On the recordJune 27, 2012
The necessity for this amendment is undeniable. The hardship and the suffering this budget would cause without this amendment, by imposing minimum rentals way beyond 30 percent of income on people with incomes of $2,000 to $2,500 annually, is undeniable. That this Congress should do such a thing is regrettable, to put it mildly. I understand the rule. The rule would require an offset of an equal amount of money; but in this overly restrictive bill to start with, there is no way of finding such an offset of that amount of money without hurting people in an equal fashion in other ways. So that says that we have a choice of really injuring ``these'' people or of really injuring ``those'' people. It's not an acceptable choice. I understand the rule. That is regrettable. I hope that as we progress with this budget that we can find a way of finding the funds that we have in this amendment for this purpose so that we do not injure all of these thousands and thousands of very low- income people. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York violates section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5. Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. The Chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate from the chair of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill.…
Source
govinfo.gov




