The amendment is very well intended, but I make a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair. The CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair will rule. To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read. The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order. Amendment Offered by Mr. Farenthold
Share
More from Tom Latham
I am in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. As you know, one of the very important functions of this committee is oversight--ensuring agencies under our purview are effectively and efficiently managed. The bill provides the Amtrak OIG…
The gentleman makes a very compelling argument, and we would accept the amendment.
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 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





