House Dems Refuse To Allow Debate On The Green New Deal...Basically Because It's Not A Serious Proposal

Sean Duffy (R-WI) proposed an amendment to the GND, but Dems claimed that the amendment wasn't serious...and tacitly admitted that the GND itself isn't, either:

Duffy said that this portion the Green New Deal was "catastrophic for American housing," and requested that his amendment to it be debated. Waters refused Duffy's request upon learning that he did not plan to vote in favor of the amendment, saying that it wasn't "serious."
   "Is the gentlelady chairwoman saying that the Green New Deal is not serious?" Duffy asked Waters.
   "I beg your pardon," Waters said.
   "You said this is not serious. Are you saying that the Green New Deal is not serious?" Duffy asked. "I just want to make sure so I can get a gauge on it."
   "You are not serious," Waters reiterated.
   "This is my amendment," Duffy said. "Are you saying that my amendment is not serious?"
   "We need to look for real ways to make our homes more energy efficient and sustainable," Waters said. "This amendment does not reflect a thoughtful approach to the topic."
   Democratic representative Lacy Clay (Mo.) backed up Waters's statements and criticized Duffy for questioning the bill, which he said did address practical solutions, but rather a "broader" vision for America.
   "I think it's so hypocritical that we are going to inject a piece of legislation, which is really more of a broader construct and a framework for discussion about where we should be heading as a country when it comes to climate change when it comes to scientific fact about what is happening to our atmosphere and the earth that we live on," he said.

No matter how aspirational the GND is, it's nuts. Honestly, it's stuff like that that makes people like me less-inclined to take the Dems seriously on this issue. Saying that it's a "broader framework" isn't a valid defense of the thing. If so, then it's a ridiculous "framework." (And don't even get me started on "construct"...)
   Though: is Waters on firm ground here? That is: is this is a good reason for refusing to debate a motion or bill? Might very well be for all I know.

[Wait: turns out they were supposed to be debating affordable housing. That seems like a different kettle of fish.]