I would urge that the point of order be rejected on grounds that the language my friend cites explicates and explains a limitation. This is a limitation amendment, and the language in the amendment simply establishes the scope of the limitation. The test is not whether the limitation is difficult to figure out. The test is whether it imposes a new obligation. This language does not, and I would urge rejection of the point of order.
Share
More from Rob Andrews
If the bills that are on the floor today pass unanimously--which they won't--here is what happens next. They go to the Senate, the Senate maybe takes them up, maybe doesn't take them up, passes them, maybe doesn't pass them, and this whole…
And colleagues, I think the best way to resolve this debate is to ask a simple factual question. There are two approaches here. The majority approach wants to pass this piecemeal bill. We want--``we,'' meaning the entire Democratic Caucus…
And my colleagues, we have listened to the many stories told by people this morning with great empathy about people who got a cancelation notice and want to keep the policy that they have. The issue before the House is whether we want to…
I thank my very good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, so you are in the lunchroom at work. This guy comes in from the investment house, and he shows 18 slides about the red fund-- smiling people who are on fishing trips and on European…
Other voices in this conversation
