In response to that, Joe, just looking at it from the point of view of the equality of the parties, our party, having the majority here, could actually push anything on the committee anyway in the absence of this rule, so that should provide some protection for the opposition. We could stop anything because of a unanimous consent requirement; anybody could stop it coming forward.
We all have the ability to stop something that's not based on some kind of consensus under the 48-hour rule from hijacking the committee, whereas in practice, one party only, if we have the no-notice rule, can dictate what gets put in and what supplants the normal course of action that has been agreed to.
As a practical matter, the other thing in my experience of being on this committee now for a number of years is that when we have something coming before us unexpectedly, it's not normally initiated by us; it's actually the Speaker saying “I'm referring this to the committee”--matters of privilege and that sort of thing. So you don't need to have someone introducing it from here to accomplish that.