The coronavirus relief bill. Why no vote?

Basically the bill passed congress with only a voice (aye or nay) vote. Not a recorded vote even though some wanted it.

Is that good or bad?

I think we should know how our representatives voted.

LINK Its down in about the 6th paragraph.

Senate vote was 93-0 so I don’t think there was any doubt the house was going to approve it. And I think they wanted to leave town quickly.

One Rep wanted it. Nobody else in the chamber supported his motion.

By using a voice vote they were able to spread members around the both the floor and the observation galleries to maintain social distance. They were able to shorten the time that they were in the chamber with a voice vote. I call minimizing the risk of getting a bunch of representatives sick or dead a pretty good thing.

How many dead representatives, and disenfranchised voters when the seat was vacated, would that information be worth to you?

Maybe, and I’m sure this is just a crazy, off the wall, impossible idea, but maybe you could … ask them? …

I know, I know. Crazy idea. Emailing your rep to ask how they voted probably takes hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars, but, hey, it just may work.

Because no one wants to be the victim of an ad, ‘Representative so and so voted for a 2 trillion dollar bail out for Wall Street…’

I’m glad young progressives today whose politics are so pure actually get to observe the horse trading necessary even in times of crisis. The same goes to young tea party equivalents.

It also prevents the ‘Representative so and so didn’t care enough to vote on the biggest bail out in history’ ads.

Politics has a damn short memory.

Your thread title is misleading. There was a vote.

A voice vote. Not recorded one.

How do we know they would be honest. I guess you trust your politicians more than I do.

No, I would prefer a recorded vote.

Ok, they seperated. They can still have a recorded vote. Yes, they shortened the time. Well not actually. They push a button which records their vote and those are electronically tabulated so no, it doesnt really shorten the time.

If they kept their distance, used hand sanitizer, washed their hands, heck even used masks, the risks would be minimal. They are LEADERS and should act that way.

Good! A recorded vote.

Why didnt congress do the same?

The factual answer was that there was a consensus that the legislation was broadly accepted, and everyone was pissed at Massie for making them risk infection by showing up in a place where members of the body have already been tested positive. I’m sure nobody wanted to give Massie the satisfaction of letting a lone crackpot tell them even more what to do. From the accounts I read, there was bipartisan applause when Massie’s motion was not seconded.

But it is clear that you are not looking for a factual answer here. It seems you’re upset that the House used a perfectly legal way to pass legislation, instead of using a different perfectly legal way to pass legislation. In that case, nobody here can help you further.

I’d like to know why a single crackpot legislator from Kentucky (why Kentucky so often? Is their bourbon tainted, or something?) had enough power to force people to show up in person to support something that, as you put it, was “broadly accepted”? Why couldn’t they have just told that moron to “shove it” (even the Mango Idiot laid into him for his action) and hold the vote remotely whether he liked it or not?

I heard that Rep. Gallegos (D-I don’t remember) shouted “Go F*ck Yourself” at Massie from the gallery (the gallery had to be used to provide medically approved separation).

racepug, there is no provision for holding parliamentary proceedings or votes remotely, and they could not take the chance on Massie potentially being able to rile up enough other wingnut yahoos to second him OR, even, make a quorum motion potentially sending the vote into the following week. It’s not that he has so much power, it’s that the system as it stands, for motions of this nature, especially the quorum question, requires a majority to be physically there to tell him to cram it.

Nitpick: Congress is BOTH the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The House was in a District Work period (inaccurately referred as “recess”) last week, so the Session Friday was essentially made up of “whoever we can round up on short notice” (top leaders stayed because of course they had to be over at the Senate working on the compromise).

The particular bill they used for this purpose was one that originated in the House to begin with (at the time as a nonconflictive employee benefits bill passed 419-6) and was then completely amended and its content replaced with the aid package. As such it was returned from Senate to House for assent to the amendment. This strategy is important because it means the House then is not obliged to refer the bill for further hearing or report,* it can go straight to whether to accept the amendment or not.*

There are three ways for the House to deal with such a case, all of which are normal, lawful and usual:
(a) UC, “unanimous consent”. The bill (or a package of amendments if it’s an original bill on its first debate) is presented before the House and the floor leader moves to the Speaker Pro Tem that it be passed by unanimous consent. Which means nobody says no, and there is no vote called at all and the issue is not even debated on the floor. This was originally proposed to be the means to try and get CARES passed on the morning of whatever day after the Senate passed it, but Massie announced already on Wednesday that he would not allow it, and would move for recorded vote and quorum call, provoking a quick round-up of members that took a whole added day.

(b) Voice Vote alone. Every bill and even every individual amendment on which there is no UC are first put to Voice Vote after debate, which can be as brief as the floor leaders choose. On Friday some debate time was allowed for people to speak while enough members arrived for quorum. Only if someone challenges the Voice Vote result or wants to put his colleagues on the record, *then * they may make a motion for recorded vote.

(c) Recorded vote of yeas and nays. This is a motion a member makes, that needs to be seconded by a substantial fraction of other members, and then *approved by the body. *It is not the default.

When Massie made his motion for a recorded vote, he did not get a sufficient number of seconds (I don’t think he got any). Then he tried to further delay by questioning the quorum (this probably is what really ticked everyone off). Within minutes the chair ruled there WAS a quorum (and not having the support of his own Leader and Whip, he can’t challenge THAT). All it earned Massie was derisionfrom his colleagues and the privilege of a joint twitter-insult sequence from John Kerry and Donald Trump.

I laughed for ten minutes when I read John Kerry’s tweet: “Breaking news: Congressman Massie has tested positive for being an asshole. He must be quarantined to prevent the spread of his massive stupidity.” :smiley:

It’s clear who has, and who has not, spent too much time watching C-SPAN!

CMC, recovered C-SPAN addict fnord!


and then is put before the body, that should say, if seconded enough – it does not have to be itself voted, that would be oddly recursive.

They did! You just acknowledged it. :smiley:

Except that every person who did not join Massie in calling for a recorded vote can just as easily be branded as being complacent in the “$2 trillion Wall Street bailout.”

Of course, that assumes that anybody running against any of these Representatives tries that tactic. Considering how much support it had, I would think that such claims would fall on deaf ears, if not backfire on the person making the claim.

I bow to your expertise sir. You really know this stuff.