This bill, as I mentioned in my remarks and as the gentlelady from Ohio mentioned in her remarks, has obviously very, very broad bipartisan support. Why not consider it then under an open process? There are probably many Members that have an idea that they could perfect this legislation, but we are being denied, with the exception of three amendments, to try to perfect this bill. I just think it is the wrong way to go in a body that prides itself being open to debate and being very deliberative. We are certainly not getting that opportunity under this noncontroversial bill.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for an open process in the consideration of a bipartisan bill.
Share
More from Doc Hastings
Yesterday, before we began our proceedings in the Rules Committee, I asked one of my good friends if he would speak on this rule. It is for the reason that I consider him one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in this institution…
I take notice that the Speaker pro tempore has changed, and I am very pleased that one of the leaders of the legislation that we are taking up today is now serving as Speaker pro tempore. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman…
By direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 650 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 650 Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker…
The right to vote is sacred and fundamental. Yet across this country, in particular in my home State of Florida, voters were denied their right to vote because of penmanship. In the wake of the 2018 midterms, Florida's signature matching…





