Tom Latham: “I insist on my point of order. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The…”

“I insist on my point of order. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states: It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in the 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. It would increase budget authority by $127,383,000. 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 Iowa makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 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 Iowa, 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. The Clerk will read.…”