May I just add, we do not have the facts. There has been no prospectus, there has been no study. We do not know on the basis of what has been done what in the world would justify these four courthouses. Now, so we are told to vote in the dark, and then wait and hope that some day some few people out there will ultimately make a decision that is called an authorization. That is voting in the dark, and that is why we have these kinds of over spending that take place. The prospectus could have been ordered long ago by the GSA. It could have been ordered by the authorizing committee. They saw fit not to do so. In fact, OMB turned down one of these courthouses. But there are no facts before us at this point to even debate in regard to the merit of these courthouses in the appropriations.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the lack of information regarding proposed courthouses during a floor debate.
Share
More from Harris Fawell
I have heard it argued over and over again that it isn't necessary to have a balanced budget amendment to our U.S. Constitution. Opponents of the amendment argue: "Trust Congress" to balance the budget and protect the basic right of future…
this is a historic vote that we will be having. I rise in support of the Solomon balanced budget resolution, and I do for one particular reason at least, but there are others. It is because I do not see that the administration, nor do I…
I rise in support of the Armey amendment to H.R. 6. This amendment represents an attempt to correct a drafting error in the bill which could have inadvertently required teacher certification of private, parochial, and home school teachers…
as I tried to stress in the time I had, this was legislating in an appropriations bill, to even get into the authority of the Committee on Appropriations to even order spending to commence the prospectus process, when GSA and the committee…





