I would hope that since we've done very well in accepting these amendments this would be one that the chairman would accept also. I know how supportive he is of this. But I really would hope that we could find some consensus and common ground on cutting spending in this House. My amendment would reduce or eliminate funding for programs-- President Obama, again, this is what President Obama has said and has signaled--that have adequate funding, or there is funding in this bill that's duplicative of other Federal programs. And again, we are just going to what the President asked for, or cutting programs that were not requested, and certainly are not even authorized. This amendment would save the taxpayer $1.8 billion, without going under the President's budget on any of the accounts targeted for the reduction. The reduction of $1.8 billion would make this bill simply just 3.4 percent lower than the fiscal year 2010 level. And you remember that bill was 23 percent higher than the year before that. And it would send an important message, I think, to the American people that Congress can take care of the Nation's housing and transportation needs without further jeopardizing our Nation's fiscal health. I would hope that my colleagues would join me in cutting this mere three cents on the dollar out of this bill, with an attempt to put this bill back on the path towards fiscal responsibility. I reserve the balance of my time.
Tom Latham: “I would hope that since we've done very well in accepting these amendments this would be one that the chairman would…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is advocating for an amendment to cut spending in a bill related to housing and transportation.
Share
More from Tom Latham
All this would do is limit the employees of HUD, and it would do nothing to the PHA employees. PHA employees are not HUD employees; and all you are doing is limiting funding to HUD employees, so it would have no effect as far as the PHAs…
First of all, I will say ``thank you'' to Mr. Simpson--a great, great friend--for doing this this evening; to Mr. Nunes, who is still on the floor here; to Steve King and Dave Loebsack, who were down here. I am not going to sing--we will…
I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Yes, we were aware of it. We have been advised by the DOT of the ramifications of this amendment in the revised form. That is why I rise in opposition. It is DOT's concerns we are raising.
I have great appreciation for the gentleman's point. The report was very shocking as far as the transparency and how some of these grants have been given. I am in a position where I must insist on being consistent in opposing all…





