[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7033-7034]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           RULES OF THE HOUSE

  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to notify the House and you, 
Mr. Speaker, that when the rules are violated, when it is very clear 
that the rules are violated, I intend, on a regular basis, to make note 
of that for the record.
  I take the point that the gentleman from Maryland makes. And he and I 
talked about it. And I take the point that I have talked to the 
Parliamentarian about this. I think his point is a good point. I think 
if there are Members who feel that they didn't get an opportunity to 
offer an amendment, or to have their say on a bill, then maybe we ought 
to change the motion to recommit to an opportunity for any Democrat 
Member to stand up and offer an amendment on the bill.
  But my point is, we have rules. And we are being criticized and 
lectured to every day around here about the fact that people don't like 
the way the Rules Committee operates, or about the rules. And my point 
is, if we have rules, we should abide by them. All Members should.
  So I want the Members of the House, and I want you, Mr. Speaker, to 
know that I am going to continue to pursue this. But I am also going to 
pursue, at the beginning of the next session, a way to change the rules 
to reflect an opportunity for the minority party to have their say on a 
bill.
  But until that happens, I believe we should follow the rules. I have 
no doubt that the gentleman from Maryland, who is a man of the House 
and understands the rules, would want us to abide by the rules.
  I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to assure him that when we are in the majority next January, 
we are going to consider very carefully your proposal. The fact of the 
matter is that when I said both Republicans and Democrats have pursued 
this procedure, and when the Chair has ruled that they are acting 
within the rules, as the Chair has now done both times that the 
gentleman raised the issue,

[[Page 7034]]

that we will understand, and perhaps better than we did in 1994, having 
served in the minority now for 12 years, we will better understand the 
frustration that is engendered by the failure to give to the minority 
its full opportunity to place on the floor and have debated fully and 
having a vote on an alternative that they believe is superior to the 
bill offered by the majority.
  We better understand that frustration, but I will tell you that the 
gentleman from California, the chairman of your Rules Committee, rose 
and said he complained bitterly as a member of the minority. You 
remember that. I remember that. We have been here for some period of 
time. We understand that frustration.
  But we also understand that repeatedly members of your party pursued 
the same process and were, as our members have been, held to have been 
in order. And for you to repeatedly raise this, raises, I tell my 
friend, and he is my friend, it raises the issue of the integrity of 
the Member making the order.
  We believe it is within the rules. We have been ruled in order. I 
think that continuing to pursue this simply raises the motivation of 
the Member. I know you don't believe that. I know you are not raising 
that. That is not your intent. But it seems to me that is its effect.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would hope we could resolve 
this and move on.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, my final point is this: when I raise this 
point of order, in no way do I impugn the motives of any Member. I have 
respect for every Member here, and I think Members know that.
  And I do. They are freely elected. They can come to the floor. My 
point is, we have rules. We should abide by them. When we don't, I am 
going to raise a point. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________