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.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this amendment explicitly supersedes existing law by waiving section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 with respect to certain projects covered by the bill. 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. burgess
Alan Simpson: “I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in…”
Share
More from Alan Simpson
First, let me say that I am not totally opposed to what the gentleman is trying to do. I think these air tours are important, but I think it is wrong to say they can't place any limitations on them. The gentleman raises the point that they…
I claim the time in opposition. The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
This bipartisan en bloc was developed in coordination with our colleagues across the aisle. It contains noncontroversial amendments addressing important issues in this bill that have been agreed to by both sides. For example, the…
I have listened very carefully so far. So far I haven't heard anything that is not a policy difference. Again, I will repeat: Elections have consequences. Again, I will tell you I don't think this is constitutional. I don't believe it has…





