Rodney Frelinghuysen: “The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under Section…”

“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 CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? The gentleman from New Jersey makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut violates section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5. Section 3(j)(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 New Jersey, 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. The Clerk read as follows: regulatory program For expenses necessary for administration of laws pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, $196,000,000, to remain available until expended.…”