Krusee's Sunday night (Monday morning) personal privilege speech to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me to speak. Members, I wish to speak on the Chair's ruling regarding recognition.
The Speaker has ruled that he has the absolute right to refuse recognition of any member, and to refuse recognition of any motion, no matter how privileged.
I disagree with the ruling, and I disagree with its implementation.
The ruling is wrong, because on matters of privilege, the Speaker does not have the right to deny recognition.
The implementation is wrong, because even if you agree with the ruling that the Speaker has absolute discretion on all matters, and I do not agree, it is an abuse of discretion to withhold recognition on matters of the highest principle. To refuse to recognize members is against our tradition and our practice. Mr. Speaker, you have daily used your discretion to recognize members on a routine basis. Why not on this one?
Since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the father of parliamentary law in the United States, questioning the leadership of the presiding officer has been the most fundamental right of the members who elected that leadership.
And just as the power of government comes from its people's consent, the power to conduct the business of our body, the power to govern our body, comes from the consent of our body.
Mr. Speaker, we can disagree on many things, but you cannot disagree with the fact that you are here because we put you here.
Inherent in the granting of power to the Speaker is the retention of our right to speak and to question the presiding officer.
This rules interpretation denies us that right.
I again emphasize: questioning leadership is the highest privilege this body has. And it belongs to the body, not to the presiding officer.
To my former colleagues and my current friends, sitting behind me, who advised the Speaker on his ruling, I ask you to put yourself in my position. How would you feel as a member?
As former members, you both have unique perspectives, you walked in our shoes. Would you find this acceptable?
Mr. Keel, in one of your last moments on this floor, you addressed this house as a matter of personal privilege. You were in the minority, having killed the pay raise that the majority favored. Now you sit there, advising the Speaker that it is within the rules to deny us that right.
How would you have felt if the Speaker had denied you that right? How can you advise the Speaker that he may do that to us?
The Republican Party is now engaged in trying to spin this into, of all things, a partisan issue.
They are saying that the Republican position is to uphold the Speaker's right to deny the right to speak, to vote. What a perversion.
Especially for a party in the minority in Washington.
Absolute power to deny the right to question authority is not a principle of the Republican party, or any party. Not in this country.
Not in this country.
One of my heroes, Ronald Reagan, once said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. "The wall was physical and it was metaphorical. It was a barrier to freedom. It silenced people's voices.
This interpretation of our rules has erected a wall between leadership and the membership. Mr. Speaker, we must tear it down.
Krusee, a Round Rock Republican, represents House District 52.
Texas Weekly's Soapbox is a venue for opinions, spins, alternate takes, and other interesting stuff sent in by readers and others. We moderate submissions to keep crazy people out, and anonymous commentary is ineligible. Readers can respond (through the moderator) to things posted here. Got something to submit? We're interested in everything from full-blown opinion pieces to short bits to observations or tidbits that have escaped us and the mass media. One rule: Your name goes on your words. Call or send an email: Ross Ramsey, Editor, Texas Weekly, 512/288-6598, ramsey@texasweekly.com.
