On the recordJune 27, 2012
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment waives existing law. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. LaTOURETTE. I do, Mr. Chairman. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized on the point of order. Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my great friend from Iowa for those kind words. I know his heart is in the right place, even if his legislative initiatives at this moment are not. A lot of people don't realize the history of rule XXI. I've had great conversations in the past with the prior Parliamentarians, the last two, Mr. Sullivan and Charlie--I can't remember Charlie's last name. We talked about the notion of equity. We're not only bound by the rules of the House, but just like in courts all across the country, the Chair has the power of equity in his possession. Rule XXI has its origins in 1844 when John Quincy Adams, the only President of the United States to come back and serve in the House of Representatives, decided that the appropriations process was bogging down and, therefore, we should have rule XXI to prohibit authorizing on appropriations bills.…
