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 it changes the application of existing law. The amendment changes the application of existing law. 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 changes the application of existing law. 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. Poe of Texas
Share
More from Robert Aderholt
I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
It is unconscionable that there are companies, there are employers in America who are employing 12- and 13-year-olds to do work that even is dangerous for an adult.
I thank the gentlewoman for the time to speak on this. Mr. Chair, I do rise in opposition to the amendment. I thank my colleague, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for his leadership on this bill. While certainly I don't think any of us want to send…
I am concerned the Department is more interested in catering to beltway-based liberal social policy concerns rather than responding to the very real needs that real Americans deal with.





