On the recordMay 24, 2018
I insist on my point of order. I have been advised that the amendment contains new direct spending. Therefore, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act, and the CutGo rule. Therefore, I must insist on my point of order, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not, the gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the instructions in the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California violate clause 10 of rule XXI by proposing an increase in mandatory spending over a relevant period of time. Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XXI and clause 4 of rule XXIX, the Chair is authoritatively guided by estimates from the chair of the Committee on the Budget that the net effect of the provisions in the motion to recommit would increase mandatory spending over a relevant period as compared to the bill. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the motion is not in order.
