Steny Hoyer: “this amendment I will substantively oppose as well, but on the rule itself, this is what is referred to as a ``made…”

“this amendment I will substantively oppose as well, but on the rule itself, this is what is referred to as a ``made known'' amendment. I suggest to the Chair that an amendment that changes legislation requiring a public officer to take some action is in fact legislation on an appropriation bill. There has been a ruling in 1809 on a similar amendment referencing ``made known'' that that was in order because it was a simple limitation; that is, that none of the funds could be expended. But that ruling is that once it is made known to the Secretary, the simplistic, frankly, determination, in my opinion, is that the Secretary or the Comptroller of the Currency or any other official to whom such a limitation is directed will then have to make no judgment. The premise underlying the ruling is that irrespective of the truth or falsity of the fact being made known, which is, of course, the premise of the amendment, which says if something is the fact and is made known, that clearly is what this means, because to rule otherwise is to rule that no matter how specious the representation to the public official, that they will be therefore bound not to expend the funds because of having it made known, however irresponsible the source of the information might be.”