I insist on the point of order. The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: 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 proposes 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 Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Share
More from Tom Latham
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…
I really appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this issue to our attention. I know the authorizing committee has looked into the issue of voice communications on flights and unanimously voted out a bill out of the committee addressing the…
I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes. {time} 1645
I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Yes, we were aware of it. We have been advised by the DOT of the ramifications of this amendment in the revised form. That is why I rise in opposition. It is DOT's concerns we are raising.





