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 modifies existing powers and duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any 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 No. 19 Offered by Ms. Speier
Share
More from Robert Aderholt
I rise today here on the House floor of the United States House of Representatives to recognize an extraordinary American and a dear personal friend, Mr. Roy Drinkard of Cullman, Alabama, who just celebrated his 105th birthday this past…
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. 70 Offered by Mr. Biggs The Acting CHAIR. It is now…
I think we are spending it in the right place, but I think there are some places where it is not being used very efficiently.
I rise today, again, as my colleagues have, to ask for support for the final FY26 appropriations package. It completes the culmination of a lot of hard work from a lot of folks who fulfilled their commitment to the American people. As…





