I have to suggest that it is a little more than a minor disagreement. I think that in my view it really goes to the heart of this bill. We have a fundamental disagreement over the impact. I believe, and I hope a majority will believe, that what we have provided here is the kind of flexibility we need to really get the reforms that are necessary. The other side does not agree with that, so we will debate that in more detail later on, but it is not a minor disagreement.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing disagreements over a bill during a House floor debate.
Share
More from William Clinger
as I stated the day the Government Reform and Oversight Committee favorably reported this bill, I believe the district of Columbia will today move one step closer to self-sufficiency, to financial independence, perhaps even to true home…
I served as chairman of the conference on the line-item veto. It was a difficult, contentious, hotly contested conference. We argued and debated over the issues long and hard. It took us a year, yes, it took us longer than any of us would…
Let me say I commend the gentleman for the contribution he made to this bill because he did, took a great interest and had a very helpful contribution. We were unfortunately unable to sustain all of his amendments in the conference report…
I want to commend him and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and all of the members of the Committee on National Security for giving us this opportunity to revisit this very, very important bill, the Defense authorization matter…





