query on eliminating pork piling up on war funding bill - QUESTION

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Rahul Tongia <tongia () andrew cmu edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 22:17:02 -0400
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] pork piling up on war funding bill - QUESTION

Dave,

I don't know if you encourage, allow, or even tolerate questions posted to
the IP list, but I have a burning question about legislation, and I am not
skilled enough to answer.

*Can the system be modified to disallow unrelated amendments/riders from
becoming attached?*  The key is *unrelated*.

Not only were there the riders you posted about, but people remember the
stealth cover given to Eli Lily, recently.

While some people argue that these make efficiency or procedural sense, I
would counter that the minimal benefit is undone by the passage of bills
that otherwise would not stand on their own.

Can anyone enlighten me on this?  Given that the courts have struck down
line-item vetoes, which congress allowed on recognition of their own fiscal
indiscipline, is there a better answer than "Separate Enrollment" or
"Expedited Rescission?"

Thanks,

Rahul Tongia
 tongia () cmu edu


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/