Steny Hoyer: “this is the second week in a row that it is my perception that the motivations and intentions of a Member are being put…”

“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.…”