I hope we will vote no on the rule. I think what we have here is some revisionist history. I do remember the Democrats offering an amendment to strike the Competitiveness Council, designed specifically to embarrass the White House, so the fact is that that kind of thing did take place under Democrats. The thing that has changed here between last year and this year, we as Republicans now know that this White House is going to stall us and try to keep us from getting information that legitimately should be in the hands of the American people about operations in the White House. The only time we have a chance to bring up that issue is on this bill. The fact is, on occasion after occasion, ranking members of the House of Representatives on the Republican side have asked for legitimate material from this White House and have been told time and time again, 'No, you cannot have it.' We lack subpoena power, so we cannot go and do what Democrats have traditionally done, ask for the information under subpoena, and Democrats are not cooperating with us in order to do it.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the lack of transparency from the White House during a debate on House rules.
Share
More from Robert Walker
I assume what we do then in our budget is we probably have to raise taxes in order to do this.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that one of the germaneness waivers in this rule has some major consequences to it, and I wish it had been more carefully considered. Mr. Speaker, when we have an open rule, it is extremely important…
If this resolution is brought to a vote, those who vote ``yes'' will be voting to investigate and to report. I suspect that there are going to be a lot of ``no'' votes on the resolution. I wonder if the gentleman would care to speculate…
I know of a number of our colleagues who have literally hung around for days waiting for their amendments to come up. It seems to me that by placing a limitation on five amendments, we could reach a time where a couple of those amendments…





