The amendment seems to deviate from the scope of the original motion. It seems to me that by referring it to another committee and including other elements that are not included in the original motion and that are not part of members' disclosures because they are not paid for by members' office budgets, we've really gone off track here from the original motion.
I'm not sure, Chair, if you can give us a definitive ruling, but if you're ruling this motion in order, because based on that, I question whether or not it's within the scope of the original motion.