Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of American steel and maintaining security along our southern border. This amendment is actually very simple. I am offering it because it requires that any repairs, modifications, maintenance, or construction of new portions of the fence along our southern border be made with American steel, American iron, and American-manufactured steel goods.
Now, as I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Buy American Act, which was enacted in 1933, already requires [Page: H3898]
the government to purchase domestic goods for a direct Federal procurement. And for some particularly important areas critical to our national security, such as nearly all defense projects and spending, the requirements for our government to buy American goods are even stronger.
I believe that the steel used in the fence along our southern border should be included in that category. And that is simply what this amendment does. I can't imagine that there would be opposition in this Chamber to the use of American-made steel in the construction of our border fence along our southern border.
Many of my colleagues, I am sure, remember in 2007 when it came to our attention that we were in some cases using Chinese-made steel in construction of the Mexican border fence. We were all equally outraged by that. We were able to encourage, and finally, through hard work and bipartisanship, encourage successfully the Department of Homeland Security to use American-made steel. This amendment gives that the force of law, as I said, under the Buy American Act, which already applies to many American-made
goods in the defense industry. So that's the purpose of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. ADERHOLT. 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 gives affirmative action 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 will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting direction. 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.
The Clerk will read.