the point just is there was a statement made earlier that passing of this amendment would kill the program. I think that is a bit of an exaggeration on that. I cannot imagine for a second that if this amendment passed, that next year we would not see these numbers back in here and another attempt to put it in. This amendment, according to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), this money may not be spent this fiscal year and likely will not be spent this year. So surely that is not going to kill it. Mr. Chairman, we ought to talk about what this is. It is an amendment to reduce the procurement money to keep the R&D. And clearly, the research shows that it cannot work.
John Tierney: “the point just is there was a statement made earlier that passing of this amendment would kill the program. I think that…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment on a program's funding during a House debate.
Share
More from John Tierney
I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the House to act on responsible legislation that I have introduced that would help tens of millions of college students, graduates, parents, and middle class families all…
I think, two points, most appalling are that on Pell Grants, it would eliminate some $90 billion of the mandatory funding that we have already paid for going forward and then when you talk about student loan repayment benefits, it would…
When we got into Congress that year after that election and the Speaker of the House now was the chairman of this committee, long time from Wisconsin, I offered an amendment to the bill that would fully fund IDEA. Not a single member of…
I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5- minute votes on passage of the bill, if…





