I would ask the maker of the amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburns), the gentleman sent out a Dear Colleague letter. In his letter, he makes reference to the fact that they need statutory language so that they can continue to use mandatory money. Does the gentleman agree with me that under his language, that is, if we use mandatory language, that that in effect is also spending for which the committee would be charged and that if we are charged with it, we will go over the 302(b) allocation?
Louis Stokes: “I would ask the maker of the amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburns), the gentleman sent out a Dear…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of mandatory spending language in an amendment.
Share
More from Louis Stokes
Mr. Chairman, I rise just to bring to the attention of the House a little further discussion relative to the reservations that were just expressed by the chairman of the subcommittee. By the same token, I have reservations because this…
I am pleased to join in this salute to our colleague, Jim Ross Lightfoot, as he prepares to depart at the end of this legislative session. Jim Lightfoot was elected to the United States Congress in 1984. During his tenure, he has done an…
what precisely my amendment would do is to add additional vouchers up to the amount of $97 million, which is the requested amount by the administration, which would automatically provide additional vouchers, additional opportunities, for…





