I understand the gentleman, and I appreciate the fact that he wants to cut spending. We have, in fact, in this bill cut the spending from the request $1.4 million on this particular line item in the budget. The fact of the matter is, Madam Chair, we have additional rent that we have to pay. We have an extra day of work for the Federal workers next year that we have to pay. So there's not going to be any increase. It's basically going to maintain where we are in this function. But, again, we have already cut from the President's request, $1.4 million. And there are additional costs we're going to incur just to stay even from last year. So with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Tom Latham: “I understand the gentleman, and I appreciate the fact that he wants to cut spending. We have, in fact, in this bill cut…”
On the recordJune 27, 2012
Share
More from Tom Latham
Jun 9, 2014
The gentleman makes a very compelling argument, and we would accept the amendment.
Jun 10, 2014
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment…
Jun 9, 2014
The amendment is very well intended, but I make a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the…
Jun 10, 2014
I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.





