I would say to my colleague that, again, what we would all recognize is that OMB is different than the Government Accountability Office. The OMB is fundamentally executive branch in nature. I think there is a real value to having a third party independent look at what is happening with the study. Again, it is not prescriptive in nature, but having that third party look, I think, is that much more important in all of our justifications of this program or other programs like it. I would also say this, in terms of ``waste of money,'' as we know, GAO is funded through the legislative branch. This would not involve an additional expenditure of money. It would be incorporated into the expenditures that currently take place within the legislative branch and, again, GAO, by extension. In that regard, I think it would be a good use of taxpayer money to take a look that has not been taken in more than 12 years. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Marshall Sanford: “I would say to my colleague that, again, what we would all recognize is that OMB is different than the Government…”
Share
More from Marshall Sanford
It shows the danger of Donald Trump in my mind, because what it says is somebody as highly elected as Kevin McCarthy will twist himself in knots to stay relevant with the Trump base.
It's incredibly disturbing, because leaving the legal issues and the federal election issues and all the other issues that people have been talking about, I think in the last segment you pegged it, which is fundamentally what we have going…
I thank Chairman Shuster for agreeing to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford). The amendment was agreed to…
I would say, well, I'm for Trump in this area, but I'm against in these different areas. But people didn't want nuance. They want, are you for or against him?





