I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation 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 imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the gentleman's point of order?
Share
More from Robert Aderholt
This certainly is a great tribute to a great man. Of course, it is with a heavy heart that we stand here this evening on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, which, as you know, we have all stood with Dave on this floor many…
Small businesses provide essential job opportunities to the constituents I represent.
I am in strong support of H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. I thank the Congressman from Florida, Mr. Steube, for his leadership on this effort. Over 50 years ago, Title IX was…
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed. Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Biggs The Acting CHAIR. It is now…
Other voices in this conversation
