I am very sorry that the gentleman feels he is shortchanged in the debate. As the gentleman knows, under the rule and under the Rodino format, they were entitled to 1 hour. We doubled that. I did not think that was fair, but we could have gone on and on, and much of the same thing said over and over again. It would be too much for me to expect appreciation for doubling the time, but the hostility? Let me suggest to Members who think this is going on like Tennyson's brook, just on and on and on, the 20th amendment to the Constitution says that 'Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of January.' We are out of business at the end of the year. Our money runs out. And if we are to continue, if there is anything to continue, we would have to reconstitute ourselves. I do not want this to go one day longer than it has to. Believe me, this is very painful and I want it ended. We are not going to go on and on and on. But Mr. Rodino faced up to the problem of time limits and here is what he said. And why do you reject Mr. Rodino time and again in all of these issues? He is our model. He is the one we are following.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing time limits and debate procedures in Congress.
Share
More from Henry Hyde
The more valuable our dissent into weakness, dissension and inaction, the greater the aid and comfort we give to our enemies.
you know, in all contentious discussions, there are a set of imaginary barricades, and people get on one side or on the other. On one side of the barricades, the hypothetical barricades, are people's main concern of prison welfare. They…
I enclose two letters relating to the consideration of H.R. 3100 The East Asia Security Act.'' House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC, July 12, 2005. Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, House Committee on…
if I may reclaim my time, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), this is a marvelous amendment. The spirit in which it is offered is exemplary, and it is a very difficult thing to oppose it. But I see a problem with it…





