Earlier debate…back online now.

Geren is up for a PI: isn’t it true in the 79th rules that each member is required to vote fromthe desk except those at the front?

SOS: Yes

Amendment 1 to HR 35 covers when the public sees the ballots.

Now they are talking about secret ballots.

HArtnett: Said Paul Burka has endorsed letting people see the ballots after the vote. His amendment is for a public vote disclosed immediately rather than five weeks later.

Hill: Asks him to yield. Will be that results disclosed before another ballot?

Hartnett: Yes.

Talton: Under your amendment, when ballots released?

Hartnett: actual ballots to chief clerk, technically, for further disposition by this body but would assume public record.

Talton: Under line 18, 19, 20, release as soon as possible.

Hartnett: Yes.

Talton: We can assume today is that correct?

Hartnett: Yes, the tallies will be released immediatlely.

Talton: If a person was concerned about members in this house would be treated do you think fairest way would be after committee assignments?

Hartnett: Well, never had that.

Talton: Never had a speaker’s race like this.

Talton: Do you think yours is the fairest way or fairest to members to have it after committe assignments.

Hartnett: PErfectly fair. I have a right to know how other members vote and my constituants do…

Talton: Don’t disagree but it’s when.

Talton: If concerned about protection of members, isn’t it etter after committee assignments?

Hartnett: Heart of this is people who have double pledged and want to have their cake and eat it.

Talton: Don’t you think it is better to protect the members.

Hartnett: I personally have no interest in protecting double pledgers.

Talton: Don’t you think it would be better after committee asignments?

Hartnett: Time we show our votes today.

Talton: You want to show those people out for what they are and you don’t care what happens to those folks?

HArtnett: NO but I don’t think that outweights the [public].

Talton: Don’t you care about the body?

Hartnett: Balencing of the needs…

Martinez Fisher: Without the current rule, could I tell whoever who I voted for for speaker.

Hartnett: You can say whatever you want.

Martinez Fisher: You don’t need your amendment to tell people how you voted?

Hartnett says no word is official unless it is in the journal.

Martinez Fisher: Nothing stops anyone from telling anyone how they voted for speaker.

Branch: Your approach seeks for disclosure of names promptly or immediately.

Hartnett: After each vote

Branch: The other approach would delay that to some point.

Hartnett: Correct.

Branch: So we could ask for a lot of votes to be delayed so we don’t have to deal with the consequences of our votes?

Hartnett: Seems to me we could.

Branch: Comes down to political courage…

Hartnett: That’s an aspect of it.

Moeno: Really, this is a different election that we’ve had, would you agree? That this is one of a kind? The only two people who have experienced this are me and Rep. Craddick. We are the only ones. No one on this floor has ever experienced elections like this in 43 years.

Hartnett: Take your word for it.

MOreno: Neither side is attempting to hijack anybody’s vote but what we are trying to do is make sure the process and the member is protected for the same reason we have this election is because we believe we were not treated fairly in the past [applause]

Hochberg: You said in conversation with Talton that the only purpose of delaying is to protect what you called “double pledgers.” Why would it be limited to that? It seems to me that the fear of retributuion or unfair treatment wouldn’t be limited to double pledgers but to anybody who found themselves on what became the wrong side. Don’t know which side that’s going to be but isn’t it much broader…isn’t really about a lot of members and a lot of districts.

Hartnett: I hear what you are saying and both sides have solid lists and it is down to a handfull of people.

Hochberg: I haven’t seen those lists and don’t know if you or I would believe them if we saw them. Is it inherant in your proposal or your logic that if you are on the side that loses that you dserve to be back benched and not deserve to participate fully in this body? So we know that those people are appropriately punbished.

Hartnett: This quickly gets into some major political…

Hochberg: Not attribute that to one side or another, don’t know if it matters in terms of wha we are discussing here…try to get to something where house will work in best possible way regardless.

Hartnett: We have to get back to reality and that is what we are talking about on the amenment has never been done before. Secondly, it would create all kinds of precedents for this body to hide its votes in other circumstnaces. I would love on a lot ov tough votes to delay them for a month, two months, three months after an election, but that’s too greedy, delay them so the hoopla and uproar and attention fades and the impact is dissipated as far as my personal carrer. I thik the public is entitled to know right away.

Hochberg:wouldn’t those scinarios be in violation of the constitution which limits us to secret ballot for electiononly.

Hartnett: Doesn’t prohibit us, if we want to as a body, we can defer the release of any vote we have with an amendment to the constitution.

Jackson: do you think integrity of house stands in balance?

Hartnett: Hard to cast aspursions on my colleagues.

Jackson: Integrity based on word of members?

Hartnett: Personal integrity.

Jackson: Why are people worried about people knowing how they voted?

Moved adoption of Hartnett amendment.

Geren’s amendment to the amendment.

Geren: This amendment allows, inmy mind, speaker protection amdendment if speaker doesn’t know how every member voted until after he lays out the committees. Press, members, etc. can’t get on him. Speaker can say didn’t know how he voted anyway.

More idle time…