Mr. Chairman, this is not the first iteration of this amendment we have seen. We also saw this in committee. While I would describe its purpose as well-meaning and well-intended, my position in the committee and my position today are the same, and that is that this piece of legislation dealing with regulatory processes and paperwork burden is not the proper vehicle to establish a commission dealing with the quality of science that this or any other administration might otherwise wish to entertain. I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) just for clarification. The amendment mentions a report dated August 2003, and yet I have a copy here that is updated November 13. Might I inquire as to which report we are working off of?
Doug Ose: “Mr. Chairman, this is not the first iteration of this amendment we have seen. We also saw this in committee. While I…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to regulatory processes and the establishment of a commission on science quality.
Share
More from Doug Ose
Dr. Thomas raises the issue that ``There is absolutely no public outcry over or even widespread interest in the proposal to,'' he says, ``double the FDIC insurance limit. Most people know or should know from their banks that any couple can…
Congressman Doug Ose has introduced a new bill too filthy to even read on TV that would ban not just that word but seven other words and phrases as well.
I am troubled by various provisions in the Farm Security Act of 2002 (H.R. 2646). Today, I would like to mention one specific provision, which appears in four titles in the bill--in Titles I, Commodity Programs (Sec. 1601); Title II…
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared it is unconstitutional to say the Pledge of Allegiance, our national recitation and proclamation of patriotism. This ruling is an attack on the history of our Nation…





