[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6196-6197]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, when a Member of the House offers the motion 
to recommit and is asked the question whether they oppose the bill and 
say that they do in order that they can offer the motion, is it a 
violation of the rules of the House that that Member then votes for the 
bill and contradicts his statement that he was against the bill when he 
offered the motion to recommit? Is that a violation of House rules?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state to the gentleman from 
Illinois that the Chair takes a Member who makes that statement on the 
floor at his word.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Is it a violation of the House rules for a Member to have 
the prerogative to offer the motion to recommit and state at that time 
that they are opposed to the bill, and then vote for the bill, which is 
what occurred here on the House floor on the intelligence authorization 
bill?
  The gentleman from California offered the motion to recommit. He was 
asked by the Chair if he opposed the bill. He said he opposed the bill. 
And he is recorded as voting for the bill. Is that a violation of the 
House rules?

[[Page 6197]]



                              {time}  1800

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Again, for the 
gentleman from Illinois, at the time that a Member makes his statement 
that he opposes the bill, the Chair takes him at his word. But it is 
not necessarily a violation of the House rules for a Member to vote one 
way or another.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think in the future, the leadership 
on the other side should instruct their Members about what the rules of 
the House are, that if a Member wants to offer a motion to recommit, 
that is well within their right to do it, but they have to vote against 
the bill.
  Let me ask another parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Is it possible, then, for the Chair to instruct a Member 
that wants to vote against the bill that offered the motion to 
recommit, that they in fact, according to House rules, have to vote 
against the bill? Can the Chair instruct a Member that perhaps does not 
know the rules of the House that when they stand up to offer a motion 
to recommit and they are opposed to the bill, that in fact they have to 
vote against the bill?
  They cannot have it both ways, can they, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. LaHOOD. My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Speaker, can they have 
it both ways?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois will suspend.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Can they have it both ways?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  As previously indicated to the gentleman from Illinois, the Chair 
takes a Member at his word when assessing his qualification to offer 
the motion. But it is not the province of the Chair to instruct a 
Member how to vote thereafter.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order 
for 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Maryland is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois, in my opinion, 
is casting aspersions on the character and motives of a Member. That is 
clearly against the rule. But what I want to stand and say is that 
clearly, as we know, Duncan Hunter offered a resolution on the floor of 
this House in response to Mr. Murtha's press conference, that 
mischaracterized Mr. Murtha's position, but, more importantly, we had 
some hours of debate on that resolution, and Mr. Hunter, of course, 
voted ``no'' on that resolution.
  Furthermore, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois that a Member 
may well be opposed to a bill, I say to my friend, and want the 
opportunity to offer an amendment, but when that amendment fails, the 
situation has changed. The circumstances have changed. And the 
circumstances that have changed is then that Member is left with either 
supporting a bill that he may not think was perfected as he thought it 
should be but on which the majority of the House disagreed. At that 
point in time, I say to my friend, the situation has changed.
  And so for any one of us 435 to judge our 435th Member who sees a 
different situation confront him is, in fact, as I respectfully tell my 
friend, against the rules of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________