Search
InterAction Center
Constituent Services
E-news Sign-up
![]() |
Rehberg Offers Amendment Cutting $4 billion From Foreign Operations Bill
06/30/10WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today offered an amendment during the initial stages of writing next year’s State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that would reduce the cost to the taxpayer by $4 billion.
“While talking about spending freezes next year, House Democrats are blowing up the spending this year to compensate,” said Rehberg, a member of the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. “This slight of hand is at best ineffective and at worst completely dishonest and cynical. This freeze is empty rhetoric because it won’t actually reduce spending, or even hold it steady. Montanans expect better. My amendment essentially implements the spending freeze a year early – locking last year’s funding in place.”
Rehberg, who has been a vocal advocate for spending reform in Congress, made the case that the 60 percent increase in funding since 2008 is excessive in normal times, let alone when deficits are running at record highs. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has added 2,250 taxpayer funded positions to her staff and USAID has added 820 taxpayer funded jobs. Funds for Climate Change have more than quadrupled in the last three years. All while the national debt grew to more than $13 trillion, which is more than $42,000 for every man, woman and child in America.
Despite not passing a budget for the coming year, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee has requested $57 billion for next year. That figure was $49 billion this year, and last year it was $37 billion. Rehberg’s Amendment reduces the 2011 funding figure to the 2010 level.
“I’ve joined Republicans in forgoing earmarks this year, promising it was the first step toward true comprehensive spending reform,” said Rehberg. “My Amendment gave my Democratic colleagues a chance to actually put taxpayers money where their mouths are, and they said no. When it comes to fiscal reform, the distinction couldn’t be more clear.”