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

44–140 2008

INVESTIGATIVE HEARING REGARDING 

ROLL CALL 814, DAY 2 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE 

THE VOTING IRREGULARITIES OF 

AUGUST 2, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 14, 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
(1) 

INVESTIGATIVE HEARING REGARDING ROLL 

CALL 814, DAY 2 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE

VOTING IRREGULARITIES OF AUGUST 2, 2007, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:39 a.m., in Room 

1539, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. William D. Delahunt 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Delahunt, Davis, Herseth Sandlin, 

Pence, LaTourette, and Hulshof. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Select Committee will come to order. 

I want to apologize. I am the one responsible for us beginning 

somewhat late. I hoped to start at 9:30. 

I would like to invite the panel—Mr. Hartz, Ms. O’Neill, and Mr. 

Pierson—forward; and there will be, by agreement, no opening 

statements today. We will just proceed directly to the panel. 

Let me introduce everyone; we will begin with Ms. O’Neill. She 

currently serves as the Deputy Director of Legislative Operations 

for the Speaker of the House. She began her career in the recording 

industry, promoting recording artists and negotiating contracts involving intellectual property rights for a recording company. She 

later served as special events coordinator for then-Congresswoman 

Nancy Pelosi, until her experience in negotiations and event planning translated to working in political campaigns. In 2002, she 

joined the Bill Richardson for Governor Campaign as regional field 

director and became political director for the campaign in 2003. It 

was later that year that she returned to the U.S. House of Representatives as Assistant to the Democratic Leader, Ms. Pelosi. 

And, as I indicated, she currently serves as Deputy Director of 

Legislative Operations. She serves as a liaison between the Speaker’s Office, the Democratic Caucus, and staff, Republican legislative 

staff, offices of the House, White House legislative staff, and Senate 

leadership staff. 

How do you do all that? What a job. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And is that all on her card, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. I am feeling badly for you at this point in time. 

She is also responsible for advising other Members as to the legislative schedule and the business on the House floor, and I would 

note that she is also a significant part of Red Sox Nation. She has 

deep roots in Massachusetts. I knew her grandfather, her dad, her 

Uncle Tom. And she is one of the favorites of the Democratic CauVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:12 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 044140 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\C140.XXX C140

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
2 

cus. And I know that she also has respect and affection from the 

other side. 

And next is Jerry Hartz. This is a very short statement for you, 

Mr. Hartz. You weren’t in the entertainment industry, that’s obvious. 

What a beginning, Mr. LaTourette, could you please excuse yourself? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think I have seen him in things. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is not a good beginning. I think we need a 

recess. You can tell there is a collegiality here in this particular 

Committee. While we have our differences, we obviously work well 

and enjoy each other on a personal level. 

Mr. Hartz is on the staff of the Speaker; and he ascended there 

in 2002, when she became the Democratic Whip and later the 

Democratic Leader. As Executive Floor Assistant, he helps coordinate floor activity for the Democratic leadership offices; and he is 

the Speaker’s designated staff person for the work of the Rules 

Committee. He graduated from Central University of Iowa with a 

B.A. in history and Magna Cum Laude honors. 

And last, but certainly not least, is Jay Pierson, who graduated 

from Westmont College in Santa Barbara with a degree in English 

literature. He later received a master’s degree in English literature 

from Long Beach University and a Ph.D. in English literature from 

the University of Maryland. Dr. Pierson’s career in the House of 

Representatives began in 1978 in the Office of the Journal Clerk. 

He began working in the Republican Cloakroom in 1979 and began 

his current position as Floor Assistant to the Republican Leader in 

1986. 

And I should also note that Mr. Pierson is truly a jack-of-alltrades for the Republican Party. He is well liked and well respected 

by the Democrats and is a very knowledgeable professional. 

We welcome all of you here today, and we shall begin. We discussed among ourselves the procedure for today; and we will begin 

with the gentleman from Alabama posing questions, Mr. Davis. 

TESTIMONY OF CATLIN O’NEILL, OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; JERRY HARTZ, OFFICE 

OF THE SPEAKER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; AND 

JAY PIERSON, OFFICE OF THE MINORITY LEADER, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me welcome the panel. And just by way of clarity, so the 

panel has a sense of what we are doing, we have figured out that 

we are going to divide the time 40 minutes on the Democratic side, 

40 minutes on the Republican side, and 10 minutes of rebuttal, 

similar to yesterday. 

Ms. O’Neill, for your purposes, I am going to open with perhaps 

about 20 minutes worth of questions for you and then yield the balance of that time to Ms. Herseth Sandlin, who will pose questions 

to Mr. Hartz and Mr. Pierson. So for about 20 minutes the gentlemen can relax a little bit. I am going to focus on Ms. O’Neill. 

Ms. O’Neill, thank you for taking the time to be here, first of all; 

and let me thank you also for meeting with the staff and being 

interviewed twice before. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
3 

As you all know from yesterday, the Committee took interviews, 

deposition testimony, from a variety of witnesses. And, Ms. O’Neill, 

you were actually interviewed twice, as I recall; and both of those 

times obviously required you to leave your very busy work on the 

floor of the House. Both of the interviews were reasonably extensive, and we thank you for being so courteous. We thank you for 

being on call yesterday in case we got to you, and we thank you 

for being here. 

Let me begin. 

The chairman, you know, read a description of the many things 

you do on the floor of the House. We are obviously focused today 

on what your responsibilities are with respect to the presiding officer and the interaction you typically have with the presiding officer. Can you just briefly characterize for us what your responsibilities are in that regard? 

Ms. O’NEILL. With regard to the presiding officers of the House, 

I schedule them for slots during the course of a legislative week 

and, in doing so, putting them in the Chair when we are in the 

whole House as well as in the Committee of the Whole. I communicate with them through their offices. If their offices need to get 

them any information, I get that to them. 

As far as votes are concerned, I keep them up to date on when 

votes are, what the votes will be on, et cetera. There is constant 

communication between myself and the Chair. 

Mr. DAVIS. And as I understand it, you work to schedule the lineup of presiding officers in the House. Is that correct? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And Mr. McNulty, as I understand it, was one of a 

group of individuals who were designated as regular presiders over 

the House. Is that right? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And it is my understanding that Mr. McNulty was 

placed in that group because of his experience and his expertise in 

presiding over the House. 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And, obviously, Democrats just came into the Majority in 2007 after a hiatus, but, as I understand it, Mr. McNulty regularly presided during the last time the Democrats presided. Is 

that right? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s right. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I would assume you agree, Ms. O’Neill, with 

what every single witness said yesterday, that Michael McNulty 

has a reputation for being one of the outstanding presiding officers 

in the House? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Indeed he does. 

Mr. DAVIS. And are you aware that reputation extends to the Republican side, that Mr. Boehner has described Mr. McNulty as one 

of the fairest presiding officers? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I am. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, with respect to your responsibilities and your 

connection with the presiding officer, there were a lot of questions 

yesterday about whether you have a role in the process of closing 

the vote out. So I want you to talk about that for just a moment. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
4 

Ms. O’NEILL. The process of closing a vote has many people playing a role: the leadership staff on the Democratic side, sometimes 

the staff on the Republican side, if we need to hold a vote open because someone is coming from off the Hill and there is a whole host 

of people in a van coming from the White House or whatnot. But, 

generally speaking, it is the leadership staffers on the Majority side 

saying to me, when I am down at the rostrum, now is a good time 

to close the vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. And after the clock passes zero—obviously, a vote 

can’t close before it hits zero. After the clock passes zero, it is routine that many Members have still not voted. Is that correct? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And even on a motion to recommit at the end of a 

long voting series there is always a group of Members who at zerozero, despite being on the floor all night, have still not managed 

to make their way to vote. Is that right? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is right. 

Mr. DAVIS. And it is not uncommon for Members on a close motion to recommit or a controversial motion to recommit to take 

some time to think about it. 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s also correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And is it fair to say that there is some lobbying that 

is going on by each side to get Members to cast the vote that each 

party wants them to cast? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Certainly. 

Mr. DAVIS. And vigorous lobbying. That is commonplace on the 

floor of the House on a close vote, isn’t it? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s right. 

Mr. DAVIS. And when the decision is made to close a vote—and 

when I say ‘‘close a vote’’ I am saying banging the gavel, announcing a result and announcing the resolution, announcing a numerical result, announcing the resolution of the issue, who has the ultimate discretion as to when to do that? 

Ms. O’NEILL. The Chair. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, could it be any other way? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. The presiding officer has the discretion. What is your 

role or what input do you typically offer, if any, regarding when a 

vote should be closed? 

Ms. O’NEILL. When the leadership table has communicated to me 

that a vote needs to be closed, I tell the Parliamentarians, the 

Chair, that area, it is time for us to close the vote. Between the 

time that I suggest we close the vote and the actual vote is closed, 

sometimes often minutes go by because people are saying one more, 

and their votes haven’t been tallied yet, or there is a myriad of reasons that it doesn’t happen at the exact point that we are ready. 

Mr. DAVIS. And one of those reasons is that sometimes you suggest to a presiding officer that he close a vote and he decides to 

keep it open. Is that right? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I am sorry. Could you repeat that? 

Mr. DAVIS. One of the reasons that a gap passes between your 

suggestion and a vote being closed, I imagine, is that sometimes a 

presiding officer just chooses not to listen to you. Is that right? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is right. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
5 

Mr. DAVIS. Because, ultimately, it is the presiding officer’s discretion; and sometimes a presiding officer will move to close a vote 

and he may hear someone yell one more or something to that effect. Is that right? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is right. 

Mr. DAVIS. Has there ever been an instance, Ms. O’Neill, when 

you have suggested that someone close a vote for the purpose of 

preventing a Member from casting a vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Has there ever been a moment when you suggested 

that a presiding officer close a vote in an effort to keep Members 

in the well from casting a vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s look at the tape for a moment; and the first 

thing I want to ask our videographer to turn to is a portion of the 

tape that is 22:46:42, if we can turn that on. And you have the 

screen in front of you, Ms. O’Neill. 22:46:42. You are an orange circle on this screen. I will represent that to you by agreement. 

[Tape played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you see yourself? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s stop the audio for a moment. What are you 

doing at this point? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Communicating with the presiding officer. 

Mr. DAVIS. And what are you saying to him? Do you have any 

recollection at all of what you are saying? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Not at that moment, no. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s just look at the screen to get situated. Unfortunately, because of the way the board is set up, we can’t quite tell 

how much time is left in the vote. But I will represent to you that 

3 minutes before that, based on a timeline I have, Mr. McNulty 

had announced that there were 5 minutes left to vote. So we will 

assume perhaps approximately 2 minutes may be left on the vote 

at this point; and you will see that the score is 195 yeas, 206 nays. 

You have just said that there is nothing remarkable about this 

conversation. What kind of thing would you typically say to a presiding officer as the vote closes down to the 2-minute mark late at 

night? 

Ms. O’NEILL. To gavel time—time limits, that 5 minutes—to let 

the Chamber know that 5 minutes have passed or that 2 minutes 

have passed or that 10 minutes have passed, in an effect to get 

people to vote, because 15 minutes have gone by and they may not 

realize whether they voted or not. 

Mr. DAVIS. In effect, you are suggesting to him the clock is running out so let’s kind of have people hurry along. 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is right. 

Mr. DAVIS. And there are things the Chair does to hurry it along. 

The Chair will announce, 2 minutes left to vote. Any Members wish 

to change their votes? 

Those are common words that are used, is that correct? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, I will represent to you that the clock reaches 

zero. The vote is left open for a little while. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
6 

I am going to ask you about another point that came up several 

times yesterday. If we can go to the point in the tape where Ms. 

O’Neill is pictured in some interaction with Mr. Hoyer and see if 

we can find the exact moment where that exchange occurs. Mr. 

LaTourette, do you happen to know as we reference the time—— 

The CHAIRMAN. 22:49:46. 

Mr. DAVIS. 22:49:46. If we can go to that. 

Mr. Hoyer is the red circle. You see yourself, Ms. O’Neill? You 

are the orange circle. 

[Tape played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Mr. Hoyer is walking into the well, walking 

towards you. Let’ stop. 

Does that in any way refresh your recollection of any conversation between you and Mr. Hoyer that night? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. My previous testimony stated the only conversation that I recall having with Mr. Hoyer is about having 13 

members out that needed to vote. 

Ms. O’NEILL. And, obviously, that is not this moment, because we 

see only six individuals have not voted. Is it fair to say in a typical 

course of a vote, particularly a close vote, that you have regular 

interactions with the Majority Leader? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is fair to say, yeah. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I don’t know about you, Ms. O’Neill, but the way 

my memory works is, frankly, unless there is something unusual 

about a conversation I might not remember it a day later, much 

less a year later. 

Ms. O’NEILL. Uh-huh. 

Mr. DAVIS. You just said you have no particular memory of this 

conversation with Mr. Hoyer. Do you have any memory of what you 

do after the conversation? You seem to turn perhaps toward Mr. 

McNulty. 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any recollection of any point that night 

when you said to Mr. McNulty you need to close this vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I never said that. 

Mr. DAVIS. And do you have any recollection of the Majority 

Leader walking up to Mr. McNulty and saying, Mr. McNulty, you 

need to close the vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. You have any recollection of the Majority Leader saying to you that you need to instruct Mr. McNulty to close the vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. And at this point the vote is called at a time that is 

approximately 10:26:51. Let’s go to that point if we can, 10:26:51, 

about 7 minutes later. You can turn the audio down while you are 

going through that. 

I will represent to you that during that time frame, as you may 

know, Mr. McNulty started to call the vote at 214–214, but he 

stops. Is it fairly common—keep the audio off for a moment. Is it 

fair to say, Ms. O’Neill, that Members will sometimes begin to call 

the vote, and they will hear someone yell one more, and they will 

step back? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Absolutely. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
7 

Mr. DAVIS. So there is nothing unusual at all about the first instance where Mr. McNulty goes 214 to 214 and then stops. That 

kind of thing happens all the time, doesn’t it? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s go to the much more decisive moment, which is 

22:56:21. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think 22:51:14, Artur. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. 22:51? I am sorry. 22:51. All right. Reading 

my notes wrong. Let’s just go to 22:51 and just watch that for a 

moment. When we get to 51, let’s just start the audio. 

All right. Go ahead. Just watch this, Ms. O’Neill. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. At this point, Ms. O’Neill, Mr. McNulty 

calls the vote, announces a result. 

Let’s go back to the wide angle for the tape again. All right. Look 

at the screen. 

And if we could actually go back a few seconds earlier to the 

point right before he calls the vote. Let’s stop. 

All right. Are you in the tape at this point? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Where are you? 

Ms. O’NEILL. To the left of the screen, left of the rostrum. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Not particularly close to Mr. McNulty. 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s right. 

Mr. DAVIS. You are not engaging in any conversation with Mr. 

McNulty. Is that correct? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is the Leader in the screen at that point? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No, not that I can see. 

Mr. DAVIS. Are you close to the Leader at that point? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. DAVIS. So it appears to me, Ms. O’Neill, that Mr. McNulty 

is calling the vote on his own with no input from any member of 

the staff, yourself included. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. It appears to me that Mr. McNulty is calling the vote 

on his own, with no input from any Member of Congress, including 

the Majority Leader. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I do. 

Mr. DAVIS. Now, one of the other points of contention is that 

after Mr. McNulty calls this vote—and, as you know, he has acknowledged he was in error. He has said as recently as yesterday 

that he looked up at the board, saw 214 to 214, believed that that 

was an accurate reflection of all Members voting, he did not realize 

that the last well card had not been processed on the board. He immediately recognized the error, because right after he said 214 to 

214 the board actually went to 215 to 213 the other way. In other 

words, he missed the last vote. 

Right after that, you may recall that several Democratic Members went up and cast votes in the well; and they changed their 

votes. Do you recall that? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Pence raised an issue yesterday as to why those Members were allowed to cast their votes or 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
8 

why the voting process continued. Did you have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that these Members were allowed to continue to process their votes? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. To your knowledge, did any, Member of the Democratic side, Member or Leadership, have anything to do with the 

decision to allow these Members to continue to cast their votes? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any recollection, Ms. O’Neill, of any individual attempting to cast a vote in the next few minutes and being 

denied that opportunity? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any memory of any Member complaining 

that night that they were attempting to change their vote but were 

denied the opportunity? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. I want to ask you for a few moments about the tally 

sheet that was discussed yesterday at some length. 

There was testimony from a number of people yesterday in the 

Parliamentarian’s Office and from the Reading Clerks that a tally 

sheet is, as a matter of custom and practice, given to a presiding 

officer before a vote is announced. Now, as someone who has been 

in the Chair a few times, it is my recollection, Ms. O’Neill, that actually there are several pieces of paper that are often put in front 

of a presiding officer. My recollection is that it is not uncommon 

for the Parliamentarian to put a script in front of you that tells you 

what to say when you are recognizing Members. Is that correct? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. My recollection is it is not uncommon for the Parliamentarian to put a slip in front of you that describes what language ought to be used when you close a vote. Is that also correct? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. And it is my recollection that at the end of a vote 

Parliamentarian will give you a tally sheet. Is that correct? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That’s right. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is there anything in the rules about any of those 

three pieces of paper? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. DAVIS. And those three pieces of paper are essentially a 

script that provides guidance as to what the presiding officer is to 

say. Is that right? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is right. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is it your experience, Ms. O’Neill, that very experienced presiding officers often don’t feel the need to rely on the 

paper that is handed them by the staff? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS. And it struck me as I was listening yesterday, Ms. 

O’Neill, that a presiding officer like Mr. McNulty may have reasonably seen a tally sheet as the equivalent of the script that they put 

in front of you. Does that seem reasonable to you? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is reasonable. 

Mr. DAVIS. In other words, sure, it is here, it is normally given 

to me, but I don’t necessarily need it. Does that make sense to you, 

that a presiding officer of his experience might think that? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
9 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yeah, he might think that. 

Mr. DAVIS. And have you seen experienced presiding officers in 

effect sometimes ignore the piece of paper and just use their own 

words and announce their own result? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Have you ever suggested to a presiding officer that 

the tally sheet was any different from the other pieces of paper 

that the Parliamentarian puts in front of you while you are up 

there? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Have you ever in your work with preparing presiding 

officers and getting them ready to leave the floor, have you ever 

suggested to one that a vote could not be called without a tally 

sheet being presented? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Has any member of the parliamentary staff ever said 

to you that you must instruct your presiding officers to wait for a 

tally sheet? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Has anybody ever said to you that you have to instruct your presiding officers to wait for any of the pieces of paper 

that are handed to you when you are up there? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. One last battery before I yield to Ms. Herseth 

Sandlin. 

There is an e-mail that you may be asked about by my Republican colleagues that you sent to Mr. McNulty the day after the 

vote. Do you remember that e-mail? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Have you seen that in the course of your depositions? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Can you relay the substance of that e-mail to us? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I am trying to think what the language that I used 

was. 

Mr. DAVIS. And they will show you the document. 

Ms. O’NEILL. Apologizing for putting him into that position. 

Something to the effect of the pressure he must feel. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. LaTourette, do you have a copy of that e-mail by 

any chance? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am sorry. Maybe. Hold on. I have a packet 

of documents. I have a copy of the e-mail. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would just like to put it in front of you, and I would 

also like to ask that someone hand Ms. O’Neill a copy if we have 

an extra copy floating around. 

Mr. DAVIS. Can you just read your e-mail, Ms. O’Neill? 

Ms. O’NEILL. ‘‘I have to apologize on putting you in that position, 

but you did a remarkable job under a tremendous amount of pressure that I will never fully comprehend. Many, many thanks and 

gratitude, Catlin.’’ 

Mr. DAVIS. You were asked in your deposition about the use of 

the phrase ‘‘putting you in that position’’. What did you mean, Ms. 

O’Neill, when you said that? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Putting him in the Chair as a presiding officer during a crazy moment on the House floor, where people were screamVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:12 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 044140 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\C140.XXX C140

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
10 

ing on both sides of the aisle. I can’t even begin to imagine what 

that was like. 

Mr. DAVIS. This e-mail is a document that you sent to someone 

whom you respect, someone you view as a very good Member, and 

someone who had admitted he made a mistake that night. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. I will yield to Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I am going to begin my questions, Mr. 

Pierson, with you, if that’s okay. I want to thank you for being here 

today and for your testimony earlier this year as well. And the 

Committee is very grateful for your complete cooperation with our 

investigation but also for your three decades of service to this institution and the American people. 

Mr. Pierson, could you just describe for the Committee your role 

on the House floor, what your duties consist of? 

Mr. PIERSON. I basically am there to help Republican Members 

when they come on the floor if they are not sure what we are voting on, if they have come from committee or somewhere. I am a 

parliamentary—I have a lot of knowledge about parliamentary procedures. I am certainly not an expert—the Parliamentarians are 

the experts—and also kind of a liaison between what I find out on 

the floor to our Cloakroom. They are pretty much tied up on the 

phones. So I am there to help them figure out if there are schedule 

changes and that kind of thing. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And if we could just fast forward to the 

night in question, August 2nd, your testimony earlier this year that 

you provided to the Committee, to the Select Committee on April 

7th, you testified on page 21 of your testimony that, quote, the 

rules of the House weren’t broken, unquote. Is that still your opinion? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But, in fact, there were—as the Committee heard yesterday and as Mr. Davis was just questioning Ms. 

O’Neill, there were customs and best practices that weren’t followed. Is that your opinion? 

Mr. PIERSON. That’s correct. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And what do you think happened on the 

floor that night? I mean, what do you think were the primary factors contributing to the controversy? 

Mr. PIERSON. The main factor, overwhelming factor, was pressure, heavy pressure by the Majority Leadership to close the vote. 

That, in turn, triggered pressure on Mr. McNulty to call the vote 

before actually reading the slip. He didn’t have a slip. 

And, incidentally, it just happened that because he didn’t have 

that slip the Tally Clerks were not prepared to close the vote. And, 

as everybody knows, there was a card that came in, and just about 

the time McNulty announced 214–214 the board said 215–213, and 

the word ‘‘final’’ appeared on the board. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And are you aware that Mr. McNulty has 

testified before this Select Committee that he did not feel pressure 

from leadership or receive any instruction to close the vote? 

Mr. PIERSON. I am not aware of that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
11 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. You were asked in your testimony earlier 

this year as well about the fact that the Minority did have a couple 

of options for redress that evening, and we covered some of this 

during yesterday’s testimony as well. Now, they had the option of 

vacating the vote, as was requested by Mr. Hoyer. Can you explain 

why the Minority objected to vacating the vote? 

Mr. PIERSON. Well, I can only give you my opinion. I didn’t suggest to anybody to object. But if you vacate the vote you virtually 

take away the entire vote all evening that happened and you start 

the vote over again, and the Majority Leader twists some arms and 

they win the vote. 

I mean, you are better off with the 215–213 on the board with 

the words final—or the word final up there than you are vacating 

the vote and starting all over again when you are in the Minority. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Now, the Minority had the option of essentially redoing the vote through a motion to reconsider, as was 

also requested by Mr. Hoyer. Can you—in your opinion, why was 

that unacceptable to the Minority, which I think ultimately led to 

some Members of the Minority walking out of the Chamber? 

Mr. PIERSON. I am not sure it was necessarily unacceptable, because it happened, and there was a reconsideration vote, and Mr. 

Hoyer moved it. In fact, I had suggested to him earlier that it is 

possible we would move to reconsider. It is just an option out there 

all the time. 

I mean, when you are in the Minority you don’t get much; and 

we were in the Minority part of my career and in the Majority part 

of my career. It is a whole lot better being in the majority. But you 

don’t get much, so you grab what you can. And a reconsideration 

vote is similar in a sense to a vacate vote in the sense that you 

end up having the vote all over again and you end up losing. And 

we thought we had won. It said 215–213, final. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And I think that as you have testified 

today it is consistent with your earlier testimony on April 7th 

where you stated, in fact, quote, if you vacate it, you give kind of 

an imprimatur of validity, unquote, so therefore it would have been 

preferred to, quote, leave it out there as something that was done 

wrong by the majority, unquote. 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. You testified to the effect that if the vote 

hadn’t been called when it was by Mr. McNulty in what turned out 

to be an erroneous call the Minority would have lost any anyway 

and would have complained that the Democrats held the vote open 

too long. Why do you believe that? 

Mr. PIERSON. Well, because in the end the vote came up 212–216, 

although Mr. Boehner’s card switch wasn’t allowed. But still we 

lost the vote in the end, and the result would have been the same. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But you have seen concerns raised by 

Members of the Minority throughout the 110th Congress about the 

issue of enforcing Rule XX clause 2(a). 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Correct? 

Mr. PIERSON. Right. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And are you familiar with Mr. McNulty’s 

testimony before this Select Committee that his reason for callVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:12 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 044140 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\C140.XXX C140

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
12 

ing—closing the vote prematurely as he did was a good-faith effort 

to enforce Rule XX clause 2(a)? 

Mr. PIERSON. I am not familiar with that, but if he said that I 

think that is rather a stretch. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Would you explain why? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yeah, because at 214–214 the motion would have 

gone down. And it is easy to say, well, we wanted to close the vote 

as soon as possible because we were enforcing Rule XX clause 2(a), 

and there is no specific time limit when it says for the sole purpose 

of holding open a vote. I mean, what does that mean? Two minutes? Five minutes? Eight minutes? Ten minutes? There is no specificity there. So any Chair could say, oh, I closed the vote because 

we didn’t want to abridge that rule. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But you would agree it is a subjective—— 

Mr. PIERSON. Sure. It is very subjective. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN [continuing]. Call for the Chair? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sure. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And while you just in your opinion think 

that it would be a stretch for Mr. McNulty to claim that that’s 

what he was trying to do, you also testified that Mr. McNulty is, 

quote, a very decent guy. Do you still believe that today? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And do you believe that he would ever 

intentionally break the rules of the House? 

Mr. PIERSON. I guess it is the definition of what is intentional. 

I mean, when there is heavy pressure from the leadership and you 

are put in the Chair by the leadership, it is a difficult situation. 

I mean, so intentional? Perhaps not. I don’t think it went through 

his mind, hey, I am going to break a rule here or I am going to 

win this vote for us. It is just there was a lot of pressure on him. 

He is an excellent Chair. And of all the people to have up there 

it was ironic. I think probably he is the best Chair the that Democrats have. So with that kind of pressure, I don’t know whether it 

was intentional or not. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But do you believe that he acted with the 

best of intentions on August 2nd and, as he testified before this 

Committee yesterday, just made a mistake in good faith? 

Mr. PIERSON. I would say it was a mistake. I don’t know about 

his good intentions. I can’t read his mind. I don’t know what he 

was thinking up there. But he has been in the Chair many, many, 

many times. You always use the slip. He didn’t. And just the time 

he called the vote it went 215–213. 

So I don’t know what was in his mind. But from the outside looking in, it looked like there was a lot of pressure on him. He called 

it at the wrong time. Now, whether it was intentional or not, I 

don’t know, and I don’t know what he was thinking. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. We have also heard testimony about the 

fact that Mr. Boehner submitted a well card, as you just mentioned 

in your testimony, to change his vote near the end of the process. 

And Mr. Boehner testified that he submitted that change card, 

quote, to be on the prevailing side of the vote in case there was a 

move to reconsider the vote, unquote. Is that your understanding 

of why Mr. Boehner submitted that card? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
13 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And is that common practice? 

Mr. PIERSON. It is common practice when you want to reconsider, 

yes. We don’t do that very often, but—— 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So you don’t think that Mr. Boehner 

changed his card because he had a change of heart on the substance of the issue? 

Mr. PIERSON. No. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. However, the well card wasn’t processed; 

and Mr. Boehner’s vote wasn’t changed. 

Now, you were asked in your earlier testimony on April 7th 

whether if Mr. Hoyer hadn’t moved to reconsider there was an option that Mr. Boehner may have moved to reconsider. That’s what 

you had spoken to Mr. Hoyer about on the floor. Is that correct? 

Mr. PIERSON. Right. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But then you had also stated in your testimony, when asked if Mr. Boehner would have moved to reconsider if Mr. Hoyer had not done so, that that was a hypothetical 

question, but, ‘‘I think if we had our heads on straight, we probably 

wouldn’t have.’’ Is that still your view? 

Mr. PIERSON. I suppose. I mean, in situations like that, things 

are happening so fast that you can’t sit out and have like a little 

time out to sit down and say what is the best thing to do. Normally, when you want to cause a problem or you don’t like a particular vote and you reconsider, it is something that is made in a 

snap judgment. 

If I had to go back and look at it from where I am looking at 

it now, I absolutely wouldn’t have reconsidered because we would 

have lost the reconsider. So, in that sense, I would say perhaps not 

if we had time to think about it. But that is why he was in the 

well, yes, to change his vote so he could be on the prevailing side. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Mr. Hartz, thank you for being 

here today. It is a very memorable introduction of you to the panel. 

In your words, will you describe your role in the Speaker’s Office? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. I have been up here 21 years. I started with 

David Bonior. I am the Director of Floor Operations for Speaker 

Pelosi, which means I oversee in general the operations of the floor 

to make sure they go smoothly between the different leadership offices and that some of the concerns that she would have as Speaker 

for the whole body are met. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Moving straight to the night of August 

2nd, you were on the House floor. Correct? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And the Speaker of the House was on the 

floor as well, correct? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And is that a common occurrence for the 

Speaker to be on the floor and to vote on a pending matter before 

the House? 

Mr. HARTZ. Certainly for the Speaker to be on the floor is very 

common. It is not, you know, too common for her to vote. It is at 

her discretion; and, generally, she votes when she considers it an 

important vote. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
14 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And what was your role that evening 

specifically relating to when the Speaker is on the floor to vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. Well, we knew once we found out what the recommit 

is, which we don’t have any advance knowledge of, that this was 

probably going to be a close vote. And she was there. We were looking at Members and how they were voting; and, as the time ran 

out, it looked like that she would be needed to vote. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And while it is rare for her to vote and, 

as you just explained, at her discretion, when she does vote, is it 

common for you to give her a signal or communicate to her in some 

way when it is time for her to vote or when we are running down 

on time or—— 

Mr. HARTZ. It would depend on the situation, but it could go either way where she decides on her own or I tell her, you know, 

time has run out; you better vote. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I don’t think I have any further questions 

unless Mr. Delahunt or Mr. Davis have any follow-up questions for 

the witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I have a few questions, and I am 

going to direct them to Mr. Pierson. And as I said when I introduced him at the beginning, he is a professional that really has the 

respect of the Members in the Democratic Caucus. He has got a 

very pleasant style, and he is known to be an individual of substance. And he does know something about the institution, after 

serving there for some 30 years—you talk about pressure, Jay— 

and we have heard it yesterday on several occasions in terms of 

questions posed by my colleagues in the Minority. 

And you described—I think you used the term ‘‘overreaching 

pressure’’ or maybe the Majority Leader was overreaching in terms 

of creating pressure to influence the actions by Mr. McNulty by 

closing the vote. What led you to that conclusion? What did you observe? What did you see? What did you know? 

Mr. PIERSON. Mainly just observing Mr. Hoyer. I mean, I am all 

over the floor when I am on the floor, so I don’t sit and watch him 

on every vote. But on this kind of a vote it was very close, and you 

could see him going up to the rostrum area. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many times did you see him go up to the 

rostrum? 

Mr. PIERSON. I can’t remember, but I remember on the tape him 

going up and talking to the Parliamentarians. And now whether 

Mr. McNulty heard that I don’t know. And, of course, I can’t tell 

you that I was over there listening to what Mr. Hoyer was saying. 

The CHAIRMAN. How many times—if you remember, how many 

times did he have an interaction with the Parliamentarians on the 

rostrum? 

Mr. PIERSON. Probably twice that I can remember. One in particular you can hear on the tape. I mean, that is kind of audible 

and obvious. Whether I would have remembered that without the 

tape I don’t know. But that is—you can see it on the tape. And 

pressure is a matter of—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Of perception. 

Mr. PIERSON. Of definition, basically. I mean, I wasn’t there. I 

didn’t hear him screaming at McNulty to close it. But being in the 

Majority for 12 years, I mean, we, you know, sometimes wanted to 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
15 

close votes also. We didn’t close them without slips. But, nevertheless, there is that feeling that the Whip is ready. Let’s close this 

thing out. And that is, in a sense, is pressure in the sense you are 

telling the Chair, hey, hit the gavel. It is time to go. 

The CHAIRMAN. But your answer is that the evidence of the pressure that led you to that conclusion was on two different occasions 

you saw an interaction between Mr. Hoyer and the Parliamentarians. 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And is there any other evidence of the pressure? 

Mr. PIERSON. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it is—it goes to those two particular occasions? 

Mr. PIERSON. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a memory of the duration of those 

two interactions? Were they brief? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. Yes. The one that I—I didn’t just see, I heard. 

The CHAIRMAN. You heard that on the tape. 

Mr. PIERSON. I heard Mr. Hoyer telling the Parliamentarians 

something. And that was very brief. Now, whether he stayed up 

there for a long time, I don’t know. I am too busy doing other 

things. But I saw him go up, say something. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I suggested to you it was a matter of less than 

3 seconds—— 

Mr. PIERSON. No, I would say it was more than that. Probably 

half a minute, 20 seconds, something like that. 

The CHAIRMAN. 20 seconds? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have—we will have a chance as the 

Committee to review the tape to determine the duration, and we 

are trying to reach an agreement as to the duration of these interactions. I am calling them interactions. In the questions posed by 

other Members, the term conversations is being used. But after my 

own review, if these were conversations, they were so brief one 

party would only have had the opportunity to say anything. 

But, in any event, your conclusion as to overreaching pressure 

was these two interactions between the Parliamentarians and the 

Leader. 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You observed no interaction between Mr. McNulty and Mr. Hoyer? 

Mr. PIERSON. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. You talked earlier about having heard it on the 

mike. You couldn’t have heard it because of where you were situated at the time on the floor or because of the deafening noise that 

enveloped the Chamber that evening? 

Mr. PIERSON. No, where I was situated. 

The CHAIRMAN. Where you were situated. 

Well, getting to the issue of noise, it was loud that night. 

Mr. PIERSON. I have heard it before, but it was loud, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know. 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. But it was particularly loud that night. In fact, 

on page 11, you say specifically, according to your interview, it was 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
16 

loud that night. There was too much noise. But you could clearly 

hear the mike. 

Mr. PIERSON. Clearly hear the mike? 

The CHAIRMAN. You could clearly hear Mr. Hoyer because of the 

mike. That one interaction that we are talking about. 

Mr. PIERSON. On the DVD, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. On the DVD. 

Mr. PIERSON. Of that night. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. But it was loud. It was, as I said earlier, 

raucous; and in the past, as you have indicated, the Chamber does 

become loud. And when you have, as you said, 400 guys out there 

talking, whatever, and sometimes the Chair can’t hear, that very 

well describes the situation that evening. 

Mr. PIERSON. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I can understand the perception that you had in 

terms of looking up and seeing that display board say final. We 

have also heard testimony that simply the final being displayed on 

the summary board has no parliamentary significance. Are you 

aware of that? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. But, again, I don’t disagree. Because it makes 

common sense to me, if I were to look up and see the summary 

board and it says final, it ought to be final or it ought not to be 

on the summary board. 

Mr. PIERSON. Right. Agree. 

The CHAIRMAN. But we know that it wasn’t final in terms of parliamentary consequences. And yet your boss, the Minority Leader, 

in his interview with us stated that he felt that the Minority was 

disenfranchised because the vote was final and that he reached 

that conclusion based upon the display on the summary board. And 

it would appear from your interview that you reached that conclusion as well. 

Mr. PIERSON. Yeah. A lot of Members. I mean, the word final 

says final. I don’t think it was just the fact that it said final. It was 

also the fact that it was different than what the Chair called. You 

have two different things there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. And you also indicated that—I think your 

words were, when there was a problem with the computer and the 

information went dark, that that was throwing fuel on the fire—— 

Mr. PIERSON. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. In terms of the anger on the Minority side. 

Mr. PIERSON. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would submit that that is also understandable. 

And, subsequently, you learned that there was a technical problem. Is that fair and accurate? 

Mr. PIERSON. Some kind of technical problem where they had to 

abort the vote, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. But it was a technical problem. It was nothing 

to do—— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
17 

Mr. PIERSON. As far as I know. I am not a Tally Clerk. But, in 

talking to them, I understand there was some kind of problem getting out of that vote and getting to the reconsideration vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jay. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to follow up on one thing that you asked Mr. Pierson about before I forget it, frankly? And I will be happy to have the Republicans have 

an extra 1 minute. 

Mr. PENCE. An extra 3 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. My question was only seeking 1 minute. If they want 

an extra 3, that’s fine, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just follow up on one thing, Mr. Pierson. I will do it now. 

Otherwise, I may forget it later. 

The Chairman asked you about the source of the pressure that 

night that was going on in the Chamber, and you ventured your 

opinion that the source of the pressure was the Democratic leadership. Is it fair to say, Mr. Pierson, that a number of Republicans 

had complained over the course of 2007 that Democrats, despite 

rule 2(a), were sometimes keeping votes open? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, is it fair to say that that had become a running subject of controversy, that there were certain Members of the 

Minority who were regularly complaining that you guys are violating your own rule. You remember that kind of controversy on 

the floor? 

Mr. PIERSON. Sure. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, do you remember a number of instances in 

2007, Mr. Pierson, prior to the night of August 2nd when Members 

of the Minority would go to the floor and would make parliamentary inquiry regarding rule 2(a)? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you remember a number of instances prior to August 2nd, 2007, when Republican Members would go to the floor 

and very heatedly argue that rule 2(a) had been violated? 

Mr. PIERSON. Heatedly? I don’t know about that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let’s not quibble about that. 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. With some level of passion and belief? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Enervation is the word. 

Mr. DAVIS. In fact, Mr. Pierson, the night in question, August 

2nd, weren’t there Republican Members saying close the vote 

down? 

Mr. PIERSON. I don’t recall that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is it possible that in all the cacophony that night 

there were some Republican Members yelling close it down, too? 

Mr. PIERSON. I suppose it is possible, but—— 

Mr. DAVIS. It was after 10 o’clock, after a long day of voting, we 

were near recess, we were trying to get out of there, weren’t there 

Republicans who were also yelling close it down? 

Mr. PIERSON. I don’t know. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
18 

Mr. DAVIS. You can’t say there weren’t, can you? And if Mr. 

McNulty sat here and said yesterday that he felt pressure from 

controversy over rule 2(a), you are not in a position to contradict 

that, are you? 

Mr. PIERSON. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pence? We will give you an additional whatever you need. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your courtesy and for calling this second day of investigative hearings. 

I want to welcome the panel, and I also want to acknowledge 

how much easier it is to sit on this side of the table than it is to 

sit on that side of the table. 

I also want to acknowledge the recognition that answering questions from people in our position as Members of the House when 

you are in staff positions in the House is also especially awkward, 

and so I want to bring my questions in a measured spirit of fairness. But we do have questions. 

Mr. PENCE. Now let me begin with Mr. Pierson, and thank you 

for your testimony and your service to the House. You arrived on 

Capitol Hill in 1978, worked in the Republican Cloakroom. Is that 

correct? Thereabouts? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Mr. PENCE. And then I am told that you took your current position as Republican Floor Assistant in 1988. 

Mr. PIERSON. ’86. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you for the correction. 

So you have enjoyed your current position since 1986. And so you 

have served in Republican minorities, Republican majorities, and 

now back in Republican minorities. 

Mr. PIERSON. That’s correct. 

Mr. PENCE. Under—let me say during your tenure as the Republican Floor Assistant when the Republicans had the majority, was 

direction—I think I heard you say today—was direction from the 

Republican Leadership to the Chair about closing a vote common 

or uncommon? 

Mr. PIERSON. Common. 

Mr. PENCE. Very common. 

Mr. PIERSON. Common. 

Mr. PENCE. And let me give you a chance to restate I think it 

was a statement you just made. Did you ever during your tenure 

in the majority or the minority—in the majority, rather, did you 

ever see the Republican majority and the presiding officer close a 

vote without allowing the Clerk to produce a tally slip? 

Mr. PIERSON. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Do you ever recall—well, let me withdraw the beginning of that question. Let me let you reinforce one other point here. 

Your testimony today is that you perceived that the Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, was putting pressure on the Chair to close the 

vote. Is that correct? 

Mr. PIERSON. That’s correct. 

Mr. PENCE. The Chairman of this Committee focused on occasions and evidence, but it was your perception as someone who has 

worked in and around the floor of the House of Representatives for 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
19 

30 years that the Democrat Majority Leader was putting pressure 

on the Chair to close the vote. 

Mr. PIERSON. That’s correct. 

Mr. PENCE. As to Mr. Davis’s final line of questioning, do you 

think Mr. Hoyer was trying to close the vote to enforce clause 2(a) 

of Rule XX? 

Mr. PIERSON. No, I don’t. 

Mr. PENCE. Why do you think he was trying to close the vote? 

Mr. PIERSON. Because he thought he had won, that the motion 

had gone down 214 to 214. 

Mr. PENCE. So it wouldn’t surprise you if you learned that Mr. 

Hoyer’s testified repeatedly to this Committee that, in fact, when 

he ordered or expressed a desire that the vote be closed he wanted 

to see the vote closed, quote, while we were prevailing, close quote. 

Mr. Hoyer—you think he was trying to close the vote because they 

were winning the vote. So it wouldn’t surprise you that he essentially said that to the Committee. 

Mr. PIERSON. No, it would not. It would not surprise me. 

Mr. PENCE. He used the phrase, to close the vote while we were 

prevailing. Thank you. 

And thanks again for your service to the House, which I think 

all the Members of this Committee recognize as distinguished and 

principled. 

Mr. Hartz, I would associate the same statements with your career. 

Mr. HARTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. PENCE. And I appreciate your cooperation with this Committee. 

Just a couple quick questions for you, Mr. LaTourette may or 

may not explore this. 

There is, at a point on the tape—and we can produce it, but in 

the interest of time, I will ask you a few questions. 

Did you give Speaker Pelosi a signal to vote during Roll Call 

814? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. The time was expired or rapidly expiring, and 

I wanted to make sure she had a chance, if she wished to vote. 

Mr. PENCE. Okay. So those of us that have interpreted the hand 

signal from you, that was indicating that the Speaker should vote. 

At what point did you realize Roll Call 814 was going to be a 

close vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. I don’t think I would have had any knowledge until 

the motion to recommit was offered—we have no advance notice of 

this—so not until we knew what the content was, and then we assumed it would have been a close vote. 

Mr. PENCE. Is it common for the Speaker of the House to vote? 

Is it uncommon? My perception is that Speaker Pelosi votes more 

often than her immediate predecessor, but give us a sense of that. 

Mr. HARTZ. Well, I think it is really at her discretion. It is when 

she considers it an important vote. I would say, in general, issues 

that she cares a lot about substance-wise, she would vote on, some 

of the agenda items that we’ve talked about in this Congress—minimum wage, things like that. 

Other times, you know, she is a member of the Majority and she 

has the right to vote. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
20 

Mr. PENCE. But to your testimony moments ago, would it be fair 

to say she considered this an important vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. PENCE. And that was the reason for her presence on the 

floor? 

Mr. HARTZ. Well, I think she would have been on the floor—I 

mean, as I recall, there was a whole series of votes here. And she 

is often on the floor—— 

Mr. PENCE. Let me restate, because I want to acknowledge the 

Speaker of the House is often on the floor. That was the reason for 

her casting a particular vote in this instance. She thought it was 

an important vote. 

Did it contribute—to your knowledge, did it contribute to your 

thinking, or the Speaker’s thinking, this would also be a close vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. It probably was a factor in this instance, yes. 

Mr. PENCE. It was a factor. 

Did you have any conversations—and I am not playing a gotcha 

game here; this was a question you were asked in your deposition, 

and you indicated you do not recall a specific conversation. 

But for the record today at this hearing, did you have any conversations with our other witness, Catlin O’Neill, about the timing 

of closing Roll Call 814? 

Mr. HARTZ. I did not. 

Mr. PENCE. You did not recall, or you did not have a conversation? 

Mr. HARTZ. I think the only conversation I would have had with 

her is, you know, this is going to be a close vote, ‘‘get ready’’ kind 

of thing. But I did not tell her to close the vote. 

Mr. PENCE. Okay. Do you know whether any members of Leadership staff had any such conversations or discussions with Ms. 

O’Neill? 

Mr. HARTZ. No, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. PENCE. When did you first learn that Mr. McNulty had not, 

in your words, ‘‘waited for the paper,’’ referring to the tally slip 

that was not produced in connection with Roll Call 814? 

Mr. HARTZ. I did not learn of that until after the fact when I 

spoke to John Sullivan, the Parliamentarian. 

Mr. PENCE. Now, you answered this in the affirmative—and, 

again, this is not a gotcha moment, so I want you to know you answered in the affirmative. 

Did John Sullivan tell you later that evening that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had been putting a lot of pressure on the vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes, he indicated that. That was my first awareness 

of that. 

Mr. PENCE. So you were not—that is a follow-up. You were not 

aware or did not perceive the pressure, but John Sullivan did tell 

you that evening that Mr. Hoyer had been putting a lot of pressure 

on the vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. He said that. You will have to remember, I was at 

the leadership table a long ways away from the rostrum, and as 

we have heard, there is a lot of noise and cacophony in the Chamber. 

Mr. PENCE. What prompted your decision that it was time for 

Speaker Pelosi to cast her vote? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
21 

Mr. HARTZ. Well, I think the clock had either expired or was very 

close to expiring. It was clearly a close vote, and, you know, there 

wasn’t much chance for her to vote if she was going to vote. 

Mr. PENCE. And to the best of your recollection, as a senior Democrat floor aide, did you have a vote goal or a target in mind? Did 

you know, for example, that 214 to 214 was the tally that would 

ensure the Democrats to prevail? 

Mr. HARTZ. No. I mean, it depends on absentees and everything. 

I don’t think I had—I don’t recall—any specific vote number in 

mind. 

Mr. PENCE. At the time that your hand went out, do you recall 

being aware that that vote by the Speaker, at your urging, would 

in that moment tie the vote 214 to 214? 

Mr. HARTZ. I don’t think I would have known that. I mean, there 

are always votes going in. It is real time, and within seconds things 

change. So I don’t think I would have had any specific knowledge 

that this was the vote that was going to get it. 

Mr. PENCE. Great. Thank you, Mr. Hartz. Thank you for your 

service to the House. 

Mr. HARTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. PENCE. And to the American people. 

Ms. O’Neill, thank you for appearing, I think this is your third 

time before the Committee. 

Ms. O’NEILL. Third time. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me say on behalf of the Minority, we appreciate 

your cooperation and your availability, and we also understand, as 

I said before to the whole panel, the uncomfortable position that 

this puts all of you in. 

Let me see if I can get through some questions, but try and mitigate that to some extent, because what we are struggling with 

here, as a Minority, is trying to make things add up that don’t 

seem to add up. 

So I want to go through basic fact questions, and Mr. LaTourette 

will very likely take you more through the narrative. But a few key 

points. 

One of your responsibilities on the floor is to schedule the presiding officer for the votes; is that correct? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is correct. 

Mr. PENCE. You may want to step a little closer to the microphone for the record. Thank you. 

You have testified that you personally asked Mr. McNulty to be 

the presiding officer for Roll Call 814? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes, he was responsible for doing the motions to recommit and final passage on all the agricultural appropriations— 

I mean, all the appropriations bills. 

Mr. PENCE. And I think it has been your testimony consistently 

that you consider Mr. McNulty to be an experienced presiding officer? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is right. 

Mr. PENCE. You stated during your interviews with the Select 

Committee that the only conversation you had with Mr. McNulty 

during Roll Call 814 was that it was going to be a tight vote and 

that he should bear with you. 

Is that still your testimony. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
22 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is still my testimony. 

At my second testimony I further added to that that at some 

point I would have likely gone up to him to say gavel at 10 minutes, 5 minutes, 2 minutes remaining, so we can get an effort to 

get people in. 

Mr. PENCE. Reminding him to encourage Members to vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Right. 

Mr. PENCE. But at no point after the time had lapsed—let me 

ask you, after the time had lapsed, did you add one more—— 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. PENCE [continuing]. Signal, encouraging him to close the 

vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. PENCE. When did you first become aware that the vote was 

going to be close? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is hard to say. Between probably 3 minutes 

and 5 minutes before the vote was closed. 

Mr. PENCE. Did you have any conversations with the Speaker 

that she might need to vote because the vote was going to be close? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. PENCE. The video—and I expect Mr. LaTourette will let you 

comment on this specifically. The video of Roll Call 814 shows that 

you had at least three separate—what are we calling them, Chairman? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Interactions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Interactions. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Apparent interactions. 

Mr. PENCE [continuing]. Apparent interactions, or very brief conversations with Mr. McNulty in one instance, immediately before 

he attempted to close the vote. 

If all you told him was that it was going to be a tight vote and 

he should bear with you, why did you need to speak to him so 

many times? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I have conversations with the Chair on a regular 

basis. I have no recollection of any conversation with him outside 

of the ones I have mentioned in my previous testimony, but I am 

in constant communication with the Chair. 

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Hoyer has been very candid with this Committee 

that he wanted the vote closed as soon as Speaker Pelosi had 

voted, making the vote 214 to 214. Mr. Hoyer has acknowledged as 

recently as yesterday before this Committee—speaking loudly, I 

think his testimony was. At least twice, I think he has testified he 

intended to be heard. 

We have received testimony from six witnesses serving on the 

rostrum, including one that was seated beyond Mr. McNulty, all of 

whom testified that they heard Mr. Hoyer indicate his desire that 

the vote be closed. 

Do you recall hearing Mr. Hoyer direct that the vote be closed? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I have no recollection of that. 

Mr. PENCE. The videotape of Roll Call 814 shows that you had 

a conversation with Mr. Hoyer at the base of the rostrum. You stated in your interviews with the Select Committee that you only recalled one conversation with Mr. Hoyer about Roll Call 814, during 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
23 

which you discussed the fact, I think, that there were 13 Democratic Members who had not voted. 

But if I told you that at the time of this particular conversation 

there were not 13 votes still outstanding, would that surprise you? 

Is it possible there was another conversation that happened in that 

moment, and what might that have been? 

Ms. O’NEILL. The only conversation I remember having with Mr. 

Hoyer is that there were 13 Members out. I also am not privy to 

information down at the rostrum. So I may have said there were 

13 Members still out, and perhaps that wasn’t the case. 

But the only information, the only conversation I recollect is 13 

Members. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. 

When asked about that particular conversation, during his interview Mr. Hoyer stated, ‘‘I don’t recall specifically, but I am clearly 

saying to Catlin that we need to shut down the vote when we are 

prevailing.’’ 

Does that refresh your recollection at all about that conversation? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Now, Mr. Hoyer did go on to say, and he repeated 

this again yesterday, that you don’t work for him. 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is right. 

Mr. PENCE. And that he couldn’t technically instruct you to do 

anything because you work for the Speaker. He did testify, though, 

previously, page 93 of his deposition, that he had no doubt you 

would ‘‘be certainly interested in what the Majority Leader believes 

ought to be done.’’ 

As a general rule, are you interested during votes about the preference of the Majority Leader, about when a vote should be closed? 

Ms. O’NEILL. The Majority Leader, the Whip, their staffs, everybody. People are operating with tons of different information, so I 

am collecting all that. It is helpful. 

Mr. PENCE. In this instance, what the Majority Leader clearly 

believed ought to be done is that the vote be closed down while the 

majority was prevailing, according to his testimony. If that is what 

the Majority Leader said to you, as he claims, it seems highly unlikely that that conversation you had with Mr. McNulty immediately thereafter would not have included that message. 

Wouldn’t you agree with that? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No, I wouldn’t agree with that. 

Mr. PENCE. Why not? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Because I have no recollection of it. 

Mr. PENCE. There is a point in the videotape where Mr. Hoyer 

has a fairly heated exchange with John Sullivan. Do you recall 

hearing or seeing that exchange? It is fairly famous. 

Ms. O’NEILL. I saw it. 

Mr. PENCE. You saw it in real time. 

Did Mr. Hoyer ever tell you what he was upset about? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Hoyer told the Select Committee that he was 

angry because he believed that one of the Assistant Parliamentarians, Ethan Lauer, who testified yesterday, had instructed Mr. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
24 

McNulty not to close the vote immediately after the Speaker had 

voted. 

Did you ever hear Mr. Lauer or any other Parliamentarian say 

to Mr. McNulty that he should not close the vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Did you ever hear any Parliamentarians interrupt 

Mr. McNulty’s first attempt to close the vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me ask you one final question, and I will yield 

to Mr. LaTourette. 

Before his angry outburst toward the Parliamentarians, did you 

say anything to Mr. Hoyer about the Parliamentarian advising Mr. 

McNulty, or the timing of closing the vote? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. PENCE. So you didn’t communicate anything to him about 

any preference of the Parliamentarian or the Parliamentarian’s interpretation of the rules? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. 

I will yield to Mr. LaTourette. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before you yield, Mr. Pence, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the gentleman from Missouri. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Good morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. A fine member of this panel. 

Now let me yield back. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. I want to add my welcome to Mr. Hulshof, and although she has spoken, Ms. Herseth 

Sandlin. Things prevented them from being here yesterday, and it 

is always best when we are at full complement. 

I want to begin with an observation that I think the House of 

Representatives is lucky to have all three of you working for us. 

And with Mr. Pierson, I have had the pleasure of knowing for 14 

years, and everything the chairman said about you is right, and 

you are someone that I feel confident going to not only for information, but good information. 

One of the disappointments we probably have around here is 

that we don’t get to know the staff on the other side as well. I 

would venture to say that Democratic Members don’t know Mr. 

Pierson as well as they know the two of you, and vice versa. 

I think, as I talk to people, the fellow that preceded me was a 

guy named J. William Stanton who talked about the good old 

days—as a matter of fact, when your grandfather was Speaker— 

and the fact that while people had differences, they set those differences down at 5 o’clock and they got along well together. 

So I have made it the practice of trying to observe what goes on 

with the other side. 

Mr. Hartz, I will tell you, although I don’t know you very well, 

I have always called you ‘‘Dave Bonior’s guy,’’ because that is 

where I first saw you. I paid attention to you because you always 

pay attention to people who are kicking your butt, and you kicked 

our butts on a pretty regular basis. And that is not to disparage 

your current leadership or anything else. 

Ms. O’Neill, I also observed you from when you were transferred 

from your first post, I didn’t know about your entertainment caVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:12 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 044140 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\C140.XXX C140

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
25 

reer, but from your first post to your floor duties; and from what 

my observation is, you do just an outstanding job and you do exactly what Speaker Pelosi asks you to do. So, again, the House is 

lucky to have you, all three of you. 

Mr. Pierson, I want to begin with you and go quickly through 

your observations in your interview and then what you have said 

today. 

On page 5 of your interview, in answer to, I don’t remember 

whether it was the gifted counsel for the Majority Mr. Spulak or 

our counsel, Mr. Paoletta, who is also gifted, that there were three 

things that you thought caused this series of events. 

Do you remember what those three things were that you identified? 

Mr. PIERSON. The three things were pressure from the Majority 

Leader; not calling the vote from the slip; and the timing of the fact 

that a card came in after Mr. McNulty called the vote, but hadn’t 

gone through the tally, the computer tally, so when it came up on 

the board it was different from what he called. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. On page 6 you talk about, I think in response 

to Ms. Herseth Sandlin’s question, this whole notion of whether it 

is a good strategy to do the motion to reconsider once we found ourselves in this position where the Chair had called the 214 to 214 

and it was really 215 to 213. 

And I was trying to have this conversation with Mr. Hoyer yesterday, but he wasn’t very compliant with my observations. 

So I think you have described it accurately, and that is, if the 

facts really were that at the time what was in the machine, the 

people that had voted, it really was 215 to 213, it would always be 

beneficial for the Majority to have that vote reconsidered, because 

there were 19 Democrats that had voted in favor of the Republican 

motion to recommit. 

Having been someone that operated in the DeLay administration 

in the majority, I am familiar with the feeling of having my arm 

in a sling on a number of occasions and having been encouraged 

to cast a vote that was a team vote. 

And there is no doubt in your mind, is there, that if there was 

a reconsideration based upon the fact there are more Democrats in 

the House than the Republicans, they would have prevailed? 

Mr. PIERSON. Correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So it is a little bit like it was cast yesterday, 

that was so fair. Well, it is a little bit like—maybe we will talk 

about a sporting event. It is a little bit like maybe the Cleveland 

Cavaliers playing the Boston Celtics, and LeBron James launches 

a ball from half court and scores as time is expiring, clearly winning the game. But somehow they say, well, you know what, that 

is not so good; we have to do a redo. So we are going to redo 

LeBron James’ shot from half court and pray he makes it. 

I mean, that is what they were giving us. It was a gift, a nicely 

wrapped box, but you open the box and there is nothing in the box, 

right? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes, I agree. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. 

And to Mr. McNulty, you were asked about Mr. McNulty’s state 

of mind, and I think that is not appropriate. Only Mr. McNulty 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
26 

knows what his state of mind is, and only Mr. McNulty testified, 

as he has done—and I think openly, honestly. 

And every member of this panel considers Mr.—McNulty to be a 

good, decent, honest human being, a great presiding officer, a credit to the institution and his party. But I think—as I was growing 

up, there was an expression that the road to hell is paved with 

good intentions. 

So this issue of intentions, Mr. McNulty indicated that because 

of his concern about clause 2(a), he made the decision that he needed to close the vote after the Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, vote 

was entered. And to my mind—and I may be crying in the wilderness, but that—and Mr. Hoyer told us, everybody told us, that the 

state of mind of the Speaker on the enforcement of 2(a) is the only 

thing that matters. Well, the guy with the discretion said he closed 

the vote because to keep it open after Mario Diaz-Balart would 

have violated 2(a). 

So he may have had the best intentions; he may have made a 

mistake. He did make a mistake. And I think he has been a great 

honest guy. But just like—and I told him, if I am driving down my 

street, and I think it is 35 and it is really 25, I have made a mistake, but I have still have gone 35. And he still closed the vote, in 

my opinion, in a way that was not appropriate. 

On page 9, you indicated your observation that Steny was trying 

to close the vote himself. Do you remember saying those words? 

Mr. PIERSON. I don’t recall that I said ‘‘himself,’’ but I mean, it 

was his pressure on the Chair that led to the problem. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Pierson. 

Could I ask that the three witnesses be given the two-page document called Video Highlights. And then just while that is being 

handed out to you, I want you to know that we have come up with 

new and improved ways to identify apparent interactions between 

people on the floor that evening and the tape so we don’t have to 

get into—you don’t have a color code? 

Perfect. 

So I think you already saw it, but just for the purpose of viewing, 

so we don’t get into it, the parties have stipulated, Ms. O’Neill, that 

when we watch a slice of videotape, you will have an orange halo 

around yourself; Mr. Hartz, you will have a yellow halo around 

yourself; the Majority Leader will have a red halo; the Speaker of 

the House will have a purple halo; Mr. Sullivan will have a green 

halo; and I really don’t think I am going to talk Ms. Gillibrand or 

Mr. Space. So when we get to that portion, if you just sort of pay 

attention to your halo and the other halos of individuals who I am 

going to chat with you about. 

And if we could queue up, begin with you—well, before we get 

to the tape, Ms. O’Neill, in, I don’t remember which one of your 

interviews, but you indicated you were not familiar with a document that the Parliamentarians provided to Speakers pro tem 

called the prompt sheet. Do you remember? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Could we put that up on the board? 

This was identified yesterday by Mr. Sullivan, the Parliamentarian of the House, as a document that has been prepared by the 

Parliamentarian’s Office to be placed in front of Speakers pro tem. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
27 

The indication was, I think—I forgot to ask Mr. McNulty—but I 

came away with the impression that it probably was not in front 

of Mr. McNulty on that evening because he was such a great and 

experienced Chair. 

But, again, have you not ever seen that? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I have never seen that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Hartz, have you ever seen it? 

Mr. HARTZ. I only saw it after the fact. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Never before. 

Mr. HARTZ. Not before. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you aware of whether or not it is before 

the Speakers pro tem since the sort of dust-up we had on August 

2nd? 

Mr. HARTZ I am not. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. How about you, Mr. Pierson? Ever seen it? 

Mr. PIERSON. I have never seen this specifically, but I know 

there are a lot of cards the Parliamentarians have that they give 

to either Chairmen or Speakers, because they need to read exactly 

what is on the card. So I have never seen this specifically. But, yes, 

they have lots of stuff up there. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Now let’s get to apparent interactions. 

If—Hugh, could you run chapter 4 for us? 

Maybe if you watch the TV there you can do better. Just 4, and 

then stop. Okay, there is chapter 4. 

Ms. O’Neill, did you recall that apparent interaction with the 

Chair? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. If I represented to you, based upon my understanding of where the clock is on the vote, that there are about 5 

minutes left in the vote, would that be consistent with your observation that you would go down at 5 and 2? Is that a fair—— 

Ms. O’NEILL. On my second testimony I had said that after 

watching the tape, my assumption being that I was telling the 

Chair to prompt the Chamber with the gavel to get Members in to 

vote. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think that is 5 though, and I am not trying 

to trick you. 

Could we go to chapter 5, please. 

Do you recall that apparent interaction? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. If I represented to you that in just a moment 

Mr. McNulty is going to bang the gavel and say, there are 2 minutes left, would it be a reasonable guess that is what you were describing to us? 

Ms. O’NEILL. It certainly would. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could we go to Video Highlight, chapter No. 6. 

Stop it at 49, 22:49. 

Do you have a recollection of that apparent interaction with the 

Chair? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. If I indicated to you that—I thought we would 

get to it, but that shortly after this apparent interaction, Mr. 

McNulty bangs the gavel and indicates, asks if any Members want 

to vote or change their votes, would that sort of be a good guessVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:12 Dec 04, 2008 Jkt 044140 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\C140.XXX C140

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
28 

timate of why you were having that apparent interaction with the 

Chair? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Chapter 7. And, Mr. Hartz, I am going to ask 

you to perk up, because you are in this one. 

Stop it there, please. 

Mr. Hartz, you were the yellow circle that we have now taken 

away. I would ask you, did you see your—and I am sorry, I don’t 

know whether it was your right or left arm. Did you see your right 

or left arm just make a signal? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And is it fair to say that the signal was given 

to the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, who was the blue circle? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And is that what you were discussing, that you 

were indicating to her that she should probably get over there and 

vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. 

Play. 

Stop it there, please. 

Ms. O’NEILL, at this moment in time, I referred to this as sort 

of the Olympic rings. It appears your ring has now joined Mr. Hoyer’s ring. 

Is it reasonable to say that that represents some apparent interaction between you and the Majority Leader? 

Ms. O’NEILL. It is reasonable, yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Could you—and I would ask all members and 

staff to watch the clock, could you just say the words, ‘‘Close the 

vote now,’’ for me? Could you just say those words? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Say, ‘‘Close the vote now’’? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Yes. Could you do that for me. 

Ms. O’NEILL. Close the vote now. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I didn’t even see a second go off the clock, for 

the chairman’s edification. 

Could you continue rolling the tape. 

All right, stop it there. 

There again, Ms. O’Neill, there appears to be an apparent interaction between you and Mr. McNulty following the reasonable assumption that you and the Majority Leader had an apparent interaction. Do you recall? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That conversation? No. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. 

Ms. O’NEILL. But I would represent to you if I were getting a signal from anybody to close a vote, I would keep the Parliamentarians informed of closing the vote, because they need to help do 

that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Sure. But, again, your testimony is you don’t 

recall, that is what happened? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So all the questions Mr. Davis asked you about 

‘‘typical this’’ and ‘‘typical that,’’ you just don’t remember? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
29 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me say to you both, I think what makes 

us suspicious is that if you watch that chapter 7—and if you want 

me to play it again for you, I would be happy to do it. But if you 

watch chapter 7 and you watch the scoreboard and you watch what 

occurs, within the space of something that starts at 49 minutes 

after the hour and 30 seconds and only takes 20 seconds, we have 

the following sequence of events: 

We have your signal to the Speaker to vote; 

We have an apparent interaction between you and the Majority 

Leader; 

We have an apparent interaction between you and Mr. McNulty; 

We have the Reading Clerk announce the Speaker’s vote, which 

ties it at 214–214; and 

We have Mr. McNulty closing the vote. 

So I know that there is a perception in your party that we are 

all right-wing nuts, and in our party that you are all liberal 

wackos. But you understand our suspicions, right? You understand 

what looks funny about chapter 7 to us? 

Mr. Hartz, you understand? 

Mr. HARTZ. The only thing I would say is, this was like a really 

chaotic moment in time, and with your experience and knowledge 

and many years here, it all sort of happens so quickly, to assume 

this is all that coordinated is very difficult. I mean, people are 

changing in the well all the time, and they clearly were changing 

even after this vote. So that kind of precision is hard to execute. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I got you. And I would, I think, go back to my 

complimenting to you. I think you guys are great. I think you did 

a great job of getting it to a tie and closing the vote. But that is 

my perception. 

My last question before I want to yield to my friend from Missouri, the next Governor of the State of Missouri, Ms. O’Neill, you 

were more than forthright in providing documents to the Committee, e-mails and such, that may have—that were pursuant to 

the document request. 

And I would ask an e-mail to be put up, and it appears to be an 

e-mail exchange between you and somebody by the name of Brandon Daly. Who is Brandon Daly? 

Ms. O’NEILL. He is our Communications Director. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. For the Speaker of the House? 

Ms. O’NEILL. For the Speaker of the House. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And I asked you about this the second time 

you were kind enough to come in for an interview. 

At one point it says, and you—you have it? Okay. It says words 

to the effect, they continue to bring up ‘‘the slip.’’ 

‘‘The slip,’’ is it in quotation marks? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. ‘‘The slip,’’ they are referring to the tally slip 

that was never produced on Roll Call Vote 814 on August 2nd; is 

that right? 

Ms. O’NEILL. That is right. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. I think I asked you who the ‘‘they’’ were, 

and we had some testimony yesterday that this sort of became the 

buzz of the House, that there was no slip immediately after it occurred. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
30 

But I thought you had told me that you thought that it was a 

commentator on Fox News—I know a favorite of the Democratic 

Party—and/or C–SPAN. We went back and could not find some 

‘‘theys,’’ talking about the absence of a slip. 

So I just want to be clear. Is it still your recollection and observation that when you—and this was the next morning that you crafted this e-mail to Mr. Daly, right—that the ‘‘they’’ you were talking 

about, it is your belief then and today that the ‘‘they,’’ who were 

sort of making an issue out the fact that there was no slip, was 

someone on television? 

Ms. O’NEILL. It was someone on television. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. It was not a member or the staff? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Lastly—and I apologize for this, Mr. Pierson— 

Boehner’s card, John Boehner’s card that would have put him— 

and, again, the procedural importance of that is that by issuing a 

change card, to go off ‘‘aye,’’ on ‘‘no’’—it put Mr. Boehner in an opportunity, if he had so chosen, by being on the eventual prevailing 

side, to make a motion to reconsider, if that were the Republican 

strategy. 

The fact that that vote was not recorded as a change deprived 

him of the opportunity to do that; is that right? 

Mr. PIERSON. Right. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Now, I know that there has sort of been this 

‘‘no harm, no foul’’ attitude in a lot of the questioning, and the 

issue is, well, big deal, because Hoyer made a motion to reconsider 

anyway, which you and I talked about was who wanted it, because 

we knew we were going to lose. 

But the fact of the matter is, it is a big deal, because John 

Boehner represents 630,000 Americans, and on this particular occasion, for whatever reason, he could have decided to change his 

vote because it was a Tuesday and he thought, on Tuesdays I always change my vote with a well card. It doesn’t matter. 

What matters is that his vote wasn’t counted. 

And today, even with all this stuff that we have done in this 

hearing, today this vote wasn’t 214–214. This vote wasn’t 215 to— 

well, I would argue maybe it was 215 to 213, but it wasn’t 212 to 

216. 

The accurate vote, from people who actually wanted to vote, no 

matter how long it took, was 211 to 217; and that is not reflected 

anywhere in the records of this House, is it? 

Mr. PIERSON. No. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thanks. 

I yield to Mr. Hulshof. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. 

Let me just follow up, because a lot of good questions have been 

covered. We have seen the videotape. We have reviewed your testimony. 

Mr. Hartz, let me go back just to some general questions. You 

were inquired of by my friend, Mr. Pence, about the Speaker’s propensity to vote, and occasionally she does, I think you said, on a 

substantive issue. Or certainly on the agenda items, it is important 

to cast a vote and then trumpet that vote, especially if you prevail. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
31 

Are you aware, sir, that, first of all, the bill that we were considering that day, there were a lot of amendments. Do you remember 

the bill itself, what it was? 

Mr. HARTZ. Ag appropriations, yes. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Ag appropriations. We had a lot of amendments, 

didn’t we? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes, you did. 

Mr. HULSHOF. You talked about, it was a long week and there 

was a recess impending, and this was late into the evening. 

Would it surprise you to know or, in fact, do you know that on 

Roll Call Votes 803 to 813, amendments to the ag approps bill, the 

Speaker did not vote? Are you aware, on that series of 10 or 11 

votes, that she did not cast her vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. I was not aware, but I guess that doesn’t surprise 

me. 

Mr. HULSHOF. You were talking about—the first opportunity that 

the Majority side gets to see what is the substance of a motion to 

recommit is often as it is being introduced or filed or read by the 

Clerk—and a copy, of course, is provided to your side—and that is 

when you realized the substance contained within the motion. 

Is that a fair characterization? 

Mr. HARTZ. That is correct. 

Mr. HULSHOF. When you learned that the substance of the motion to recommit was bringing up yet again the issue of taxpayer 

benefits to illegal immigrants, did that signal in your mind, uh-oh, 

this is a tough one, or, this is going to be a close vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. We approach every recommit that the Minority offers 

with extreme caution, and we assume it is going to be something 

like that. 

So, yes, that would have been a signal that there was going to 

be, you know, an issue here. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Ms. O’Neill, let me ask you to chime in here as 

well. Even though you perhaps are not as involved in the policy, 

you are, of course, involved in making sure the votes run smoothly 

and, from the Majority’s point of view, trying to succeed as often 

as possible. 

You mentioned that you understood—in fact, I think you told the 

presiding officer, Mr. McNulty—this was going to be a close vote. 

Was that because you also recognized that the substance of the 

vote was somewhat controversial, that is, benefits to illegal immigrants? 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. It was more based on the number of people 

that had not yet voted. 

Mr. HULSHOF. I thought it was your testimony in earlier statements that actually you knew it was going to be a close vote, and 

you so advised Mr. McNulty earlier in the vote, not that it was towards the end when you were looking to see the actual tally on the 

board that we watch. 

Ms. O’NEILL. No. I believe that I informed him that it was going 

to be a close vote, probably midway through the vote, 5 minutes or 

so, based upon the number of people that hadn’t been voting. 

Mr. HULSHOF. For the benefit of folks who watch C–SPAN at 

home, what we watch and what we have seen as far as Democrat 

votes, Republican votes, those who have cast an ‘‘aye’’ vote, a ‘‘nay’’ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
32 

vote, a ‘‘present’’ vote or those not voting, that information is available to Members at the leadership tables, is that true, on the computer screen? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Correct. 

Mr. HULSHOF. But ultimately, Mr. Hartz, what we look at, or 

what most Members generally in a vote—we see the tally board on 

either end or either side of the Chamber, which basically shows the 

clock winding down and the continuous tally as the votes are being 

tabulated by the Clerk. 

Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. HARTZ. Correct. And then, of course, there is the big board 

behind the rostrum as individual Members vote. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Right. So recognizing early on this was going to 

be a close vote, would you agree the issue was somewhat controversial? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. HULSHOF. The issue had been raised numerous times by Republicans in various amendments and other motions to recommit; 

is that a fair assessment? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. HULSHOF. And that issue itself caused some angst, did it not, 

within the Democratic Caucus? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. HULSHOF. In fact, I think, Ms. O’Neill, even you referenced 

earlier in a question of you in a previous statement that the Blue 

Dogs—that you recognized somewhere along the way the Blue 

Dogs—and, again, for those not conversant in our parlance, the 

conservative Democrats—were voting in favor of the motion to recommit. Is that right, Ms. O’Neill? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I was just aware of who wasn’t voting. And, yes, 

there were Blue Dogs on that list. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Hartz, getting more specifically to the policy, 

one of the reasons this is such a tough issue within your own caucus is because there are conservative Democrats who have a difficult time with this issue. 

Is that true? 

Mr. HARTZ. Well, I think—yes, I think there are many issues 

that both sides struggle with. 

Mr. HULSHOF. And as the vote then was drawing to a close, your 

prediction that this was going to be a close vote was, in fact, 

verified. 

I mean, this was a close vote. In fact, I think, and we could go 

back—I don’t want to take the time in the few seconds I have remaining. But when you signaled to the Speaker that she should go 

cast her vote, the motion—as she was making her way to the well 

to get the card, the motion to recommit was succeeding 214 to 213, 

and that was—in fact, one of the reasons why the Speaker was signaled to vote, was because—I mean, it was a razor-thin margin; is 

that true? 

Mr. HARTZ. I don’t remember what was exactly on the board at 

that point. I think I was mostly concerned that she get in. The time 

had expired. But if you said it was 214 to 213, I will take your 

word for it, obviously. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
33 

Mr. HULSHOF. Well, I think the video speaks for itself, and rather than take the time and going through it, perhaps we will have 

some time later on. 

Let me, Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me for one last question, in essence. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. HULSHOF. The characterization that Mr. LaTourette just provided as far as the scenario of events, particularly as it relates to 

chapter 7, with the pressure by the Majority Leader, Mr. Hoyer, 

and Ms. O’Neill, while you indicate that you did not hear the outburst, you saw the outburst, you would agree, would you not, that 

‘‘agitated,’’ maybe ‘‘angry,’’ would you agree that was the characterization of what you witnessed? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Certainly. But that is not uncommon. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Hoyer frequently is subject to agitation—— 

Ms. O’NEILL. All Members. All Members. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Let me defer at this point. You have been indulgent with your time, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back to you at this 

point for our next round. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. You go ahead. 

Mr. DAVIS. I just had a few observations and probably won’t take 

very much time. I will direct these towards the panel and perhaps 

get some reaction. Since Mr. LaTourette made some observations, 

I do want to respond to at least one of them. 

I find it very interesting that when we started our hearing yesterday, we were very focused on the erroneous vote calling, which 

happens at 10:51:26. We were very focused at the beginning of this 

hearing on the point when Mr. McNulty slams down the gavel, 

calls the vote, announces the procedural resolution. 

It is interesting that as we end here today, for whatever reason, 

we are no longer focused on that. And I found it very interesting 

that in 42 minutes of questions from the Minority, there was not 

a single question that related to the actual point where the vote 

was closed. 

Did you happen to notice that, Mr. Hartz? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you happen to notice that, Ms. O’Neill? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Sure. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. It is interesting to me, and I didn’t mean to you leave 

you out, Mr. Pierson. I assume you probably noticed that omission 

too, or perhaps you weren’t paying attention. 

Mr. PIERSON. I did not notice it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me tell you what I think that suggests, frankly, 

and perhaps get some reaction from those on the panel, if they 

wish to comment on it. 

I don’t think there is any longer a question of culpability, other 

than the mistake that Mr. McNulty admitted—which he admitted, 

by the way, on August 3rd, 2007, $500,000 ago. 

So it is interesting that the 42 minutes of questions by the Minority were used to focus essentially on another event that wasn’t 

even the subject of the resolution that has us here. That event, as 

I would describe it, is the exchanges between the Majority Leader 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
34 

and Ms. O’Neill and Mr. McNulty and the point where Mr. McNulty starts to call the vote and then pulls himself up. 

And I would say, based on my limited experience as someone 

who has been here for no more than 6 years, but for 6 years now, 

if we were to have an inquiry about every time a presiding officer 

starts to call a vote and then stops, that we would need not a Select Committee, but a Permanent Committee on the State of Mind 

of People Who Started to Prematurely Call Votes. 

Just last week I recall our instances when someone started to 

call a vote and someone said, stop, one more, or something like 

that. And I don’t recall anyone saying, gee, what was the state of 

mind around that presiding officer to call that vote when somebody 

was in the well? It happens with some regularity. 

So I would simply make the observation that, at the end of the 

day, what we have is no evidence whatsoever in this record that 

the Majority Leader was anywhere near Mr. McNulty at the time 

he actually does make his mistake. I would submit there is no evidence in this record that Ms. O’Neill, you were even close to or had 

anything to do with Mr. McNulty when he makes his mistake. 

And the final observation that I would make, this business about 

a tally sheet, it is also interesting that during 42 minutes of questions, there was no refutation to an observation I made during the 

direct exam. 

There is a lot of paper on the rostrum. There are prompt sheets. 

There are prompt sheets for what you do to recognize people. Is 

that correct, Mr. Hartz? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. There are prompt sheets that they will tell you what 

language to use when you call a vote; is that correct, sir? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. There are prompt sheets that direct a variety of procedural circumstances on the floor; is that correct? 

Mr. HARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I see them faithfully given to every presiding officer. I see some use them, I see some ignore them. The ones that 

tend to ignore them, guess what, tend to be the ones that have 

been up there all the time. 

And if you put all that paper in perspective, it sounds entirely 

reasonable to at least one Member, the one speaking right now, 

that an experienced presiding officer might have viewed a tally 

sheet as the equivalent of all the other paper that is there. This 

is what we give you to give you some instruction on how to say it 

right; and if you are an experienced person, frankly, you may feel 

you don’t need it. 

Now, frankly, after all this controversy, I think there is going to 

be more attentiveness on the part of presiding officers to waiting 

for a tally sheet. 

But don’t we all wish we had 20–20 hindsight? 

So I will yield to Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Just a couple of points of clarification. 

Mr. Hartz, did you signal or tell Ms. O’Neill at any time to instruct Mr. McNulty to close the vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. I did not. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
35 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And Mr. Pierson, did you view Mr. 

McNulty’s testimony yesterday to the Committee? 

Mr. PIERSON. No. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Are you familiar with the testimony Mr. 

McNulty provided in a prior interview with the Committee? 

Mr. PIERSON. No. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So you are not familiar with his testimony that he felt no pressure and received no instruction to close 

the vote? 

Mr. PIERSON. That is right. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And are you familiar with yesterday’s 

testimony, Mr. Pierson, from the Parliamentarians or any interviews with the Parliamentarians or members of the Clerk’s Office 

that there was a discussion among members of the Parliamentarians and Clerks not to process Mr. Boehner’s card? 

Mr. PIERSON. No, I am not familiar with that. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And one last point, Mr. Pierson. 

There was a line of questioning to Mr. Hartz and Ms. O’Neill 

about perceived consternation among some conservative Democrats 

about the substance of the issue in the motion to recommit, in the 

procedural matter of the motion to recommit. 

Do you recall that three members of the Minority, three Members from the Florida delegation, changed their vote on the motion 

to recommit? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So is it fair to say that there is consternation among some Members of the Republican Party on the 

substance within the procedural motion to recommit? 

Mr. PIERSON. On that particular motion? Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. On that particular motion, the substance 

within that particular motion? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I think that is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 

I am not going to make any observations, but I am going to note, 

Jay, your testimony on page 28 of your interview. 

In terms of talking about the slip and talking about the display 

of ‘‘final’’ on the summary board, this is what you said at your 

interview: ‘‘The idea that you have a slip and that the board says 

‘final,’ that is not the rules of the House.’’ Do you remember saying 

that? 

Mr. PIERSON. I don’t remember that. But it is not in the rules, 

that is true. 

The CHAIRMAN. You went on to say, they are not the rules, but 

protocol. 

Listening to your testimony, I think that you are of the belief 

that the slip is an important instrumentality of quality control, is 

that fair? 

Mr. PIERSON. Extremely important, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this. In terms of the display of 

the word ‘‘final’’ on the board, what is your opinion in terms of 

whether that ought to be a continued practice? Or would you have 

any objection to its elimination to avoid confusion in the future? If 

you have an opinion? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
36 

Mr. PIERSON. I think it is nice to have it up there. I think in this 

case, it went up too soon, obviously. The Tally Clerk—I don’t know 

how they operate, but—hit a button that put ‘‘final’’ up when it 

wasn’t really final. 

So I think it is nice to have it up there, But in this case, it 

caused a lot of consternation. 

I think had we just lost the vote, it would have been bad enough, 

and we may have complained and said, it was held open. But when 

you see final on the board, everybody’s thought is, oh, it is final, 

not it is semifinal. 

The CHAIRMAN. But it can lead to confusion? 

Mr. PIERSON. It did this time. It is the only time in my 30 years 

I have seen that. 

The CHAIRMAN. But I am just giving you my own opinion. I don’t 

think it is really necessary, so why do it? I am beginning to reach 

that conclusion. But that will be a subject of our Committee deliberations. 

Maybe I will make an observation. I agree with Mr. LaTourette 

that the vote should have been 211 to 217, and I think another 

mistake was made. But I do not think it was made as a result of 

any actions by the majority, but it was a mistake that was made 

within and among the professional staff. 

It was obviously unintentional. I don’t know if you have an opinion on that, Mr. Pierson. 

Mr. PIERSON. Could you repeat the last part? 

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, I am saying that I think it was 

simply a mistake. And the mistake that was made—not processing 

the vote by Mr. Boehner—was a mistake that was made on the rostrum. 

Mr. PIERSON. I think it was chaos; and that is what happened, 

in my opinion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Let me just conclude again by being very 

clear in terms of the rationale for you determining that there was 

extraordinary pressure brought to bear. 

Is there any other manifestation of that pressure that you personally observed, other than the two interactions between Mr. 

Hoyer and the Parliamentarians, that you can think of now? 

Mr. PIERSON. Not specifically on the tape. 

And I didn’t mention this, but after being here for 30 years, 

many of it in Minority, if we had been in the Minority the whole 

time, I wouldn’t have any idea how you close the vote, basically. 

But since we were in the Majority for 12 years, I know how we 

closed votes; and it was from the Whip to somebody in the Speaker’s Office to the Chair. And there were many times when they 

wanted to close the vote. 

And so with that in mind and knowing how that operates, and 

then seeing Hoyer, that was my deduction. At no other times do 

I remember, I wasn’t there, I didn’t hear him telling McNulty. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was those two instances, those two interactions that led you to that conclusion? 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, again, I want to thank all of you for your 

participation. Thank you for your service. 

Now I will yield to Mr. Pence. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
37 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am informed that we 

have a vote on, and it is one vote, and I would like to recommend 

to the Chair that we recess and vote and return. We will have a 

1-hour break, and I am confident we will be able to complete our 

work in the time following the vote. If we could ask your indulgence, we would be pleased to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do any of you have any responsibilities? 

Mr. DAVIS. I would note we have 10 minutes left on the vote and 

10 minutes left to question. We could conclude right now. 

Mr. PENCE. I am happy to respond to that. 

I know the gentleman is very concerned about the money we are 

spending, but I think the Chair has made it very clear that we 

don’t just have 10 minutes left of discussion, that he is going to 

continue to be very generous about the time that we require to answer the questions that we have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just interject here, we will recess and return upon the conclusion of the vote. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The Select Committee will come to order; and before yielding to my friend, the ranking member, I have two housekeeping issues I would like to address. 

First, this is a unanimous consent request, that the staff be allowed to make technical and conforming changes to documents that 

were submitted for the record, which includes allowing witnesses 

to review and edit their previous testimony which was inserted in 

the hearing record. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, 

does that include changing vote tallies? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please, Mr. LaTourette, I don’t want to be on 

record again as having you prompt me into laughter. 

Hearing no serious objection, so ordered. 

Since during yesterday’s hearing there was a reference to the 

CAO, Chief Administrative Office, I would like to insert into the 

record a letter that we received from Dan Beard, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, after Mr. Pence and I interviewed 

him. In my opinion, the CAO’s office acted in a manner consistent 

with H. Res. 611 as it related to the role that the CAO plays in 

regard to the administration of a vote. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Again reserving the right to object, because I 

wasn’t involved—and this will be serious, I promise—it is my understanding, at least as a member of the Minority—and maybe Mr. 

Pence can tell me to stop—but that what Mr. Pence was referring 

to was the fact that that resolution required all officers of the 

House to preserve documents. And the reason we don’t have emails, for instance, from Mr. Hartz, isn’t because of anything Mr. 

Hartz did, it is because the CAO didn’t do what the resolution instructed him. 

So I guess if the CAO is now saying that he did something that 

complied with the resolution, I would like the opportunity to at 

least question that. Because, otherwise, we would have Mr. Hartz’s 

e-mails. 

So I would yield to you on my reservation and just ask—— 

The CHAIRMAN. When inquired of, the CAO indicated that it was 

his opinion that he conformed in good faith; and we simply have 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
38 

a letter here articulating that. And the unanimous request is to 

make that letter, which is dated April 9th, 2008—it is directed to 

myself and to Mr. Pence—a matter of the record. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Continuing in my reservation, it is my understanding that the CAO has indicated to you and the ranking member that he didn’t find the resolution sufficiently clear enough to 

have required him to segregate the e-mails of the people that were 

identified. And I just—as one Member, I don’t—I do not find the 

resolution to be unclear in that regard. And I am willing to, as I 

think we have evidenced, that he made a mistake, that he didn’t 

know. But to say that the resolution wasn’t clear and he didn’t preserve e-mails from people who the resolution instructed him to save 

e-mails and all other documents, I don’t think I can agree with that 

observation. I am challenged. 

And I yield to the gentleman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, again, I respect the challenge and, obviously, your opinion. The letter I would suggest simply speaks for 

itself. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And continuing on my reservation, I don’t disagree with you, but what you are asking unanimous consent for is 

to include a letter from the CAO. And I assume, not having seen 

the letter, but from what he told you and Mr. Pence, that the letter 

says that I complied with House Resolution—I don’t think he did. 

And I am willing to have him appear and be interviewed by people. 

We don’t have to have another public hearing but to appear. And 

I don’t believe that to be true. 

Now, I believe he could say he made a mistake. He didn’t understand it. But there is nothing unclear about the resolution in my 

mind, nor is there anything unclear about his responsibilities. And 

he didn’t discharge them, for which he may have a valid excuse. 

But just to say he complied with it, I disagree, and I guess I would 

object, if that’s where we find ourselves. 

The CHAIRMAN. Hearing an objection, we will now proceed to the 

time for the Minority. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I ask my final question and yield to my colleagues, I do 

have a statement. 

You know, with all due respect, we have listened patiently to 

Members on the other side of this Committee who suggest that essentially the so-called ‘‘stolen vote’’ really didn’t matter. Didn’t 

matter because the substance of the motion to recommit may have 

duplicated existing law. Didn’t matter because Democrats graciously offered to do a do-over. Really didn’t matter because, although Mr. McNulty misreported the final tally by failing for the 

only time in the past 40 years to read an official tally slip, didn’t 

matter because there is no black letter rule in the House rules to 

require such a slip. 

With all due respect, I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that the integrity of the voting process of the House does matter. In fact, I believe it is all that matters in the House. The integrity of the House 

of Representatives is completely tied up in the integrity of the administration of the vote. As Mr. McNulty testified yesterday, each 

and every vote cast on the House represents 600,000 Americans 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
39 

who cannot be on the floor and therefore are represented by an individual. 

There has been some talk about—members of the panel—about 

a half a million dollars spent, and there have been press accounts 

of a half a million dollars spent on this Committee. I ask, what is 

the reputation of the House of Representatives worth? A Federal 

Government that provides for the common defense, promotes the 

general welfare, spends nearly $2 trillion on an annual basis, 

spending half a million dollars to ensure that every American is 

properly represented on the floor is a proper and appropriate expenditure. 

Now, I understand Members on your side, some, Mr. Chairman, 

certainly not you, would wish this whole thing would go away, just 

as we might if the shoe were on the other foot. But the six of us 

don’t have that luxury. As members of the House Ethics Committee, Congressmen LaTourette and Hulshof didn’t have that ability when they had to sit in judgment of their own Majority Leader, 

Tom DeLay. They didn’t have that luxury then, and Members of 

the Majority don’t have that luxury today. 

With that, I have one more question for our witness, Catlin 

O’Neill; and I want to thank the panel again for their patience and 

cooperation. 

I will forego, Ms. O’Neill, replaying chapter 7, but I think we all 

understand the moment, about a 20-second segment, where you are 

having, to use the Chairman’s phrase, an apparent interaction with 

the Majority Leader. You appear to turn, speak to Mr. McNulty. 

Mr. McNulty in that 20-second span grabs the gavel and attempts 

to close the vote. 

Let me ask you, were you surprised—you have indicated that no 

signal was given at that time by Mr. Hoyer or by you to Mr. 

McNulty. Were you surprised when Mr. McNulty gaveled the vote 

immediately after you spoke to him on that fourth time that we 

have reviewed? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much; and, hopefully, I will 

just take a minute and give the rest of our time to Mr. Hulshof. 

I just wanted—the chairman began this hearing with a very eloquent opening statement that said that the culprit was going to be 

revealed, and it is 2(a). After hearing some remarks in the last series, round of questions, I now understand I think fully why Republicans have trouble with 2(a) and maybe the Democrats are less 

troubled. And that is the Democrats appear to be clairvoyant and 

can read the minds of not only the occupant of the Chair but also 

members of this Committee as to why they ask questions over the 

last 40-some minutes. 

And I would never call an argument made by another member 

ridiculous, but the argument because we can’t see Steny Hoyer in 

the frame sort of like a WWF wrestler taking McNulty down to the 

ground that therefore he had no participation in either the first call 

or the second call is a little bit like saying when there is a bank 

robbery we can never convict the wheelman who is waiting outside 

for the guy with the mask and the cash and the gun. It is a little 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
40 

bit like saying if I hire Mike Pence as a hit man to go murder 

somebody I can never be convicted of murder. 

So there have been excellent questions, excellent arguments 

made. I just don’t find some of the observations made during the 

last little bit to fall into that category. And be happy to yield to 

my friend from Missouri. 

Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate that. 

Mr. PIERSON, very quickly, there has been some reference to the 

podium and I think a mental picture that somehow it is cluttered 

with documents. Can you clarify as the Parliamentarian hands 

prompt cards to the Speaker pro tem how is that actually done, sir? 

Mr. PIERSON. Well, I thought there was some comments made by 

one person on the panel that left a misimpression that the rostrum 

is just full of papers all over the place and you have got to shuffle 

them and find out what you need. 

Basically, the Parliamentarians hand the Speaker a card. It is 

read. It is taken back. They are ready for another one. It is not like 

there is a stack of papers up there. 

And I might also point out that the slip of paper is the only 

paper that is handed by a standing Tally Clerk at the end of a vote 

to the Parliamentarians to the Chair. It is not like it is mixed up 

in that paper, you know, that is on the chair. 

And one other misimpression, the worst Chairs—and I think 

Catlin and Jerry would agree with this. The worst Chairs are the 

Chairs who don’t read the slips. So the impression was left that the 

really good Chairs can do it without the slips, and I think that is 

partly a misimpression. I don’t know about Mr. McNulty. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Ms. O’Neill, is there anything Mr. Pierson just 

said you disagree with? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I would—Jay is correct in saying that oftentimes 

the Chairs that are problematic don’t read—don’t read the slips of 

paper that they are given. However, there are papers. Although it 

is not a mess of papers on the desk, there are papers. And they 

are being given to the Chair from both the Parliamentarian and 

the Clerks on the other side. So there is an impression that it could 

be confusing, I believe. 

Mr. HULSHOF. And, unfortunately, in this instance Mr. Davis alluded to earlier, 42 minutes of questions, and I guess he was expecting something from our side he didn’t get, but the testimony 

before this Committee is that in 40 years one piece of paper that 

wasn’t on the dais that should have been was the tally slip, and 

we didn’t have that. 

Let me ask you, Ms. O’Neill, again just to clarify, Mr. Hoyer told 

this Committee that as he reviewed the videotape he is telling you 

that we need to shut down the vote when we are prevailing. Do you 

recall that conversation or do you not recall that conversation? Or 

did it not even happen? Can you just say flatly it didn’t happen? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I don’t recall the conversation. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Can we play, Hugh, can we just play chapter 7? 

I will let 20 seconds of my time go and ask you all to watch this, 

please, one last time. 

[Tape played.] 

Mr. HULSHOF. Okay. Here are my observations, and I put them 

in the form of a question, Ms. O’Neill, to you and to you, Mr. Hartz. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
41 

The motion to recommit involved a controversial subject. Each of 

you knew that the vote was going to be close, probably because of 

the difficulty on your side of the aisle among some of your Members who have a difficult time with this vote, with this subject matter. In fact, it has been well documented that there were some 

angst by leadership that the number of Republican motions to recommit that had been prevailing, that that caused some anxiety 

among leadership staff. And so here comes another motion to recommit with this very difficult issue about taxpayer benefits to illegal immigrants, and both of you know it is a close vote. 

And notwithstanding the fact that 11 previous votes the Speaker 

chose not to vote, which is her prerogative, on this vote, because 

of the tightness of the vote, Mr. Hartz, you indicated to her, gestured to her to go vote. The Majority Leader, Ms. O’Neill, says to 

us that he wanted to prevail and told you as such. And as we just 

witnessed from the videotape, you then turned from that conversation, from Mr. Hoyer, go to the presiding officer, Mr. McNulty, and 

even though you don’t recall what was said, immediately thereafter 

he begins to gavel the vote down. 

And to be candid—and I mean no personal disrespect—the lack 

of recollection—I mean, we have thousands of votes. This is the 

only one in 40 years that we have heard about of this type of mishap occurring; and so this wasn’t just a normal, routine vote. And 

so, quite frankly, I find the lack of recollection breathtaking. 

And you have testified before or at least given statements that 

it was your designated job, Ms. O’Neill, to actually talk to the presiding officer and direct the presiding officer about when to bring 

the vote to a close. And yet in this particular instance no recollection of that. 

Is that—Mr. Hartz, is that how we should leave this record? Because the hearing is about to conclude. Is that how this—is there 

anything I have said that you wish to amplify or take away from? 

Is that how you want this record to be considered by the American 

people about this roll call vote? 

Mr. HARTZ. I believe this was an extremely close vote and there 

are a set of circumstances that were elaborated yesterday about 

what was in Mr. McNulty’s head as he closed the vote. I think 

what he said speaks for itself. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Ms. O’Neill, anything else you wish to amplify or 

to take away from? Or is the recitation that I have given a fair 

characterization in your mind about why we are here trying to get 

to—ascertain what actually occurred on roll call vote 814? 

Ms. O’NEILL. I can only tell you what I do know. And what I do 

know is that I don’t recall any conversation with Mr. Hoyer outside 

of telling him they had 13 Members that still hadn’t voted. 

I also know that I never told the presiding officer to close the 

vote and that if I were telling the presiding officer to close the vote, 

I would also keep the Parliamentarians apprised of that. 

Mr. HULSHOF. And at least during this 20-second period of time 

it seemed that the conversation, albeit short, between yourself and 

the presiding officer, Mr. McNulty, that you were not talking to the 

Parliamentarian. At least that was my view of it. The tape speaks 

for itself. And so I guess we will just have to speculate or infer 

what the conversation was, given your absence of recollection. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
42 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to again thank the panelists. You are excused. 

Again, you have made a significant contribution, and we will see 

you on the floor. And if I walk in late and say one more, remember 

who is writing the report. 

Before I adjourn—please, you are all excused—just some housekeeping matters. I do want to thank the Republican members. You 

have been good to work with, and I still have some hope that we 

are going to reach a consensus. There might be some disagreements, but I do think that this has been a good process, and I 

think it is a process that, as I said yesterday, hopefully will achieve 

a result more than just simply—hopefully an improvement in 

terms of our voting procedures here but also enhance the mood and 

the climate on the floor. 

And with that—— 

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me take the opportunity to, on behalf of Members of the Minority, to thank you for the cooperative and collegial 

way you have approached this inquiry. It has been a pleasure to 

work with you and Mr. Davis and Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And while 

I leave these public hearings less optimistic that we will agree on 

what happened that night, I leave more optimistic that we will be 

able to embrace reforms and ensure it never happens again. 

I commend you for the way that you have taken this challenge 

on seriously, however reluctantly, and wish to express our appreciation and our ongoing commitment as we go forward with our report to find those matters upon which we can agree and hopefully 

leave the institution better off than the way we found it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Mike. And I think the fact that 

we had these public hearings and that we have acted in a collegial 

fashion and that we have strived for, and I believe, transparency, 

so that those that are interested, those that observe these proceedings and review our report will have their questions answered 

in a way that is unfiltered, that they will be able to review the 

record, look at the statements that have been made, the documents 

that are present, reach their own conclusions as to the facts. 

But, again, I think that we even—and maybe I am woefully 

naive, but I am not going to surrender to pessimism here. I think 

that we can achieve a final report that is not just simply a good 

product but improves considerably the climate that is in the House 

now. Because I think that is what the American people, they clearly deserve that, and I think they are going to demand that of all 

of us. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Kenny. 

Mr. HULSHOF. As a point of indulgence to you, Mr. Chairman, 

this is the second opportunity that I have had the chance to work 

with you personally. On the previous occasion, I wielded the gavel; 

and we worked very diligently behind closed doors in a more confidential setting, as was required by the rules of the House and our 

Ethics Committee. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
43 

This has been a more public—even though there has been a lot 

of work behind the scenes, I think we should commend the staff for 

the diligence with which they brought to this. But I think all of us, 

if we start from a point of agreement, and your glass being half full 

over there, Mr. Chairman, I think all six of us believe that the integrity of the House must always remain inviolate. That is we must 

hold up and provide confidence to the people that we represent, 

that the integrity of the House is the most important thing. And 

so I think whatever the final—— 

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would yield for a moment. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Yes. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I want to say this about the gentleman from Missouri, that he is correct, we worked together at another moment in 

the history of this particular institution that was unpleasant. And 

the gentleman on that occasion did wield the gavel. To me, he demonstrated political courage, integrity, and professionalism. And if 

he wants my endorsement in that Republican primary, I would be 

happy to render it. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Wow. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. But he is an exceptional Member that continues 

to make a great contribution to this institution. And much of what 

he has done has not been noted publicly, but I know what he did 

during a very controversial time when the so-called Medicare vote, 

allegations surrounding that, ended and required action by the 

Ethics Committee. He and I served together on that subpanel. I 

know it was difficult, and I want to say publicly that you have my 

great admiration and respect. I think that was a significant contribution in and of itself. 

I know Steve LaTourette served on the full Ethics Committee at 

the time. Our report—and there were four of us on that panel, including John Shadegg of Arizona and Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania—I think reflected so well on the institution. But I think, 

ironically, Ken, that our attempt to reform was probably in response to that particular issue. And I think that—and this is unknown I am sure to even Stephanie and Mike and Steve—but that 

you and I had discussed the need for a maximum amount of time 

in terms of when a vote could remain open, and maybe if our advice had been accepted we wouldn’t be here today. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Well, I appreciate your kind thoughts. And as we 

close the books down on the testimony and as we now move into 

the next segment of this Committee’s work, I hope, and I certainly 

applaud the gentleman from Massachusetts, the integrity of the institution is the most important thing. I mean, people from sea to 

shining sea must have confidence in the openness of this body. And 

so I hope let’s begin then from this point forward from that point 

of agreement; and then if there are areas upon which we disagree, 

I am sure we will state those as well. But thank you. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. And we can do those in a respectful and civil 

manner. 

And again, you, Mike and yourself, observed that we have been 

very fortunate to have an outstanding staff. Every single member 

of our staff and those whom we sought, outside help—and I am 

looking at Judy here—they have been superb. I think that as Members we can be proud of the service that we have received from the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
44 

staff that is sitting behind us. I know I said yesterday I would be 

adrift without their assistance and without their input. It shows 

what people can do when they work together in a way that is respectful of each other. 

And with that, we will now adjourn. 

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING