Thursday, July 26, 2007
Walberg Amendment: Huh?
Thanks to the anonymous comment that brought this to my attention.
On HR 3074, the appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (which Walberg earmarked and voted against), Congressman Walberg offered an amendment. It's an amendment he seems proud of, perhaps because it's the first time the House has passed something he's written.
But it's a very puzzling amendment. Here's the text as read by the House clerk:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walberg:Walberg called it "prohibiting 'affirmative action for roads.'" Apparently he thinks this is a big problem. He spoke in support of his amendment (it's worth noting that the House clerk recorded a slightly different version of his speech than he posts on his website), and he was "almost speechless with the fact that this very simple amendment has not been challenged aggressively yet."
When the amendment was challenged, here's what Congressman John Olver, sponsor of the bill, said:
In other words, Congressman Olver couldn't quite figure out what the amendment would actually do, and Congressman Walberg offered no specific examples of what he wanted to prohibit. In the end, it was easier just to swallow it than get into a big fight over a very vague amendment.
Conservatives are celebrating a victory, but the commenter that brought this to my attention seems worried:
That simple, huh? No opposition? Walberg walks away thinking he scored a major victory, but does anyone understand what that amendment affected? It seems like the democrat in charge of opposing the amendment could not even figure it out. I think Waberg might have just catapulted himself onto the national stage with the help of the democrat leadership.Congratulations on your victory, Congressman Walberg. Now, if we could just figure out what that actually means...
The link to the Congressional Record has expired already or something. Whatever happened, it didn't happen. -Yogi Berra (not really)Post a Comment
I don't understand this amendment either, but had it not been pointed out that it was particularly difficult to understand I may have simply assumed it was written in Congressmanese and only someone like me thought it sounded vague.
Whatever it does or doesn't do on paper, it looks like Tim got to brag to his constituents while at the same time flattering them on their pro anti-affirmative (affirmation, negation, affirmation - yeesh) action vote. I would guess that the 7th District probably voted yes at a greater clip than the state as a whole. After all, it did elect Walberg.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008