Mike Conaway: “the amendment is pretty straightforward. We have heard hours and hours today of debate on whether or not we should cut…”

“the amendment is pretty straightforward. We have heard hours and hours today of debate on whether or not we should cut spending out of this proposed appropriations bill that has been brought forward. The elephant in the room that we don't talk about is, under the mechanics of the law under House rules, were any of these amendments that we will be voting on in a few minutes to pass, they would not actually reduce spending. The amounts would still remain within the 302(b) allocation and would be spent somewhere else within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. What my amendment would do would be to say that, instead of that being the occurrence, the savings would actually go against the deficit; and should we ever have a surplus, it would actually include that surplus. I intend to withdraw the amendment. I understand the point of order. But, before I do, Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other comment. Mr. Chairman, I am a Christian, and I take very seriously the instructions in the New Testament, particularly verses like Luke 12:48 that says, ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' I understand the parable of the sick and the unclothed and the jailed. But I see those instructions to me personally, to take my personal assets, my personal wealth, and deal with those issues for my fellow man. I see no instruction that tells me to take someone else's blessings and wealth to fix those problems.”