Parliamentary Inquiry

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY -- (House of Representatives - April 26, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/