In summary, then, I ask my friend from New Mexico, that is just one of the reasons that this proposed change in the balanced budget constitutional amendment is a risky gimmick, and the risk is to Social Security and its beneficiaries themselves; is that not correct?
Discussing concerns about a proposed change to the balanced budget amendment.
Share
More from T. Gorton
I expect that the $2.5 million grant program administered by NFWF will leverage at least $2.5 million overall in additional, nonfederal funds.
I would agree that maintaining dual suppliers of high performance, environmentally acceptable fire retardants is critical to the mission of the Service.
This bill includes appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund that could be used for eligible projects such as that for the Great Falls in Paterson.
The Senator is correct. Section 156 states, ``nothing in this section shall be construed to expand the existing statutory authority of the Secretary.'' The interpretation suggested by our House colleagues would require additional statutory…
Other voices in this conversation
