On the recordJune 6, 2012
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 imposes additional duties. 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 gentleman from New Jersey makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon proposes to change existing law, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The amendment would limit funds for an assistant Secretary in the Department of Energy to implement or administer any change to a cited regulation as in effect on January 19, 2001. The Chair is aware that such regulation is no longer effective under current law. The amendment would therefore require a determination by the assistant Secretary of the state of prior regulation, and a further determination of what, if anything, has effected a ``change'' to that prior regulation. By requiring a new determination, the amendment constitutes legislation within the meaning of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
