. >> item o ask a vote on the consent calendar moved under section f. ms. fewer, roll call, please. >> item p consent cal ender riz lugss a couple items pulled from the commission reading. 2 b. >> a request to move $29,000 in restricted find to consultant fees. i ask for background information about this. my understanding is that it was a process. i'd like to skw mr. truitt if he could comment on this. budgets like after school programs to the best of not honored in september of what it could have been and should have been. they were able to access the funds. so again, we were reminded that this still hadn't gone before you. the district coordinator for this school is laura

f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in the bill. thereforeit is a violation. the chair: anyone wish to be heard on the point of order? ms. jackson lee: i respect the chairman and i know that he has as mr. serrano says, his own commitment. i consider this an emergency and whether or not a point of order could be waived in light of the fact that cases that are now in litigation would be in, essence, left without representation either for the client or the case. i consider it a legal emergency, emergency dealing with justice questions and i would ask that the point of order be waived. the chair: does anyone wish to be heard? seeing none the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from virginia makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee violates section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5. it establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the charetr chair has been gaded by an estimate from the chair of the committee on budget that the amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore the point of

f of rule 21. the amendment proposes an increase in violation of such section and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to address the point of order? ms. jackson lee: i do. as i indicated before, the gentleman was mishearing what i said. i indicated that i had an earlier amendment that i decided not to offer because i intend to work with the other body on it, but it would have diminished the ability to enforce the voting rights act. that's not what we're -- i gee with you and i wanted to clarify that i was not speaking on this amendment. and this amendment, i have simply asked for a waiver. frankly, this is too important an issue to be addressed by the gentleman's point of order. i asked for a waiver. this is denying, if you will, of huge amounts of money to many municipalities across this nation, $600 million is ludicrous and creates loss of jobs and safety of the united states. i ask for a waiver on the point of order. i yield back. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the gentleman from new york. >> the intention of the rule that the chairman is referring to is to make sure we aren't adding additional spe