[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7031-7032]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  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 minority party offers a 
motion to recommit on a bill and the Speaker asks the Member if they 
are opposed to the bill and the Member announces to the House that they 
are opposed to the bill and then votes for the bill on final passage, 
is that a violation of the rules?

[[Page 7032]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As Members are aware, the first element of 
priority in recognition for a motion to recommit is whether the Member 
seeking recognition is opposed to the main measure. Under the practice 
of the House exemplified in Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 
2770, the Chair accepts without question an assertion by a Member of 
the House that he is opposed to the measure in its current form.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to note for the record that one of the 
Members who was on the motion to recommit, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, voted against the bill. The Member that offered the 
motion to recommit voted for the bill, and I assume that then that is a 
violation of the rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair takes a Member at his word when he 
says he is opposed to the bill in its current form.
  The gentleman from Illinois's statement is noted.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker takes the Member at their 
word, obviously we are dealing with either confusion or some other 
circumstance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  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, this is the second week in a row that it is 
my perception that the motivations and intentions of a Member are being 
put in question. Now it is being put as a question of parliamentary 
procedure. Particularly the second speaker who spoke on this clearly 
implied that and meant to imply it.
  First of all, I would say, Mr. Speaker, if Members' amendments were 
made in order, if in a democratic fashion these amendments could be on 
the floor, if in fact you were to subject yourself to debate and a fair 
vote on these issues, perhaps this issue would never come up.
  Secondly, I would say, Mr. Speaker, as I said last week when another 
Member's actions were questioned, whether they were within the ambit of 
the rules or whether they were being honest in their representations, 
the fact of the matter is that a Member's view of a bill does in fact 
change in light of the action on a previous amendment or a motion to 
recommit or some other action that might occur.
  So, as I said to the gentleman last week, the situation substantively 
changes. It may be the same bill, but it is a bill that has been 
subjected to an alternative amendment.
  Then the Member who is opposed to the bill at that time without that 
amendment being considered, that amendment fails, the Member is put in 
a different position. He or she then has to make a judgment, do I 
support or oppose this bill as it now is and as I have failed to 
perfect it with an amendment.
  So I suggest to the gentleman, who has now raised it a second time in 
a row, and I frankly thought it had been resolved, that he is wrong in 
his premise, he is wrong under the rules, and I would hope that we 
could put this behind us.
  I would certainly hope, and the gentleman who chairs the Rules 
Committee is on his feet, that we could allow these amendments; that we 
could allow, as the gentleman so often when he was in the minority 
asked to have done, allow these amendments to be considered in a fair 
and open debate and subject them to a vote. So that in a democratic 
body, in the People's House, they could be voted on up or down.
  I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman was fully within the rules 
and fully within his rights and did exactly the only thing that he was 
given the opportunity to do in order to raise an important issue in 
this democratic forum.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is sort of interesting that, as I have stood here 
earlier this week during debate, I have had my intentions questioned by 
Members on the other side of the aisle throughout this week. Throughout 
hours of debate yesterday, people were questioning my intentions as we 
were looking at the issue of lobbying and ethics reform.
  Having said that, I think it is very important to note that when we 
were in the minority, about which my friend is speaking, we were often 
denied even an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit on 
legislation. Time and time again that happened. When we won the 
majority in 1994, we provided a guarantee that members of the minority 
would be able to offer a motion to recommit.
  We knew full well this opportunity would come forward, and Mr. LaHood 
was simply asking of the Chair whether or not under the precedents it 
is appropriate for a Member to stand up, state their opposition to a 
measure that is about to be voted on, and then offer a motion to 
recommit. Those precedents were stated.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Speaker indicated it 
was within the rules and within the precedents. In fact, the precedents 
were numerous times that Republicans rose and did exactly the same 
thing for exactly the same reasons.

                          ____________________