Isn't it true that if your side didn't go out to dinner--since you asked to be elected to the Senate, you raised a lot of money, and you worked hard and defeated some Republican to get here--if you really think somebody over here is abusing their minority rights by filibustering, then why would you go out to dinner, and why would you not want to be here and hear that person talk and respond to him? Why would you not do that? Isn't it true that Senator Byrd said that forceful confrontation to the threat of a filibuster is undoubtedly the antidote to the malady? He did not want us tampering with this 60-vote procedure we have that forces consensus. My question to the majority whip is this: Why did you go out to dinner so often--through the Chair--when instead, you could have been here, under the rules as Senator Byrd suggested, dealing with abuses to the filibuster or what you consider they were?
Editor's note · Context
The speaker questions the majority whip's absence during filibuster discussions.
Share
More from Heidi Alexander
The Government considers that the development covered by the Heathrow expansion NPS is critical to national growth and therefore plans to designate expansion at Heathrow as critical national growth infrastructure.
I thank the Senator from Ohio for his courtesy, as well as his leadership. I will not be long. (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 4284 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and…
I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use, during my remarks, two exhibits of the Federal aid application form. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________
The good news is it seems the impact on UK airlines seems limited, with a smaller number of aircraft requiring more complex software and hardware changes.





