Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the author of the amendment if he would explain to me what is different from existing laws. As I understand it, we have always required that every President, going back as far as I can remember, reimburse part of the cost of any trip that involves any kind of political activity while he is on an official trip. What the gentleman seems to be saying is that any political activity automatically makes the entire trip a political trip, even if there is a great deal of official duty and activity taking place. Would the gentleman give me some sort of an answer?
Victor Fazio: “Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the author of the amendment if he would explain to me what is different from existing laws.…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning an amendment regarding presidential trip reimbursements during a committee discussion.
Share
More from Victor Fazio
I have been reading the gentleman's amendment, and I think that I can come up with a number of phrases that would apparently be permitted but which, under his amendment, would be very questionable. Think of words like ``Think Joe Smith''…
believe it or not, I would like to be here in the well tonight to congratulate the Republican leadership for finally relenting and allowing a fair debate on genuine campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, I cannot do it. The Republican…
as we have already adopted the Cox amendment that clarifies the law, this amendment is entirely superfluous and offered only for political purposes. And it strikes me as highly hypocritical for any Member of this body who has been engaged…
today my colleagues and I have the opportunity to increase access to higher education for all Americans by supporting H.R. 6. However, a proposed amendment by Congressman Riggs promises to have the opposite effect by eliminating…





