Lincoln Diaz-Balart: “The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)3…”

“The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)3 of House Resolution 5 of the 114th Congress, which states the following: ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.'' The amendment does propose a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. 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 gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California violates section 3(d)3 of House Resolution 5. Section 3(d)3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from Florida, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. Therefore, the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order. Amendment Offered by Ms. Maxine Waters of California”