Lucille Roybal-Allard: “The gentleman asserts that the motion exceeds the subcommittee's allocation. However, the Congressional Budget Office…”

“The gentleman asserts that the motion exceeds the subcommittee's allocation. However, the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate noted ``our estimate is the same as H.R. 240 as introduced.'' H.R. 240 was the bill introduced by the chairman of the subcommittee, Judge Carter, and sent to the Senate. If I understand the gentleman correctly, he is now asserting that the bill that he moved through this Chamber violated the rules of the House. I urge him to withdraw his point of order and allow for the House to vote on a clean, full-year bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Absent that, I urge the presiding officer to overrule the gentleman's point of order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order that the amendment proposed by the instructions in the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from California violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Section 302(f) of the Budget Act precludes consideration of an amendment providing new budget authority if the adoption of the amendment and enactment of the bill or joint resolution, as amended, would cause the pertinent allocation of new budget authority under section 302(a) of the Act to be exceeded. The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the chair of the Committee on the Budget under clause 4 of rule XXIX.…”