the study was done by somebody with a financial interest or was biased because they wanted to advance a regulatory agenda.
Jim Sensenbrenner: “the study was done by somebody with a financial interest or was biased because they wanted to advance a regulatory…”
Editor's note · Context
He emphasizes the need for unbiased scientific analysis.
Share
More from Jim Sensenbrenner
But obstruction of Congress, when there is no referee, there is no adjudication, there is nothing but a majority that says, 'You give us what we want until we find a crime, or we are going to throw you out of office,' that is so…
I am no stranger to this debate. In the aftermath of 9/11, I stood on this floor to advance the USA PATRIOT Act. I still believe, as I did at the time, in its necessity to protect our country from terrorist attacks. In 2015, after abuses…
Now, let me say that everybody on both ends of the telephone call between President Trump and President Zelensky has said very clearly there was no quid pro quo offered.
I make the point of order that a two-thirds vote is required for passage of this joint resolution because it does have the effect of amending the Constitution. And on the point of order, Madam Speaker, there was an extension that was…





