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.
Doc Hastings: “This bill, as I mentioned in my remarks and as the gentlelady from Ohio mentioned in her remarks, has obviously very…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for an open process in the consideration of a bipartisan bill.
Share
More from Doc Hastings
By direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1017 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: ____________________
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…
When I asked the gentleman to speak, I didn't mean for him to take my time. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for closing purposes.
For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, none of us know what the future holds, but my…





