On the recordJune 18, 2014
Because under the math of CBO, as fuzzy as it is, by reducing one account by $57 million, even CBO says, yes, that takes care of equalizing the outlay of $41,492,000 in the account to increase that for the National Guard. So it should have been addressed with the first amendment that I made. But this second one certainly addresses the fuzzy math that CBO provides. This does not increase the amount of expenditures over what is being taken from another account. The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? Seeing none, the Chair is prepared to 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 Texas proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill, as argued by the chairman of the relevant 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. Parliamentary Inquiry
