I make a point of order against this amendment. Although it is a very well-intended amendment, and I am very sympathetic to what he wants to do, I think there might be a way, if the gentleman withdraws and tries to perfect that amendment, that it might be made in order. This amendment 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.'' The bill gives direction to that effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. Again, I would ask my colleague to consider withdrawing and see if he can perfect that amendment so that it would be made in order. The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Share
More from CHARLES W. DENT
The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. It is our intention to urge the VA to offer all of the approved methods of screening.
I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment. The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes. There was no objection.
This amendment is familiar to us since the gentleman offered it last year. I am not sure it is necessary to repeat the language this year since we know the VA has rescinded the Fast Letter guidance. After all, with the IG investigation…
As the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I move to strike the last word. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.





