once again, we are not expanding the law in any way, shape, or form. We are simply applying a penalty. That does not expand the law. The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order? The Chair is prepared to rule. The language of the amendment merely requires the Federal official administering these funds to comply with Federal law. A new duty is not required on the face of the amendment. Therefore, the point of order is overruled and the amendment is in order.
Tom Tancredo: “once again, we are not expanding the law in any way, shape, or form. We are simply applying a penalty. That does not…”
Share
More from Tom Tancredo
I would be in favor of accepting those that can be actually identified as coming here under humanitarian conditions and as refugees.
the issue is not whether DHS funding is used in contravention. It is whether or not there is any penalty to be assessed to enforce the law that is on the books. Naturally there has been no suit brought or whatever because there is no…
I rise today to also welcome Pope Benedict XVI to the United States and to Washington, D.C., and congratulate him for delivering an important message on the role that faith plays in the lives of every believer. Over the years, the Vatican…
At the present time, it is not. But if we pass this amendment, it would be, yes. There has to be some sort of penalty assessed to the law that is already on the books or, of course, it is of no value. That is why so many cities have…





