this amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI because it will impose substantial new duties on the Secretary of Agriculture. Under Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 50, where an amendment seeks to impose on a Federal official substantial duties that are different from or in addition to those already contemplated in law, then it is considered legislative in nature and violates clause 2(c) of rule XXI. Moreover, under Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence or make judgments or determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI. This amendment will require the Secretary of Agriculture to make investigations and compile evidence not otherwise required under existing law, as well as make a substantive determination not required by any law applicable to his authority. The amendment bars planning and studying of certain roads, those used for timber harvesting by individuals or private entities in the Tongass National Forest.
Don Young: “this amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI because it will…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing a point of order regarding an amendment to an appropriations bill.
Share
More from Don Young
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I hope you understand it is awfully early in the morning for the Mayor and myself. You guys have a nice, leisure morning. We have to be up at 4 a.m. to have this hearing.
When the tribe asked Congressman Don Young to cosponsor the bill years ago, he looked me in the eye and said, so the landowners get resolved, the tribe still has to prove its case, are you sure that is what you want? I said, yes, sir, it…
More broadly, this sequence of events starkly illustrates why we believe fishery management plans should be developed in-region through a transparent and robust review process rather than through an outside, centralized body.





