So because he bucked the party they go pay back? He amended it the way he thought best?  Why are "they" telling him what to do in the first place?  Just more of the corrupt legislature at work?   He was doing what he thought was best?  Or not?  Sorry but this whole thing was very confusing when initially reported.  It's already concerning to realize that the Chair generally makes the decision on lots of thing so the "decision" process is simply a "show."   Seriously, I would like to understand how this works.