I think the frustration here is that no one wants to deny any Member the opportunity to offer an amendment. It is just that with the debate on some of these amendments, we are hearing the same arguments on our side in terms of not opening this up and include the costs of all these items before any kind of unfunded mandate would emanate from this body. The arguments are very similar in most of these areas. Limiting debate would allow everyone to offer their amendments. Members could stay on the floor and listen because the votes would be coming much closer. That is all we are trying to get to, not to deny any Member the opportunity to offer an amendment. We are just talking right now about this one title of the bill. I was in committee along with the gentlewoman, and these amendments were allowed to be offered in committee. In some of the other sections they were not because they were part of the rule.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the opportunity for Members to offer amendments during legislative debate.
Share
More from Danny Davis
as we begin 2026 with Trump and Republican policies squeezing workers, spiking costs, tanking job security, the Republican leadership advances this bill to divert money intended for poor children to dangerous anti-abortion centers. When my…
I rise today to honor and commemorate the extraordinary service and enduring legacy of the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion, known with pride and reverence as the Six Triple Eight. Formed in 1944 during World War II, the Six…
Congress categorically rejected the Trump Administration’s effort to eliminate funding for MSIs by continuing to fund - and even increasing - grants for these institutions in FY26.
As a matter of fact, I and a coalition of community agencies just returned on Saturday from visiting the Sheridan facility as part of Fatherhood Week and Fatherhood Day, and it was off the charts.





