On the recordJune 3, 2015
But for sequestration probably most of these housing vouchers would have gone through. They are already cut. These are cuts that were never anticipated. These were sequestration cuts. The Congress cannot ignore forever the neediest people for housing as homelessness increases and as there is no relief whatsoever. I understand the point of order. I can't agree with it. I think at some point this Congress must face what it must do for people who but for sequestration, something none of us wanted, none of us anticipated, would at least among them have some who would have these housing vouchers. The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia violates section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5. Section 3(d)(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 Florida, 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. Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler
