Steny Hoyer: “Frankly, I want to tell my friend that if the gentleman from Texas was sincere, in my view, in wanting his amendment…”

“Frankly, I want to tell my friend that if the gentleman from Texas was sincere, in my view, in wanting his amendment adopted, he would not have rereferred it to committee. Very frankly, in my opinion, his amendment would have passed. The bill would have been reported back forthwith, and the bill would have passed. We all make a judgment as to what the purposes of amendments are. My view is, the gentleman voted against the underlying bill. The gentleman was opposed to the underlying bill. His motion was to do two things: to provide an instance where on an issue not related to voting rights in the District of Columbia, but on an issue he thought the majority of the House supported which, I think he was correct, he wanted attached to that, and therefore create a dichotomy for Members. They either had to vote for an issue they were for and kill the bill, or vote against an issue they were for and be perceived as being against the proposition. I understand what you are saying. I do not believe that it is fair legislative process to necessarily believe that that needs to be made in order.”