Robert Aderholt: “I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in…”

“I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law requires a new determination.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The Chair will rule. The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of where certain items are produced. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order. Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise”