My concern, beyond the procedural elements that have been referred to here just a moment ago, is the perceived effect of the amendment as I have read it. Although I understand the author's intention is to only limit the appropriation of funds from a particular area by Treasury to the Comptroller with regard to prohibition of new activities in insurance, the construction of the amendment, as I view it today, is to prohibit any new product, regardless of insurance or other wise, if it were not otherwise permitted by July 16 of this year. That was the reason for the unanimous consent request to modify.
Richard Baker: “My concern, beyond the procedural elements that have been referred to here just a moment ago, is the perceived effect of…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about an amendment related to funding and new product prohibitions.
Share
More from Richard Baker
Does the gentleman mean these people are telling us if somebody goes to work they want them to be able to keep the money?
I truly do not believe we could have prevented it, but we could have prevented the financial meltdown that we are in today with better regulation and more responsible oversight.
Does that mean, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that if we keep the current system in place, we discourage people from getting job skills and going to work and maybe one day moving out of public housing? Is that the problem?
We are characterizing local public housing authorities across this country as people who do not care about those people. By and large, are not most of these individuals who serve on these authorities either very low paid or volunteers…





