I would say to the gentleman that it was very interesting when you talked about the cost of the insurance, and while he said overall that he thought the rates were going to go down, my recollection was--and correct me if I'm wrong--that when you were asking him those questions, part of his position was, Well, we don't know for sure, but we think they'll be lower than what they would have been if we hadn't passed the law, but they're going to be higher than what they were when we passed the law. Wasn't that pretty much his reasoning?
Howard Griffith: “I would say to the gentleman that it was very interesting when you talked about the cost of the insurance, and while he…”
Share
More from Howard Griffith
The gentlewoman apologized for the noises on the floor. I love the noises and greatly appreciate having babies around. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Let me be clear: I meant no offense and no criticism. As the gentleman from the other side of the aisle and from New Jersey knows, I love parliamentary procedure. One of the reasons that we have parliamentary procedures and rules of…
I am not against States' rights. I am against creating a super State in California because they are the only ones that are entitled to get a waiver and then claiming, as the Government Accountability Office, that they have some kind of…
We keep hearing that it is not a rule and it is not a regulation and that kind of stuff. I just ask if it is not a rule, does that mean it is not enforceable, and does that mean it can be repealed by the next administration with a click of…





