I want to talk for the moment about the scope of debate on the floor of the House and to defend it against the attitude of the acting Speaker. The resolution before the House is the election of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] to the Committee on Ways and Means. When someone is up for election, he is a candidate. The candidate's views are relevant, the candidate's intentions are relevant. The fact that the intentions of those who are putting him there may be to make it easier to enact great cuts in Medicare, they are relevant. The fact that the intentions of those who are putting him there may be to put someone there who is opposed to taxes, that is relevant. The fact that they may be doing that because they enticed him and because they are selling committee seats for switches in party, if someone wants to say that, that would be relevant. I am not saying those things, though I think they are true. The fact that this leadership is doing these things is all relevant.
Jerry Nadler: “I want to talk for the moment about the scope of debate on the floor of the House and to defend it against the attitude…”
Editor's note · Context
Defending the scope of debate regarding a committee election on the House floor.
Share
More from Jerry Nadler
I strongly oppose this legislation, which is not rooted in medical realities. Physicians do not abort babies after birth, period. Healthcare providers have always been legally required to provide appropriate care. Patients and providers…
If their operations are legitimate and above-board, why is there a need for anonymity, and why don't they need warrants to come onto private property?
While ORR does its best to care for unaccompanied minors, we know that the immigration system is broken, and that comprehensive immigration reform is needed.
The warrantless arrest of any legal permanent resident seemingly solely over their speech is a chilling, McCarthyesque action in response to the exercise of First Amendment rights to free speech.





