On the recordJuly 9, 2014
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 inserts additional legislative language and is not merely perfecting. 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 Idaho makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. Under settled precedent, where legislative language is permitted to remain in a general appropriation bill, a germane amendment merely perfecting that language and not adding further legislation is in order, but an amendment effecting further legislation is not in order. The Chair finds that the pending section of the bill contains legislative language prescribing certain notifications and reports by the Secretary of Energy. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma seeks to expand those notifications and reports to include additional information, such as the number of proposals or applications submitted for the award. As such, the amendment does not merely perfect the pending legislative language.…
