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, it 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.'' The amendment requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination by a relevant agency of the effects of its activities. 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. Gosar
Rodney Frelinghuysen: “I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in…”
On the recordJune 20, 2014
Share
More from Rodney Frelinghuysen
Jun 7, 2018
I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to talk about spending. Let's talk about the Republican tax cut. It was rigged for the rich. It gave 83…
Jul 19, 2018
I withdraw my reservation of my point of order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of a point of order is withdrawn.
Jun 7, 2018
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and thank him for getting through such a successful markup of 5 hours yesterday…





