On the recordJuly 7, 2015
While I commend my colleague for her consistent work to protect taxpayer dollars, this is not an approach I can support. While the President may have proposed a budget that exceeds this bill, the increases were paid for with proposals and gimmicks that would never be enacted. This bill makes tough choices within an allocation that adheres to current law. While difficult trade-offs had to be made, the bill in its current form balances our needs. These trade-offs were carefully weighed for their respective impacts and are responsible. We prioritize funding for fire suppression, PILT, and meeting our moral obligations in Indian Country, yet the gentlewoman's amendment proposes an across-the-board cut on every one of those programs. This amendment makes no distinction between where we need to be spending to invest in energy independence and where we need to limit spending to meet our deficit reduction goals. And, I may point out, the spending problem is not within these discretionary appropriation bills, which we are debating at the present time. It exists primarily in entitlement spending. So I hope we can spend as much energy on the entitlement side of the budget as we are on the discretionary side of the budget. If so, we would fix our budget problems. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum). Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr.…
