I am talking now that there are two separate questions here, the ruling which my friend from Michigan was pursuing, and the new rule which the Republicans brought to this House as part of the Contract that said you do not change the Congressional Record; that is subsequent to all of the precedents you are talking about. There are two questions: One, your right to change the ruling; but, two, separate, the one I am focusing on, your right to change words in the Congressional Record in ways that are neither typographical, grammatical or technical, and I submit that changing 'personal' to 'critical,' one more sentence, 'personal' to 'critical,' and 'higher' to 'proper' are none of those. My question is: Why are you ignoring your new rule and changing the words in the Congressional Record, because they look better?
On the recordJanuary 19, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Addressing the issue of changes made to the Congressional Record during House proceedings.
Share
More from Barney Frank
Jul 11, 2016
This is a legislative enactment that essentially says that the fact that I live in a loving committed marriage with another man is somehow a threat to other people's freedom.
Jul 21, 2015
I do think there is a tendency for an overreach by the FSOC. I do not think straightforward insurance companies or money managers should be covered and regulated as SIFIs.
Sep 21, 2016
Barney Frank, the author of the Dodd-Frank bill, in this committee, sitting in that chair, who has testified in this committee that he told us that the $50 billion threshold is arbitrary and that we should look at alternative methods for…





