Norman Mineta: “I rise in opposition to the Myers amendment. It is vague, ill-conceived and onerous. It is vague because it proposes…”

“I rise in opposition to the Myers amendment. It is vague, ill-conceived and onerous. It is vague because it proposes cuts--nearly $4 billion, for example, in full-time equivalent positions and administrative expenses--that are so general in nature that it is unclear how they would be implemented, and what effect they would have. It is ill-conceived because it circumvents and prejudges the legislative process. It addresses issues which have not gone through the normal committee process. Much of what is included has not undergone congressional scrutiny, either through hearings or markups. In addition, the end result as provided for in the amendment prejudges that very process. Lastly, the amendment is onerous because it includes reductions over and above what is contained in H.R. 3511, the rescission bill as passed by the House. Let me focus on some of the specifics. How could we possibly approve a $3.2 billion reduction in agency administrative expenses or a $750 million reduction in full-time equivalent positions without knowing what this means? We don't know how that would affect the efficiency and operation of ongoing Federal programs and activities. For example, FEMA, the very agency that is responsible for natural disaster assistance and has people in California today doing just that, would be subject to this reduction. What does it mean for FEMA and for the citizens it serves?”