I would like to address my comments this morning strictly to this rule, rather than either to Castle-Tanner or to the bill itself, because the rule is a little bit different than some of the rules we normally take up here on the floor, in that it has a self-enacting amendment in it that has some substantive concerns that I think we really need to at least bring forth. Let me just say first and foremost, and I think this is vitally important, I very much appreciate the very good work which the Committee on Rules has done. They have allowed, in a freestanding way, the Castle-Tanner legislation, which is the Gephardt substitute in this rule, to come to the floor. There will be no objections as to dollars. There is a dollar differential; it is $53 billion versus $60-some in the Republican bill, but it will be allowed to be considered. That was a concern of mine, and it was a concern of a number of my contemporaries on the other side of the aisle, and I am very pleased that was able to be worked out. That is important, I think, for the whole process of hearing and voting in this Chamber.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the rules and amendments related to the Castle-Tanner legislation.
Share
More from Michael Castle
I think we need to be very careful about how encroaching we are being with respect to dictating in terms of corporate structures and corporate methodologies involving the Federal Government.
At the very least, GAO should be able to audit the Fed, as Representative Ron Paul's Federal Reserve Transparency Act would do.
I believe a capable compensation overseer should have the discretion to determine whether or not these companies' compensation packages are reasonable.
I rise today to urge support for amendment No. 2 to the CLEAR Act, which will help ensure that there is no delay in the development of ocean renewable energy resources, including offshore wind, under the MMS reorganization called for under…





