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

“I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law, and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. It 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 request a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination. 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 Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas”