of course we all have spent a good deal of time concerned about the direction we are taking here, the number of things we are accomplishing, the fact that many of the things we would like to do have not been accomplished. I think that is a legitimate concern. We ought to try to deal with some of those issues. On the other hand, there have been a number of things done, of course. I think we have had the most obstruction in the movement here that we have seen in many years. Many important issues have been stopped, have been obstructed, frankly, because our friends on the other side of the aisle did not want to go forward with these issues, or wanted to hold them up where they could add all kinds of unrelated amendments to them. The Class Action Fairness Act, of course, was blocked. The fairness in asbestos injury resolution was blocked. The Patients First Act, the energy policy--probably one of the most important issues we could have dealt with this entire year is still there. Charity aid, recovery, and empowerment legislation, which gave strength to do things in the private sector, we were unable to do that; Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act; workforce investment; five judges were held up simply for the purpose of holding them up. It is too bad. It is something we need to change. We ought to be concerned here with issues, not politics, not Kerry, not Bush, but talk about what the issues are here and the things we ought to be doing.
David Thomas: “of course we all have spent a good deal of time concerned about the direction we are taking here, the number of things…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing legislative obstruction and the need to focus on issues rather than politics.
Share
More from David Thomas
I have a point of order. Beginning your statement with ``this is why it is germane'' is not addressing the germaneness question. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must address his comments to the issue of germaneness of the motion to…
the gentleman was not timely in his request to appeal the decision of the Chair. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
I certainly agree it would be a mistake to send any message that we are not in support of our troops and, indeed, that is what voting on one message would do. Certainly, there are different views in the Senate and legitimately so. We…
Mr. Speaker, so that people again understand the process, notwithstanding the fact we are dealing with what amounts to a tax bill, because of the unusual procedure of using H.R. 6111 as a vehicle, asked for by the bipartisan leadership of…





