Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman is aware that the offsets in this are ones that he proposed. The ones he is referring to really are not germane to the amendment at hand. I would like to have everyone know that this is fully offset, it is fully paid for. It is something that I think is quite important today that we move this and move this quickly. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of very important issues in agriculture. We will deal with a lot of those through the normal appropriations process. This is the one area where there is consensus to move ahead. Everyone agrees that this needs to be done and needs to be done today. If we want to start more fights with the other body, if we want to stop or stand in the way of help for our farmers and the critical needs that they have today, all we need to do is load it up with a bunch of extraneous issues. But this is critical today, that we move this and move it quickly. Mr. Chairman, I just want to, in closing, urge everyone to support this amendment. It is paid for. I want to also thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her support on so many of these agricultural issues, and our chairman of the subcommittee, and also, certainly, the chairman of the full committee, who bent over backwards to be of assistance to agriculture.
Tom Latham: “Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman is aware that the offsets in this are ones that he proposed. The ones he is…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of a specific agricultural amendment during a committee meeting.
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…
I thank the gentleman. As we move forward to conference, we will work with the gentleman to ensure that any project ready for full funding grant agreements will receive funds under our conference allocation.
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…
We would be more than happy to accept the amendment in the interest of time if we could move on.





