On the recordJune 6, 2007
I have a very simple response to what we just heard. I think it is important to consider the actual amendment before us as opposed to what appeared to be a broad-based discussion of the bill overall. What this amendment specifically does is it says we will go forward with the proposal that has been advanced by this bipartisan group. It simply says we should examine after 5 years whether the program is working. The notion that somehow that guts the bill or destroys the bill is simply disingenuous and it is engaging in the sort of histrionics that is entirely inappropriate for this debate. This is a bill that says after 5 years, we will examine a point system in which we have had no hearings in the public. Nobody has had an opportunity to consider exactly how this was structured. It was structured behind closed doors. And the notion that after 5 years we can reexamine it to see if it is working properly, as opposed to locking it in for 14 years, that somehow destroys the bipartisan nature of this bill is simply untrue. I ask all my colleagues to consider the nature of the actual amendment that is on the floor as opposed to the discussion that preceded mine.
Source
govinfo.gov




