Mr. Chair, I acknowledge my colleague from Colorado. However, his silence on the point I was making is deafening. The point I made is that cutting out EAJA from this act means that you are attacking successful claims. If your point is to attack frivolous lawsuits, you don't cut out reimbursing legal fees and costs for successful claims. What are we really up to by doing that? I yield back the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from Matt Cartwright
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney). The amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 74 Offered…
Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee will be postponed. The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that…
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is opposed, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles). The amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 83 Offered…
Look, people rely on the mail and the Postal Service to conduct the business of their daily lives, to get their medication, to pay their bills, to receive the benefit checks that they're owed.
Other voices in this conversation
