On the point of order, it would be my view that you could clarify the legislative process by ruling against the point of order. If the point of order had not been raised, the next order of business would be an up-or-down vote on keeping the entire government open. A sustaining of the point of order would mean that if we do what we've done in the last few bills, there would be a challenge to your ruling. If that challenge were to be sustained, then we could get that up-or- down vote because overruling the Chair would mean that we could get an up-or-down vote. So you should rule against the point of order to clarify all this. We can get a clear, up-or-down vote on keeping the government open, but on the other hand, Madam Speaker, the vote on keeping the government open will be on the motion to table. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
Share
More from Bobby Scott
I rise today as dean of the Virginia congressional delegation to introduce and welcome to Congress the newest Representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia, James Walkinshaw. James was born in Northern Virginia, the very region of the…
What is the amendment that we are considering? Could the Chair give the page and line number? The Acting CHAIR. It is amendment No. 1 and printed in House Report 119-38, page 57, line 10.
Mr. Speaker, before I came to this body, I was a flight attendant for a national air carrier. The money that I am making today is far more than I ever made as a contract employee for an airline. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that during the…
The creation of vague enforcement standards and punitive mandates without clear guidance could make it more difficult for legitimate students to access aid in order to attend college.





