Is that your testimony today, that there 

was a palpable sense of pressure at the rostrum at the time of this 

vote? 

Mr. LAUER. Yes. 

Mr. PENCE. And you testified in response to the question, ‘‘was 

that pressure coming from Mr. Hoyer,’’ your response was, ‘‘he was 

a big part.’’ Is that still your testimony today? 

Mr. LAUER. Yes. 

Mr. PENCE. And in your proximity, if we can put the poster up, 

I want to make sure that the record reflects your proximity to, and 

I don’t know, Mr. Lauer, if you can see this. I believe we have got 

a label over your head. Would you mind stepping over there and 

showing us where you were at the rostrum when you sensed this 

palpable sense of pressure coming from Mr. Hoyer? And let the 

record reflect the witness is pointing to himself. Facing the rostrum 

he is at the left of the presiding officer—excuse me, to the right 

hand of the presiding officer, but left facing the rostrum. Thank 

you. 

Let me ask you one other question. Do you recall testifying to 

this Committee that there was another instance of a vote being 

closed without a tally slip? 

Mr. LAUER. Yes. 

Mr. PENCE. When did you provide that testimony or can you recount that for us? 

Mr. LAUER. Yes. I believe it was the first interview. And the 

question was asked has a vote ever been closed in the absence of 

the normal tally slip. And at first I said no. And then later in the 

interview the question came up again, and I thought I did remember a case where I was, as I was on August 2nd, assisting the 

Chair, and saw a vote that was closed before a tally slip actually 

made it into the hands of the presiding officer. But I couldn’t recall 

any specifics. And I trust it was not a figment, but I believe it did 

happen. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. I will yield to Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. And gentlemen, thank 

you all for being here. And I would just say having had the opportunity to preside from time to time, the House of Representatives 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
100 

is lucky to have you as employees. And I think you all do a great 

job. We are going to put up on the lectern over there, on the issue 

of training, there was some discussion about training. And this is 

a document, a large document dated April 25, 2007, and ask you 

Mr. Sullivan, do you recognize that document? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. You can have a seat. Let us give him 

the small one. Am I correct that as part—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Can I have a copy too, Mr. LaTourette? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Yes. I would be happy to get you one. Does 

somebody else have a copy? Can you get it to Mr. Davis and get 

one to the chairman? Because of the desire of the Parliamentarian 

to make things go smoothly, this is a sheet that was in existence 

as of April 25, 2007, and it would be from time to time based upon 

your testimony placed upon the rostrum to assist the presiding officer, is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. The third line says ignore scoreboard, rely on 

tally slip. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And was that to indicate to the person who 

was acting in place of the Speaker that to read off the scoreboard 

was not the preferred way to do it and you should wait for the tally 

slip? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yeah. It was my way to steer them towards tally 

slip consciousness. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And was this—when was this? This is dated 

April 25, 2007. But did you have any idea how long it has been 

used? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. This form has been used in a variety of iterations. 

That third line might be slightly different from one to another. But 

I think it was during Mr. Hastert’s term as Speaker that I began 

for Mr. Hastert to create a sheet for him on closing out a vote. Because whenever he got in the chair, Members would be pestering 

him constantly. Everybody would be coming up to get a piece of the 

Speaker. And it wasn’t easy for him to remain plugged in. So I 

would write out basically what is the bottom half of that sheet for 

him, so that he could when he got the tally slip just fill in the 

blanks with the numbers and then read. And then after a time we 

made it a typed endeavor and used it with any presiding officer 

who we thought was not used to the incantations of closing a vote. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And was this document in existence on August 

2nd of 2007? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. This or something equivalent. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And, Mr. Lauer, do you know whether or not 

this was on the rostrum in front of Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. LAUER. I do not know. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You do not know. And if it was not, Mr. Sullivan, did you indicate that it would be your belief based upon Mr. 

McNulty’s expertise that he wouldn’t need this? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Sullivan, do you believe that a presiding 

officer can announce a result that differs from the tally of the 

Clerk? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
101 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I want to—and let me just talk about the 

interplay of rules and customs, practices and procedures, and ask 

the Majority Leader this. When I would be in the chair and someone would yield a minute to the Majority Leader, the Minority 

Leader or the Speaker of the House, Members of my party would 

always come up to me and say, why do you—shut them down, they 

have talked for 15 minutes and they only got a minute. And am 

I correct that that is, based upon the long-standing tradition of the 

House, that courtesy is given to the leadership of each party and 

certainly to the Speaker of the House? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Would I find that in the rules anywhere? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Only inasmuch as the Chair is—the power of recognition is in the rules, and the precedents on what constrains the 

Chair’s exercise of discretionary recognition. That custom is supported by the—it is the magnanimity of the Chair that allows the 

leaders to go on. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And let me ask you this. If the next time a 

Democratic Member yielded one minute to Majority Leader Hoyer 

and he spoke more than one minute, what would your ruling as a 

Parliamentarian of the House be if I made a point of order that he 

had exceeded his time limit? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would ask the Chair to say that it is the custom 

of the House to hear its leaders at their length. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. As it is the unbroken custom, practice and 

precedent of the House to provide the Speaker pro tempore with a 

tally slip? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Clause 2(a) of Rule XX is something that is 

vexing us. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The new sentence. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. The new sentence. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And Mr. Hoyer I think, and I found Mr. Hoyer’s testimony to be refreshing, and I think he hit the nail on the 

head, that the enforcement of clause 2(a) rests with the occupant 

of the chair, it is for the Chair to determine in the first instance 

whether or not he or she is holding the vote open solely to affect 

the outcome? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, on Thursday, May 8th, we had a ruling of 

the Chair sustained on appeal to the effect that the new sentence 

in clause 2(a) is susceptible only of collateral enforcement, that it 

does not support the litigation of a point of order in real time. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I understand that. But in terms of the bedrock 

parliamentary procedure is that we hope that the presiding officer 

follows the rules of the House. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And in this instance the person in the chair is 

entrusted with the responsibility of following the rules. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And the rule as presently written, the words 

‘‘solely for the purpose,’’ that can only be obtained, we can only get 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
102 

to the bottom of it by ascertaining of the Chair what their purpose 

was. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I agreed with you earlier, he is the judge and a 

defendant on a specific intent crime. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And I asked Mr. Hoyer this, and let me 

just read you this exchange and ask you if you agree, on page 28 

of Mr. Hoyer’s interview, which he reaffirmed today, Mr. McNulty 

testified to us that it was his judgment to keep the vote open after 

the Mario Diaz-Balart well card was entered—that it was his judgment that to keep it open after that moment in time would have 

violated clause 2(a) and he intended to close the vote after Mario 

Diaz-Balart’s vote was entered. If that is Mr. McNulty’s position, 

that as the presiding officer, that he and Mr. Hoyer said is invested 

with the authority to close a vote, if that were to be his testimony, 

that the vote in his mind was closed when he said 214–214, the 

motion is not agreed to, would you dispute his authority to do that? 

The Majority Leader said no, and I would ask you the same question. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I guess de facto I did dispute that by making the judgment that the announcement of 214–214 without proper closing of the system could not be accorded legitimacy and that 

the substitution of 215–213 for the numbers in that announcement 

would not solve that problem, and that we had then to allow the 

numbers to settle and make a complete announcement. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, let me ask you this. I am talking about 

whether or not 2(a), clause 2(a) was violated by the occupant of the 

chair. And I think I believe, and you tell me if I am wrong, that 

the only way that that can ever be definitively determined is if the 

person in the chair says, yeah, I kept it open for the sole reason 

of influencing the vote. In this instance we have the converse. We 

have the presiding officer indicating to us that based upon the traffic and his seeing what was going on in the House, he had reached 

the conclusion that to keep the vote open after the Diaz-Balart card 

was entered would have been violative of 2(a). How does that not 

get us to a violation of clause 2(a)? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t know. One of the things that I am—I don’t 

know if we are talking past one another, but I don’t think a confession by the presiding officer is the only way a violation could be 

adjudged. As the Chair held on May 8th, a collateral challenge 

could allege and adduce some sort of reprimand for a violation. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. What better evidence could you have than the 

Chair saying I did it? I mean I understand what you are saying; 

you could have totality of the circumstances, there could be other 

factors upon which you could impute the Chair’s mens rea. But 

when the Chair says I did it, I mean you don’t need more evidence 

for that, do you? You are not suggesting that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. This is where I let Mr. McNulty down on the 

evening of August 2nd. The fact that I did not give him an opportunity to let me know what he was thinking and I didn’t give him 

the immediate benefit of my thinking. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, I think you are being too hard on yourself, just the way Mr. McNulty was too hard on himself. There 

were some choices after this vote was prematurely called at 214– 

214. And you have said that you wanted things to settle. Well, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
103 

there is a moment in time in terms of votes that had been handed 

to the standing Tally Clerk and entered into the system by the 

seated Tally Clerk, Mr. Anderson, the vote was settled at 215–213, 

was it not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I didn’t think so. I don’t think I diagnosed the situation before others started to trickle in. I lingered longer than I 

remembered with Tom Wickham down toward the—below the 

mace, whispering about the situation we were in. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. But you were—the time that you took to assess 

or figure out what was going on can’t affect the parliamentary status of the proceedings of the House of Representatives, can it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, the one thing I knew for sure was that the 

announced result could not be accorded legitimacy, and no other result had the benefit of announcement. So we were still engaged. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. But that is my point, I guess. Could you 

as a valid disposition have written a slip for Mr. McNulty to call 

this vote 215–213 and the motion is agreed to? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. If that was where the numbers settled at that 

point, yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, because at that moment in time Mr. 

McNulty had made, you called them magic words in previous, that 

he had made a definitive statement concluding the vote, and that 

is that the motion is not agreed to. Are you also aware that Mr. 

Anderson, the seated Tally Clerk, upon hearing those words attempted to get out of the vote and close down the system? Are you 

aware of that today? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. I know that he pushed the button that causes 

the word ‘‘final’’ to appear, so he was on his way out. It is a twostep process, I believe, and the word ‘‘final’’ is the penultimate step. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And what would have happened if Mr. Anderson had been successful? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t know. This was a totally anomalous situation. I knew one thing for sure, that we had an announced result 

that could not be accorded legitimacy, and we were in territory that 

nobody had ever charted. And I was trying to compose a logical, 

just resolution of it. And to me the gravamen of the problem was 

that the numbers had not been allowed to settle. And so my first 

mission was to let the numbers settle. And that is why I wrote for 

so long in front of Mr. McNulty, because I was listening to what 

was going on behind me and looking up at the board from time to 

time to see whether we had reached stasis. And I don’t think that 

the words there were that long. You could probably write them in 

about 15 seconds. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the ranking member wish 2 minutes of direct before I go? 

Mr. PENCE. I would be happy to follow Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. I just have a few questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sullivan let me pick up on the last observation that you made to Mr. 

LaTourette. You put a lot of stock in the question of whether or not 

the vote had settled. Just as a matter of common sense it seems 

to me that if three Members went up there to change their votes 

that the vote had not settled. Does that make sense to you? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
104 

Mr. DAVIS. One of the points of contention today, obviously, has 

to do with Mr. Hoyer and whether or not there was some undue 

pressure influence on the Chair. From what I observed on the tape, 

and what I think most of us have observed today, you are standing 

pretty close to the presiding officer during most of the relevant exchange, are you not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would say I am about at the mace. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any recollection of Mr. Hoyer coming up 

there and having any conversation with Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Were you able to hear Mr. Hoyer saying close the 

vote that night? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think I heard, I think I heard him yelling in the 

well early. I don’t know what word he used. But it was clear to me 

he wanted the vote closed. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did Mr. McNulty close the vote when Mr. Hoyer said 

whatever you just referred to? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. And I am not sure he was yelling to Mr. 

McNulty. I think Mr. Hoyer basically sees us as the ones who are 

the drag on the—and this happens not just when there is political 

anxiety over the result of a vote, but anxiety over what time planes 

are leaving on a Thursday. And we, our penchant for asking the 

Chair to take another Member’s vote when it’s apparent to us he 

wants to vote, sometimes come at some displeasure to the Members. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. McNulty testified here earlier today that he does 

not remember even hearing or perceiving that Mr. Hoyer was instructing him to close out the vote. Are you in any position to contradict Mr. McNulty’s testimony? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact is it possible there was so much noise that 

night that Mr. McNulty could not have heard the exchange that 

you just described from Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is it possible there was so much confusion that night 

and so many people yelling that Mr. McNulty could not have necessarily perceived an instruction from Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Lauer, you were asked by Mr. Pence whether or 

not there was pressure that night from Mr. Hoyer and whether 

that might have influenced Mr. McNulty’s decision to call the vote. 

Mr. McNulty testified earlier that the pressure that he felt was 

that he feared a controversy over rule 2(a). Are you aware that was 

his testimony earlier? 

Mr. LAUER. Yes, I heard that part of his testimony. 

Mr. DAVIS. Are you in any position to get in Mr. McNulty’s mind 

and to say that that is not accurate, are you in a better position 

than he is to know what he was thinking? Presumably not. 

Mr. LAUER. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you believe Mr. McNulty to be someone who is 

truthful? 

Mr. LAUER. Yes, as far as I know him. 

Mr. DAVIS. And if you had to guess based on his reputation as 

a Member and what you know of him, if you had to take a bet as 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
105 

to whether he would testify truthfully or untruthfully before this 

Committee, which would you think is the much more likely possibility? 

Mr. LAUER. I don’t know him that well. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, that is fair enough. Mr. Sullivan, do you know 

Mr. McNulty well enough to answer that question? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. So I will put the question to you. Based on what you 

know of Mr. McNulty’s reputation and your assessment as you saw 

him sitting here today, if you had to venture a guess of whether 

you think he is much more likely to have testified truthfully or untruthfully, which would you venture? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Much more likely to be truthful. 

Mr. DAVIS. I have no further questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I yield to the ranking member I want to 

pursue what I think is the point that Steve LaTourette has raised 

with you. John, you seem to take the responsibility for not having 

a full exchange with Mr. McNulty that evening. I think that was 

what I heard in response to one of Steve LaTourette’s questions. 

If you had known, or if he had explained to you—I am going to ask 

you a hypothetical question. If he had explained to you that his 

concern was the possible violation of clause 2(a) of Rule XX, and 

that mentally he had processed and reached a conclusion that upon 

the submission by Mario Diaz-Balart of a well card, that he would 

then have closed the vote, if you had been made aware of that information, if you had that kind of exchange with him, what would 

your advice have been under those circumstances? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would have said that waiting for a slip is not 

holding the vote open. 

The CHAIRMAN. And with that, I yield. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just have two quick 

series of questions, and I will yield the balance to Mr. LaTourette. 

On the subject of pressure, Mr. Sullivan, pressure that may or may 

not have existed at the rostrum, Mr. Lauer has testified that he believed that there was a palpable sense of pressure to close the vote 

at the rostrum. He was standing just a few feet away from the 

Chair. I think you are aware because you were in the room, when 

I asked the Majority Leader here and in his interview whether it 

was possible that his demeanor and actions that night may have, 

quote, unintentionally created an environment of more pressure on 

Mr. McNulty to close the vote, he testified before and reaffirmed 

today that that was certainly possible. 

Now, is it possible in your mind that Mr. Hoyer may even have 

created an environment where Mr. McNulty felt pressure? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I can’t speak for Mr. McNulty, but like Ethan, I 

felt pressure. I think the way I felt it was, ‘‘are we overstepping 

our bounds, are we acting like we are, you know, too big for our 

britches here by the way we are operating the Parliamentarian’s 

Office.’’ I questioned myself because of what Mr. Hoyer was saying. 

So you know I certainly felt the atmosphere that Ethan is talking 

about. Whether Mr. McNulty even noticed it, I have no way of 

knowing. 

Mr. PENCE. Now, you—and Mr. LaTourette has even asked a better question of you than I did of you, and I just want to make sure 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
106 

I understand. I asked you earlier if you thought it was possible for 

the Majority, and you corrected me and said the Chair, to close a 

vote without the assent of the Clerk of the House conducting a 

record vote. Mr. LaTourette said do you believe the Chair can announce a vote that differs with the Clerk? Your answer to that 

seemed to me was an emphatic no. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. And substituting the word assent for the 

word data, I am with you 100 percent. The Chair has to ask the 

Tally Clerk, ‘‘how did it come out?’’ 

Mr. PENCE. Well, and you may recall I posed the question to the 

Majority Leader if a vote can be counted without the assent of the 

Clerk who counts the vote. Your expectation is the Clerk counts the 

vote under our system in the House of Representatives. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. Mr. Lauer, just a specific clarification. 

There has been much talk about tally slips and whether there ever 

was a tally slip or a vote ever closed without a tally slip. Thank 

you for clarifying your previous testimony earlier. I would note in 

your testimony of February 14, 2008, on page 25, you first were 

asked the question, and I think we have covered this before, but 

you personally have never seen a vote closed without a tally sheet, 

is that right? Your answer was, ‘‘I believe that is accurate to say, 

I have never been assisting a Chair when a vote was called without 

having a slip in hand, I believe that to be the case.’’ 

On page 49 you answered another similar question by saying, ‘‘I 

would verify that that is the first time, referring to August 2nd, 

that that is the first time I have seen the Chair not wait for the 

formality of a slip.’’ And but to your point of your testimony today, 

you pointed out that later in your testimony you were asked, ‘‘and 

you haven’t seen any other vote called without a tally slip, right?’’ 

Your answer, ‘‘yeah, I said that and then I had this and I don’t 

know if I can say that, there may have been one, there may have 

been one other, and nothing happened, I mean there was no controversy surrounding it, there was no change.’’ 

Is that the element of your testimony you were referring to in my 

questions earlier? 

Mr. LAUER. Yes. 

Mr. PENCE. I think you used the phrase that you had a vague 

recollection that it may have occurred. Your testimony here does 

use the word ‘‘may.’’ Since both Mr. Sullivan and his predecessor 

have testified that there were no instance in many decades where 

a vote was closed without the production of a tally slip, do you have 

any more specific recollection of that instance that may have occurred? 

Mr. LAUER. I am afraid I don’t. Obviously, we don’t, each of us 

in the office does not see every vote through to conclusion. It is 

often one, as few as one member of the office. 

Mr. PENCE. Since Mr. Sullivan has testified that a tally slip is, 

I think his words were the most important quality control measure 

in the conduct of a vote, did you, do you recall reporting the incident of a vote closing without a tally slip to Mr. Sullivan or whoever might have been your superior at that time? 

Mr. LAUER. I don’t think so because he would have remembered. 

Mr. PENCE. I am sorry. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
107 

Mr. LAUER. I said I don’t think so because he would have remembered if I told him. So I think I did not tell anybody. 

Mr. PENCE. But again I want to, this is, you know whether it 

happened once in the last 60 years or once and one maybe in the 

last 60 years, you can’t offer this Committee any specific testimony 

about when that may have occurred, what the vote was, that we 

could look into it further? 

Mr. LAUER. I am sorry, I can’t document that it happened. I just 

had a brief flash that it may have occurred in a case where the slip 

did not make it to the Chair, and the Chair perhaps impatiently 

just announced the outcome. 

Mr. PENCE. In your recollection, was that an instance where a 

slip was never produced or does part of this vague memory involve 

a slip simply didn’t reach the Chair before they called the vote? 

Mr. LAUER. Right. Definitely the slip did not make it to the 

Chair. I am not sure whether the Clerk—— 

Mr. PENCE. Before the vote? 

Mr. LAUER. Before the announcement, that’s correct. 

Mr. PENCE. Since the testimony had really uncontroverted facts 

of this case here that the tally slip was never produced in connection with Roll Call 814, do you have any recollection of a vote being 

closed where a tally slip was never created at any point? 

Mr. LAUER. Just this one instance where I am—— 

Mr. PENCE. But your memory there was simply the tally slip did 

not precede the calling of the vote, but you are not really sure 

whether or not there was never one created? Do you understand 

what I am getting at? I am really not trying to pile on here. I am 

just trying to bear down on what your recollection might be, vague 

as it is. 

Mr. LAUER. Yes, it is just that one instance that, you know, I 

think happened, and I can’t reproduce any more of it. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. Helpful clarification. 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. Mr. Lauer, I just wanted to do one housekeeping matter. The Majority Leader when we 

interviewed him indicated that part of what got his blood pressure 

up is that he perceived that when Mr. McNulty called the vote the 

first time at 214–214 you stepped in and stopped Mr. McNulty. 

And he has been forthright today in indicating that was his perception and is willing to accept that that is not right if that didn’t happen. And the question to you, just so the record is clear, when Mr. 

McNulty attempted to call the vote the first time did you stop him 

or try to stop him? 

Mr. LAUER. I believe I failed to do that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am asking, but failed, did you try to and he 

didn’t listen to you, or you just didn’t do anything? 

Mr. LAUER. I did not do anything. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. That is what I am getting at. Then you 

just recently were re-interviewed by the staff and on page 13 of 

your second observation you were asked a question by the very gifted counsel for the Majority, Mr. Spulak. And the question is, is 

there anything in and of itself wrong about closing a vote at an opportunistic moment; that is, when a Majority has prevailed? Your 

answer is, I would say yes. He then says that it is wrong to close 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
108 

a vote at an opportunistic moment? Your answer is, well, it is 

wrong to try and preclude input on an opportunistic basis. Question, in your opinion is that what happened on 814? Answer, well, 

I don’t want to speak for motive but that is certainly possible. Well, 

you mentioned you didn’t want to speculate that the tie vote was 

the result the Chair wanted. Is there any doubt in your mind that 

the tie vote was the result that Mr. Hoyer wanted? And you answered no. Do you remember giving that testimony just a couple 

of days ago? 

Mr. LAUER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Sullivan, do you agree with Mr. Lauer’s 

observations that I just read? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You agree with him? Okay. And then Mr. 

Lauer, on page 19 of your second set of observations, I will get 

there real fast, again, there was some discussion about the fact 

whether or not we have talked about a tally sheet. And Mr. Sullivan has testified to us that what he wrote out for Mr. McNulty 

was his functional equivalent, he was trying to create a functional 

equivalent of a tally sheet, and you were talked to about that. And 

I understood your testimony to be that that could not be a valid 

tally sheet either. But because by the time Mr. Sullivan was making those notes to be read by the Speaker pro tem you became 

aware that Mr. Boehner had submitted a well card and that that 

well card would not be reflected in the statement that Mr. Sullivan 

was reading, was preparing for the Speaker to read. And so in fact 

if we were to really have a vote that everybody could stand behind 

based upon either the 46 voting stations and the well cards that 

were entered that night, this vote, Roll Call 814, would be 211 to 

217, is that right? 

Mr. LAUER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Spitzer, I just want to say hello to you because I read your statement and I feel very bad for you. And just 

so that there is human interest stories in everything, if you read 

Mr. Spitzer’s interview, he was getting married 2 days after August 

2nd, as I understood it, made the misfortune of coming onto the 

floor to say good-bye to people and as a result got stuck in this 

Donnybrook. 

But the question I did have is that you prepared a series of 

notes. You were seated, we will put the picture back up, but you 

were seated at what I call the Parliamentarian’s desk. And so you 

were seated at that empty chair basically, either you took the chair 

of the woman who is there or you were seated, is that right? 

Mr. SPITZER. That’s correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And you made some notes because Mr. Lauer 

asked you to make some notes so that everybody’s memory was 

fresh. And Mr. Lauer added to those notes and we have blown up 

those notes. And I just want to talk about number 6, number 5 and 

6 of the notes that you have prepared on that evening. And, one, 

do you remember preparing these notes? 

Mr. SPITZER. When were they prepared? Shortly after. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you remember doing it? 

Mr. SPITZER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And does that look like a blown-up version? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
109 

Mr. SPITZER. Can I go over? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Yeah, sure. It could be a forgery. 

Mr. SPITZER. Yes, it is. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And just my last question, on number 5 and 

number 6. Number 5 says the vote changes after cards are processed and new Members. Number 6 says, the vote again reaches 

214–214, Hoyer tells the Chair to call it and the Chair calls it without any paper and without the computer refreshing. Are those the 

notes you made and is that consistent with your observations on 

the night of August the 2nd? 

Mr. SPITZER. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would make a unanimous consent request that 

since the Minority exceeded its time by some 3 minutes, that I 

would extend to the Majority 3 minutes. I would simply have one 

or two questions to ask of Mr. Sullivan, then I will yield the balance of the time to Mr. Davis. 

There has been a lot of talk about pressure. And I think it is difficult to define it. In many respects it is in the eye of the beholder 

or the eye of the recipient if you will. For some they wouldn’t think 

of, they wouldn’t perceive—people would perceive pressure in a different way. I just thought it interesting as I read the transcript of 

your interview last night, that on page 11 you made this statement, John. He, referring to McNulty, was having a lot of advice 

on both sides. He was hearing people hold the sentiment of Mr. 

Hoyer that wished to have the vote closed. Your words are, close 

the vote, close the vote. And he was hearing arguments on the 

other side that the vote was being held open to change the result. 

Is that your memory of what was occurring around the time that 

Mr. McNulty was in the throes of calling these votes? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That and more. I mean there were people who 

just wanted to go home. And there were people who were still 

angry that Mr. McNulty would not entertain a unanimous consent 

request to make the first vote in the series 5 minutes. It was just 

an angry late night situation. And so there was—it was probably 

as loud as the Chamber gets. 

The CHAIRMAN. In your experience, have you heard the Chamber 

louder on occasion? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. An ovation during a State of the Union Address. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this certainly didn’t arise to that level. But 

I think it is fair to say, because we have all witnessed the video, 

that it was very loud, that there was a lot of yelling going on, and 

it wasn’t simply the Majority Leader, it was people, individuals, 

Members on both sides, who for a variety of reasons they were 

tired, they wanted to go home, and others, as you indicated in your 

testimony, were arguing that the vote was being held open to 

change the result, as well as those who contemporaneously wanted 

to close the vote, close the vote because they wanted to either prevail or they wanted to just go home. Am I representing your memory accurately? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, John. With that I will yield to Mr. 

Davis. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
110 

Mr. DAVIS. Just two points, Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Hoyer said that 

night that we control, not the Parliamentarians. Do you take issue 

with that statement in any way? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. And one thing that continues to jump out at me, it 

is the last observation I will leave us with today, for all of the talk 

about the settled necessity of having a tally sheet, for all the talk 

about the well-established custom of having a tally sheet, when Mr. 

McNulty attempts to call the vote the first time at 214–214 but 

doesn’t say the magic words, he didn’t have a tally sheet then either, correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Lauer, did you walk up to Mr. McNulty at that 

point and say you need a tally sheet before you call a vote? 

Mr. LAUER. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Sullivan, did you walk up to Mr. McNulty at that 

point and say remember, you have got to have a tally sheet before 

you call a vote? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. No further questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlemen. I thank our witnesses 

again. Your service is highly regarded and you have made a significant contribution to the Committee, and we all thank you for your 

presence here today and the service that you give to this institution. And with that we will stand in recess. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, could I—I don’t need the witnesses, but 

I just have a quickie to see. I would ask unanimous consent that 

the exhibits that we have up here on poster size board, that the 

staff on the Minority side be permitted to reduce them to 81⁄2 by 

11 sheets, and that they be submitted and included in the record 

of this proceeding. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information may be found in the Appendix:] 

The CHAIRMAN. And gentlemen, you are excused. And we will reconvene here tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I thank my friend the ranking member. 

[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
111 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 44139A.001
112 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 44139A.002
113 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 44139A.003
114 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 44139A.004
115 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 44139A.005
116 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 44139A.006
117 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 44139A.007
118 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 44139A.008
119 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 44139A.009
120 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 44139A.010
121 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 44139A.011
122 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 44139A.012
123 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 44139A.013
124 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 44139A.014
125 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 44139A.015
126 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 44139A.016
127 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 44139A.017
128 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 44139A.018
129 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 44139A.019
130 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 44139A.020
131 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 44139A.021
132 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 44139A.022
133 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 44139A.023
134 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 44139A.024
135 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 44139A.025
136 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 44139A.026
137 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 44139A.027
138 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 44139A.028
139 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 44139A.029
140 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 44139A.030
141 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 44139A.031
142 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 44139A.032