Byron Dorgan: “So a point of order could be raised that would lie against the amendment because it is then legislating on an…”

“So a point of order could be raised that would lie against the amendment because it is then legislating on an appropriations bill. If that is the case, as I understand the answer from the Chair, we are in a circumstance where we have told the Senator from Washington that her amendment dealing with an important issue-- clearly to the center of this bill on Defense--cannot be offered on the Defense authorization bill because it is not relevant to the Defense authorization bill. Then the Senator would be told later, when she tries to offer it to the Defense appropriations bill, this is legislating on a Defense appropriations bill and a point of order would rise against it. Why? Because she should have offered it to the authorization bill. Can someone tell me whether that is not a Catch-22 for the Senator from Washington and others? Have we not put her and others in a circumstance where they are prevented from offering this amendment under every circumstance? Isn't that the case? We say to her, you cannot offer it on the authorization bill. So then she comes to the Defense appropriations bill and offers it. The point of order is raised, and the point of order says, you know what, you cannot offer it on appropriations. You should have offered it on the authorization bill. That is what the Senator from Washington is going to be told. I just ask the rhetorical question, Does anybody in the Chamber think that is fair? Not me.…”