Then the counter was 15. But the 15 years then was accompanied by language which made it an absolute necessity or it would not be approved. So it was not just the 15-year addition. It was additional language which limited the options and then there was a discussion over what is necessary. We got it too desirable. You then came with another sentence which made it impossible for the phrase desirable to work. So the gentleman's characterization that we simply came back with 15 years is not borne out by all the facts as between the staffs. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing legislative language and amendments during a debate.
Share
More from William M. Thomas
here we go again. One more time, Congress is debating the merits of the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. Nothing is new. We have heard all the arguments both for and against before--many times before. I feel like I am in the movie…
Mr. Speaker, let me read the Republican segment on the question of the exchange of stamps for cash: A lack of standard procedures and failure to follow USPS regulations may have permitted some Members' personal and campaign offices to…
I thought he said he wanted to make sure the rules were honored, and here clearly he violates the rules that he wants to use to stop us. That is an example of the kind of duplicity that goes on around here. You cannot have it both ways…
And beyond that, it is even the kind of company that one decides to form, because under current law, depending upon the way in which you organize your company, you get the benefit or not. If he is self-employed, if he has a proprietorship…





