On the recordFebruary 12, 1997
Mr. Chairman, this is a new experience for us. I have seen many rules in the 17 years I have, I blush to admit, served in this body, sinking no doubt deeper into the morass of special interestism with each passing year, but I have never before seen a rule where the governing principle was alphabetical order. We are being presented with amendments today, as one of the members of our staff said, it is the rollcall of the States. The order, if Members will look at it, you are getting it in alphabetical order. When the majority has to resort to alphabetical order to bring some structure to the chaos they have brought to the floor, I think that is an indication of some intellectual weakness. I also have a proposal, I am tempted but probably prohibited by the germaneness rule to offer a recommittal motion, which says that there will be a test for the Members on the seven amendments issued by each State to see what the differences are. I have to say that asking people what are the real differences among the seven separate amendments is of such arcane proportions that it would probably be ruled inappropriate to put on the Scholastic Aptitude Test as too trivial. We are going to be taking the time of the House to vote on seven variants. People talk about term limits as an antidote to incumbent protection. Here we have term limits as a form of incumbent protection.
Source
govinfo.gov




