John Culberson: “I insist on my point of order. I certainly agree with the gentleman's sentiment. It is important that we as Members of…”

“I insist on my point of order. I certainly agree with the gentleman's sentiment. It is important that we as Members of Congress don't spend any money to name anything after ourselves. It is inappropriate. It just ought not be done. I know that my colleague from Texas (Mr. McCaul) has also been working on this to prevent the use of taxpayer funds from being spent on monuments built at taxpayer expense to Members of Congress that are still living. This rule is in place for the House of Representatives. It ought to be in place for the Senate and the President of the United States. Point of Order Unfortunately, the gentleman's amendment imposes a duty on Federal agencies in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, so I regret reluctantly I have to raise a point of order against the gentleman's amendment in that it proposes to change existing law, Mr. Chairman, and therefore constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and that the amendment seeks to impose additional duties on a Federal agency or entity. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair will rule. The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination by the relevant executive branch official of the current membership of a body in the legislative branch. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.…”