Alan Grayson: “Responding to the last point, respectfully, again, these are contract terms that are defined in the contract itself. The…”

“Responding to the last point, respectfully, again, these are contract terms that are defined in the contract itself. The gentleman has a point that the term ``project'' is one that could be taken to refer to something other than a contract if we were not talking about Federal contracting. Here we are talking about Federal contracts only, so the term ``project'' refers to what the contractor is working on. There is no ambiguity here. Either the contract is on schedule or it is off schedule. Either the contract is over budget or it is on budget or it is under budget. There is simply no ambiguity involved here. If we were legislating, then I would see the gentleman's point, but in this particular case we are not. Therefore, I respectfully request that the point of order be overruled and we be allowed to proceed to a vote. The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Iowa. The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order that the amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI by requiring a new determination by a relevant Federal official. Specifically, the amendment would require each contracting official to determine whether any aspect of a project is behind schedule or over budget, especially if multiple agencies have entered into separate contracts on the same project.…”