Judd Gregg: “I understand I have 9 minutes. Good. The discussion which just occurred between the Senator from North Dakota and the…”

“I understand I have 9 minutes. Good. The discussion which just occurred between the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Washington is a discussion which reflects the difference between our views and how you should budget. Essentially what the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Washington said is we should break the cap, we should spend additional money, and we should raise taxes. Their approach to budgeting is to tax and spend. Our approach, on the other hand, has been to say if there is a priority which the Senate feels is a high priority, whether it is veterans' benefits or CDBG--and there will be other amendments like these--that the Senate should declare there is a priority and set up a process where other programs will have to be reduced in order to pay for that program within the cap. The Senator from North Dakota correctly referred to it as an across-the-board cut. Section 920 is a technical event. It does not have money in it, and it never has. But when you identify a 920 expenditure, it creates a mechanism where another program activity would be cut across the board. That is the philosophical difference between our parties. This budget increases the size of Government from last year to next year by over $100 billion. That is the growth in this budget--over $100 billion. The growth in the discretionary account will be about $30 billion under this budget. Those are huge numbers of growth.…”