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(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states: It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriation 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. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that this amendment has costs associated with it. The Corps' current pricing policy is based upon ``updated cost of storage'' which reflects today's value (indexed to current price levels) rather than at the original construction cost price level. So reverting to construction cost levels will unavoidably have a cost, with the net effect of increasing the level of budget authority in the bill. Under section 3(d)(3), an increase in budget authority must be accompanied by an equal or greater decrease. This amendment does not contain an equal or greater decrease, and so violates section 3(d)(3). I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point or order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.…”