Joe Barton: “it is ironic that we just had that point of order offered by my good friend, Mr. Dicks. Under the Armey rule, the former…”

“it is ironic that we just had that point of order offered by my good friend, Mr. Dicks. Under the Armey rule, the former majority leader, the chairmen of the authorizing committees could send letters to the Rules Committee on appropriation bills and any part of the appropriation bill that was actually legislating on an appropriation bill, there was a standing point of order made in order that you could strike it. So we wouldn't have had the Sullivan amendment and we would not have the amendment that I am about to offer if the current chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, had sent such a letter to the Rules Committee asking to reserve the point of order on this section 501. But Chairman Dingell didn't do that, and so it is in the bill and Mr. Dicks can make a point of order that an amendment to it should be struck because it is legislating on an appropriation bill. What a great place this body is that we work in. So what my amendment does is pretty straightforward. It strikes section 501. That cannot be ruled out of order. It can be voted down, and we will have a vote on this. But the Davis amendment that I am offering on his behalf can't be struck on a point of order. What is it about this section 501 that is so onerous? Let me briefly synthesize what it says. I think it says some things that are factually incorrect.…”