I again rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. There are some factors that we need to take into consideration. For one thing next year, next fiscal year, we have an additional compensable day which has to be paid for. We have GSA that has raised rents. We have already cut $14 million out of salaries and expenses, so we would not be able to meet our requirements. We are not giving Federal employees raises, but there are additional costs that come into play because of rents, because of the additional day that our Federal workers will be working next year. And for those reasons--and again, I want to reiterate, we have cut $14 million out of this account--I would just urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.
Tom Latham: “I again rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. There are some factors that we need to take into consideration.…”
Share
More from Tom Latham
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…
Reluctantly I must rise in opposition to the amendment. I share the gentleman's concern, and that is why we have included language in our committee report directing HUD to review instances of payments for housing that exceed 120 percent of…
I make a point of order that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states: ``It shall not be in order to…
I wish to speak on the point of order. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.





