Hal Rogers: “I do, Mr. Chairman. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be…”

“I do, 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. The CHAIRMAN. Do any Members wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. DeFAZIO. Would that preclude then offering the amendment again later? We can either do it now or we can do it later, if he wants to raise a technical point, if I have to wait for one more intervening person and offer it again. The CHAIRMAN. If the reading progresses past this paragraph, then an amendment could be offered to this paragraph only by unanimous consent. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. DeFAZIO. It was my understanding that after the en bloc we were in section 1 of the bill at an appropriate point; and since the previous amendments had addressed taking the money from the office, the same office from which I would take the money, I am a bit puzzled as to why this one is not in order and the earlier ones were.”