It would mandate, though, if the need were there, it would restrict us in a way that we would not have the freedom of making that decision. If it was not a question of shifting or if we needed more resources in areas as we mentioned a moment ago, either to project our message across the world or to increase our representation in countries such as Russia, it would limit us from doing that. I would urge, rather than a broad cut, come sit with us in the meetings and work toward seeing which areas could be changed, rather than locking the hands of the appropriators and the authorizers, for that matter, in any further deliberation by a direct freeze at this time.
Charles Taylor: “It would mandate, though, if the need were there, it would restrict us in a way that we would not have the freedom of…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of budget cuts on international representation and resource allocation.
Share
More from Charles Taylor
You continually fight for the rights of Native Americans and you have persistently expressed to me the need to properly fund our trust responsibilities to the tribes. It has been a longstanding policy of this committee to fund water rights…
Mr. Chairman, today we bring before the House for fiscal year 2004 appropriations a bill for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. This is a good bill that balances many competing needs and stays within the 302(b)…
I share the frustration of many of those who have spoken on the Indian trust issue. I represent the eastern band of the Cherokee Indians. I have been taught and seen it over and over again, the old adage that government will mess up a…
The gentleman is correct. In no way should this study delay or disrupt either phase I or II of the planned cleanup of the Hudson River or any other ongoing Superfund project. I will work with the gentleman to consider modifications to…





