[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 47 (Wednesday, April 26, 2006)]
[House]
[Page H1812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RULES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order for 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Illinois is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, my response to my friend from Maryland is 
that I cast no aspersions on any Member. You know better than that. But 
we have rules around here, and people need to know what the rules are. 
When the Rules Committee folks come down here and criticize the 
majority because they do not particularly like the way the Rules 
Committee operates, then I think it is perfectly proper for Members to 
realize that if they want to offer the motion to recommit because they 
have a grievance, because they did not get their amendment, that is 
well within their right to do it; but they ought to do it under the 
rules of the House. That is my only point.
  I cast no aspersions on Mr. Schiff. I have great admiration and 
respect for him. But I just think all the Members ought to know what 
the rules are around here.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Because the irony is Members are put in a position where they have no 
alternative by the Rules Committee because their amendments are not 
made in order, which may well have been supported by the overwhelming 
majority of the House of Representatives, and that is the position that 
Members are put in on a regular basis. The situation, I suggest to the 
gentleman, does, in fact change when an amendment is defeated, and a 
Member then has a new judgment to make. That was my point.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I take your point.




                          ____________________