Barney Frank: “this is not a narrow question of interpreting the rules; it is a fundamental question about democracy. I am a great…”

“this is not a narrow question of interpreting the rules; it is a fundamental question about democracy. I am a great believer in the rules. I think Members ought to understand them, because properly applied they structure our debates so that two purposes are served: first, we come to decisions; second, equally important, the American people know what their elected representatives have said on these important questions. And the rules should be interpreted to serve both purposes. Yes, there is precedent. But precedent is not confining and constraining and controlling. The vote of this House is. I have in the past voted against the majority of my colleagues on my side because I thought the Chair was correct in interpreting a rule and that my colleagues were trying to get a second bite at an apple or bring in something that was not germane. Obviously, this is germane. It was brought forward by the majority. The question then is, should we set the policy that a very controversial, very important subject can be considered to have been decided when it is hidden in another issue?”