On the recordSeptember 20, 2011
First of all, I appreciate my colleague's offer and certainly we will take him up on it--to have a discussion to see if we can come to a common understanding because the issue is far more important than anyone's ideological views. I look forward to working with him and others who are concerned. Let me say, however, there are some inconsistencies. If you do not believe there should be a disease-specific reauthorization, then the CR does exactly that. It will be for a more limited time, but it will, in fact, reauthorize this bill but only to November 18. So whether that debate is about reauthorizing a disease-specific allocation, which is what I was trying to accomplish, or whether in the CR, I assume it will be the thinking of my colleagues to object to the CR on the basis it has a disease-specific reauthorization for a much smaller period of time, until November 18. I am not quite sure how that logic follows at the end of the day. Secondly, I think it is rather cruel to use an analogy that talks about loan guarantees to some energy entity and talking about autism and families. When I hear the word ``lobby,'' that, of course, creates a pejorative description. What is the lobby here? The lobby here is parents--American citizens, husbands and wives, taxpayers who advocate for their children before their representatives.…





