What the gentleman from Minnesota is asserting is that the minority should not be allowed to offer a legitimate amendment because the majority did not fulfill its responsibilities to abide by certain provisions of the Budget Act and by the timetable of that act. I find that highly objectionable especially since the Committee on Rules has already waived the requirement as far as the majority party is concerned. It seems to me that the House rules certainly ought to allow the minority the same privilege that the majority has arranged by rule.
David Obey: “What the gentleman from Minnesota is asserting is that the minority should not be allowed to offer a legitimate…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the rights of the minority in relation to the Budget Act during a House debate.
Share
More from David Obey
There is one difference between my friends over here who are speechifying against health care reform today and 50 million Americans. The difference is that the roughly 15 Americans over here all have health insurance, and it is largely…
This amendment was a Republican amendment offered by Mr. Cole from Oklahoma. It was not slipped in. It was voted in in the subcommittee appropriation bill 5 months ago.
This bill also provides for a 1-month extension of the Recovery Act Small Business Lending program and provides an additional $60 million for that program. Through March 12 of this year, the Recovery Act Small Business Lending program has…
I largely agree with my friend from Oklahoma. We have one simple dilemma: both in the case of the Cobell settlement and the Pigford settlement, the administration has asked us to provide the money. We do not yet have an understanding of…





