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 changing existing law.'' It also adds a requirement on D.C. that it doesn't add anywhere else. It imposes additional duties by requiring law enforcement or the D.C. Council to determine what is prohibited by Federal law before they are allowed to legislate. We know that folks like to sound good on certain issues by legislating from here, but the city council should not be asked to incur these extra duties that they don't have now. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Share & report
More from José E. Serrano
The other side doesn't like ObamaCare; it doesn't like Dodd-Frank; it doesn't like the SEC. Maybe I am going to try an amendment on the bailout of the automobile industry to see if they like that one, because that helped a lot of folks…
How much time do I have remaining? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. For me, this is a very simple thought; it is the same thought I have had all along; this country, of all countries, should not be building a wall. This country, the land of opportunity…
As the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I would like to talk about the fiscal year 2020 Commerce, Justice, Science bill, which is contained in division A of the minibus. The budget proposed by…





