On the recordOctober 26, 2015
And colleagues, why are we here tonight? Why are we compelled to engage in this process? The circumstances, perhaps, might be a little bit like 1910. Do you remember 1910? A dictatorial Speaker who was so totally in control and who so totally refused to accept input from the membership made himself chairman of the Rules Committee, too. He stymied the legislative process. He brought it to a stop. What did our predecessors do 100-plus years ago? They finally rose up together and threw him out, and they created a process by which no dictatorial chairman, no dictatorial Speaker would ever be able to fully thwart the will of this body. It is amazing. That is what we are here for. It is to continue one century later the responsible actions that they put into place. Now, some of my friends have asked, ``Why don't we have thousands of amendments?'' Think about 1910--a dictatorial Speaker, a dictatorial committee chairman. Under no circumstances was Uncle Joe going to allow any input. So, when they created this process, they had to make sure that the bill could come to the floor for consideration in a way that would not allow it to be manipulated by that same dictatorial attitude. We are operating under the present version of that rule. If we had wanted unlimited amendments, we should have spent an unlimited amount of time in the committee of jurisdiction, working on those amendments, but that opportunity never availed itself.…





