I would simply ask the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, would it not have been proper and better procedure for this proposal to have at least had a hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary, so that the implications of these words, which have otherwise received no hearing other than your Rules Committee hearing on March 29, so that we could have had a careful examination of this proposal, as we did of the gentleman's proposal to amend the Constitution to protect the flag? Would that not have been better procedure?
David Skaggs: “I would simply ask the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, would it not have been proper and better procedure…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the procedural handling of a constitutional amendment regarding flag desecration.
Share
More from David Skaggs
as the country and this body battles to find some clarity in the back and forth between the salacious and the fallacious, there are actually some significant and important things going on in Washington and in Congress. One of those has to…
Nonetheless we did this UHF to VHF conversion, and it was really no surprise that the signal still did not get through. Let me just give my colleagues some visual evidence that was elicited by one of our own government technicians who went…
But I will go ahead, Mr. Chairman. I assume the gentleman does recognize that we are already getting huge payoffs, real money, real energy saved presently from the conservation and efficiency efforts, whereas the prospects for eventual…
when the gentleman from Indiana retires at the end of this session of Congress, this body will be losing one of its most thoughtful leaders. Lee Hamilton will be rightly lionized as an expert and a statesman in foreign policy matters; a…





