On the recordJuly 27, 2011
I would like to point out that the request for this agency's appropriation under the President's budget was $110 million more than is appropriated and that we as a committee did cut this current budget by $10 million already. I would also point out something that's more philosophically based and that is my own personal view, and it's shared by many of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle: That we should be funding Federal functions while we are here in Washington and acknowledge that certain functions really can be handled as well or better by the States and that the States created the Federal Government, not the other way around, and so we should be deferring to the States for everything that is not specified either in the Constitution or is purely a Federal function. The Smithsonian Institution is a purely Federal function. It is something that was given to the United States of America, that the Federal Government and the people of this country through us are stewards of, and I believe it is appropriate as a purely Federal function that we fund it adequately. Now we have, as I pointed out, reduced its budget during these tough fiscal times, but as something that is purely Federal in its approach and the benefit to our Nation and indeed to the world that is provided by this great gift that was given to the people of the United States of America centuries ago, I do rise in opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.





