This is confusing. I know that there is disagreement between House and Senate bills, but from all the interpretations of what we have been doing, I think it is clear that no one can dispute that if we want to spend money that has impact on jobs, maintaining or creating jobs, the best money spent is on existing programs, where plans are made, where States are ready to spend it. Am I wrong?
Discussing the impact of spending on jobs during a debate on House and Senate bills.
Share
More from Martin Sabo
So DHS would have to clearly be tracking significantly more money than they track today?
Would the gentleman tell me, does the Department have the authority, not the authority but is the Department doing what the gentleman suggests today?
Reclaiming my time. All of the money that is needed for borders, for ports, all of the money we have appropriated can be spent?
My question was not about local government. It was about whether DHS would be doing something under his amendment that they are not doing today.
Other voices in this conversation
