I simply want to say to my friend from California (Mr. Thomas) and I was going to ask him: I heard him say that anyone who is serious about an amendment should come to him. As I looked at the list of amendments and at the people who offered them, it had not previously occurred to me that being serious about an amendment was a prerequisite for offering one. Is this a new, and it is my time, is this a new rule that will only people on his side who are serious about their amendments will be allowed to offer them? Because if the people who are offering unserious amendments for unserious reasons were to be excluded, we could probably finish this in about an hour.
Barney Frank: “I simply want to say to my friend from California (Mr. Thomas) and I was going to ask him: I heard him say that anyone…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the criteria for offering amendments during a legislative debate.
Share
More from Barney Frank
For example, there are key differences in product characteristics between payday, car title, and other high-cost secured loans and more traditional closed-end unsecured lending and related products, and the products are often regulated…
I urge staff to pay close attention to the differences in products offered by nonbank institutions and to be mindful of Congress's intent in financial reform that State consumer protection laws be preserved to the extent possible.
One thing that not only Barney Frank, Ms. Barnes and also Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice O'Connor agreed on is that that Kelo decision stripped those three words out of the Fifth Amendment, 'for public use.'
People around the world have learned they can claim asylum and remain in the U.S. indefinitely to pursue their claims.





