first I would like to respond by saying that the gentleman's very strong remarks about the intent of the Rules Committee, or our intent in carrying this bill, I think, are perhaps a little bit stronger than they should be, to say the least. The gentleman's proposal had never been heard before by the subcommittee, and I was unaware of it, and I was not even aware that the gentleman was going to be asking to have it made in order in the Rules Committee. If we are going to take a step like this, it should require careful study and hearings. It is for a different treatment from the purposes of this bill, which are very noble and good.
John Hope Bryant: “first I would like to respond by saying that the gentleman's very strong remarks about the intent of the Rules…”
Editor's note · Context
Speaker Bryant addresses concerns about a proposal related to a bill and the need for careful consideration.
Share
More from John Hope Bryant
I too want to add my appreciation for all the hard work that the chairman has done in coming up with this very fine bill. As I sat here and listened to some of the debate, I realized that talk is cheap but prescription drugs are not cheap…
We're one America. America as a country is an idea. We can make it whatever we want. And that is not demonizing people. It's a dog whistle and it needs to stop.
In order to have effective bankruptcy reform, we need to have in this bill a set of uniform standards as to whether or not someone should be allowed to file in Chapter 7 or in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The reason I oppose this amendment is…
I think it would have been best, frankly, had my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], who I believe to be quite sincere about this, had simply brought to the floor the original amendment which says flatly that we are…





