I rise hesitatingly to oppose this amendment. This is not an inconsequential amount of money. This is $3 million, and it is taken out of the Secretary's office. It is not prioritizing and saying, well, this program is more important than this program, so we are going to shift funds from one program to another. It actually strikes at the core of how the Secretary can manage the department. I just don't think that is the responsible way to do business. If we think this program is important, that is fine. Find another program that is less important. But let's not just take it from the Secretary's office because the Secretary has to manage a large organization. And, again, I know we are in Washington, but $3 million is a lot of money to take out of an office, so I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from Andy Harris
I rose to vacate the order of the House of November 5 because, having reviewed the Speaker's announced policies, the decision in the Chair should have been to not entertain the motion to table on that day. ____________________
There is no question that that is true. The fact is that we can send a strong economic signal through our ability to modify what is available under food programs, not only direct payments but also the fact that, over the past 50 years, we…
A lot of times on this floor and in the press you hear about how the Republicans somehow are cutting Medicaid or slashing Medicaid, but the facts are that in the Republican budget resolution, we increase Medicaid expenditures by at least…
What is really harmful is a $2 trillion deficit, not the legislation before us. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).





