I want to repeat that: Procedural fairness is the antithesis to partisanship. This rules package, and particularly the changes in the motion to recommit, will bring about more partisanship, and I would ask my friends on the majority side to reconsider what they are proposing here. The previous speakers on the Republican side have stated instances in the last 2 years where it has resulted in excessive partisanship because of changes that have been made to the motions to recommit on an ad hoc basis allowing the majority to pull the bill, their choice, not ours, because they set the schedule, not having motions to recommit on certain bills and not allowing to strike proposed tax increases. What is wrong with debating these issues? And what is wrong if the majority of this House of Representatives, which is 21 seats more Democratic than the one that just expired, agrees with the Republican minority every once in awhile? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of losing a few more motions to recommit? If that is the motivation behind this, shame on you, because you are shutting down the process and you are going to result in more partisanship, not less.
Jim Sensenbrenner: “I want to repeat that: Procedural fairness is the antithesis to partisanship. This rules package, and particularly the…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about procedural fairness and partisanship in a rules package during House debate.
Share
More from Jim Sensenbrenner
You know, I think that antitrust law has to continue to be focused on consumer welfare rather than deviating into other problem areas.
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…
I think it is very obvious that there was no treason or bribery alleged here.
I appeal that ruling of the Chair as well, which I believe is appealable. The SPEAKER pro tempore. That ruling is not subject to appeal. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro…





