Steny Hoyer: “the point of order that I raised said that line 2, starting with ``Provided'', down to line 11, concluding with…”

“the point of order that I raised said that line 2, starting with ``Provided'', down to line 11, concluding with ``Residence'', is legislation on an appropriation bill and it is, therefore, subject to a point of order because it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. However, the chairman now seeks to expand upon the point of order I have made by including in the ambit of that point of order the first sentence. The first sentence reads, ``In addition, for necessary expenses for domestic staff overtime, $630,000.'' I would suggest to the Chair that a point of order does not lie against that inclusion because it is, in fact, authorized. And it is not legislation on an appropriation bill, it is an appropriation to an objective which is consistent with the rules providing for the Committee on Appropriations report to make such appropriations as it deems appropriate for such objectives as it provides. My point being that I raised a proper point of order and the Chairman seeks to add something thereto which is not subject to a point of order.”