On the recordApril 30, 2015
I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill that we are currently considering meets the budget resolution that was just adopted. We have been cutting discretionary spending for the last 4 years, $173 billion, as I understand it, over the last 4 years, not in decreases in the increases, but actual decreases in spending. This goes way too far and makes sweeping changes with broad cuts to the reductions. This is an approach I can't support. I am particularly concerned about the impact this amendment would have on our critical infrastructure, as mentioned by the gentlewoman from Ohio, and the basic research needs that are prioritized in this bill. While the gentleman has attempted to exclude national security activities, I have got to tell you, in all honesty, national security is not the only thing the Federal Government does. We do do other things. We maintain our waterways and our ports and other activities. This amendment would still have the detrimental impact on the security of nuclear materials at the Idaho National Laboratory. These accounts are very complex, and reductions to each account must be carefully weighed, and that is what this subcommittee has been doing and holding hearings on for the last 4 months. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
