Sam Farr: “I object to the high-handedness of my colleagues of the other party who have no qualms at all about including in this…”

“I object to the high-handedness of my colleagues of the other party who have no qualms at all about including in this bill 30, 30 provisions that legislate on the appropriations bill. Thirty. Were any of these 30 items subject to a point of order? My colleague just made only one of them, only one of them, a point of order. Just mine, just the recycling program. Mr. Chairman, if this House truly believes that the rules ought to apply to everyone, then I want to know why the Committee on Rules singled this one out. This provision was adopted in a bipartisan fashion in the committee. My colleagues did not treat the other 30 provisions like they treated this. The real reason that they are singling this out is they do not like it, they do not want to do recycling. They should tell the world they do not want it, that they do not want to bother with the program. So they certainly kind of found a way to pervert the process so they did not have to get into the issue, by raising a point of order. There are not only 30 provisions in this bill that they are about to vote on that legislate on appropriations, there are eight items that actually change existing law. None of these were subject to a point of order, just one. I do not think this point of order has merit, and I would hope the chairman would see it as a sham and reject it.”