Representative Chaffetz Offers Three Amendments To HR 3170
Press Release
Today Rep. Jason Chaffetz asked the House Rules Committee to make the following amendments to HR 3170, The Financial Services Appropriations Act in order.
Amendment 16, proposed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), would "provide that any law enacted by the D.C. Council that recognizes any definition of marriage other than a union between one man and one woman shall be invalid unless approved by the electors of the District of Columbia in the first general election that follows the enactment of that law. This provision would apply to any law enacted by the Council at any time before, on, or after the enactment of this Act."
Amendment 19, proposed by Rep. Jordan with Rep. Chaffetz would "prohibit D.C. funds from being used by the District of Columbia to implement or enforce any recognition of a marriage between two individuals other than a marriage between one man and one woman."
Amendment 30, proposed by Rep. Chaffetz, calls attention to the massive increases in federal government debt in recent years. Since the national debt is skyrocketing and is expected to continue to increase to even more dangerous levels over the next several years, this amendment transfers $1 million from the Council of Economic Advisors to the Bureau of the Public Debt, which is the Treasury agency responsible for issuing and administering the national debt that is held by the public. This increased funding enables the Bureau to handle the dramatically increased work load due to handling ever increasing amounts of new federal debt.
The House Committee on Rules is the final step for all major pieces of legislation before it may be considered on the Floor. The committee determines the parameters of debate and the substance and number of amendments which may be considered against a bill. Standard practice of the House has been to allow all amendments which met the germaneness test (not un-related to the bill). The Democrat majority has changed this traditionally open process and severely limited the number of amendments, restricting the quality and quantity of substantive debate on issues important to the American people.
Source