Kevin Roberts said "I oppose this amendment. I do so reluctantly with my colleague on the committee. But the committee bill contains no mandatory funding in the rural development title. This amendment would take savings achieved in the bill from 23.4--used to be 26.3--now we are down to 23.4. That would take it down to 23.2 and redirect $150 million mandatory spending into a few rural development programs. Nothing against them, but if we are going to achieve savings in this bill, we have to hold the line. I reluctantly oppose the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment." @ PoliticalQuotes.com

On the recordJune 19, 2012

I oppose this amendment. I do so reluctantly with my colleague on the committee. But the committee bill contains no mandatory funding in the rural development title. This amendment would take savings achieved in the bill from 23.4--used to be 26.3--now we are down to 23.4. That would take it down to 23.2 and redirect $150 million mandatory spending into a few rural development programs. Nothing against them, but if we are going to achieve savings in this bill, we have to hold the line. I reluctantly oppose the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Said by

Kevin Roberts

Source

govinfo.gov

Share on X Share on Facebook Email this quote