David Obey: “we have just been told that this rule is an open rule. That is an absolutely meaningless statement. What the majority…”

“we have just been told that this rule is an open rule. That is an absolutely meaningless statement. What the majority has done once again is to waive the rules of the House for the majority product, but then refuse to waive those same rules for amendments that the minority wishes to offer. In my view, that is a gutless way to legislate. It is an unfair way to legislate. It does discredit to this House and discredit to those who impose those kinds of rules. And to suggest that this is an open rule, implying, somehow implying that this is business as usual, if this is business as usual, I think the American public would hang their heads when they understand it. I am against this bill. I am against the previous question on the rule. I am against the rule itself. This bill is inadequate in a large number of ways. It is a joke in terms of what it does to Amtrak. It does not provide sufficient funding to keep Amtrak funded. And whether some people like it or not, we need a national Amtrak system. Secondly, it virtually guarantees that enhancement projects which were a key in moving forward the transportation authorization bill the last time it was on the floor have now been gutted. And that means that municipalities are not going to have the opportunity for many of the enhancements they have had in the past. I think that is a mistake. You have a weird sense of priorities expressed in the EITC precertification provision in this bill.”