I appreciated the leadership of both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). They were terrific as we moved H.R. 45, as well as were other members of the committee. But the major change between the two bills is the interim storage facility. It was the administration that sent us that letter and said, we will veto the bill unless you take that provision out. We took their word for it, and yet they still were not there. It really was Lucy and the football. We did what they asked. The Democratic administration refused to play ball. And here we are today.
On the recordMarch 22, 2000
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the changes in H.R. 45 and the administration's stance on interim storage.
Share
More from Fred Upton
Nov 7, 2021
It's going to ultimately -- Mr. Garland has as a big say here in terms of how this thing proceeds.
Jul 21, 2021
Most folks have never heard of PFAS. In Michigan we found out the hard way. Again. Sadly, we know a little bit about water contamination. Think Flint, think lead. PFAS is bad, too. Really bad. The EPA has been slow at the switch. Three…
Dec 14, 2021
I do rise in opposition to both the rule and the previous question so the House can consider H.R. 6235, the Strategic Production Response Act, introduced by the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mrs. Cathy McMorris…





