Hal Rogers: “I raise a point of order against the motion because the proposed amendment contains an emergency designation which…”

“I raise a point of order against the motion because the proposed amendment contains an emergency designation which constitutes a change to existing law within the meaning of clause 2 of rule XXI. Accordingly, it violates the longstanding prohibition on legislating on a general appropriations measure, and I must insist upon my point of order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order that the instructions in the motion to recommit contain legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The instructions, in pertinent part, designate certain appropriated funds as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The Chair has ruled on numerous occasions, as recorded in section 1052 of the House Rules and Manual, that a proposal to designate an appropriation as an ``emergency requirement'' within the meaning of the budget-enforcement laws is fundamentally legislative in character. On these premises, the Chair holds that the instructions contained in the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from Florida, by including a proposal to designate an appropriation as an ``emergency requirement'' within the meaning of the budget-enforcement laws, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The motion is not in order. {time} 2045”