Lisa Murkowski: “I recently returned from my State of Alaska, where I had the opportunity to speak to our legislature in a joint session…”

“I recently returned from my State of Alaska, where I had the opportunity to speak to our legislature in a joint session and visit constituents in Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks. Mr. President, what I heard from my constituents was, I think, best reflected in their inability to simply understand why we could not reach an accord on a balanced budget. We have seen from the administration several budgets come before the Congress. I think we all recall the first one that came before this body, which did not receive one vote, neither Republican or Democrat. Subsequently, we have had a series of more than five budgets, until the administration has progressed to the point where they claim they have submitted a balanced budget. But virtually everyone is aware of the reality that the sixth and seventh years are where the Clinton cuts occur. As a consequence, I think it is fair to say that virtually everyone who analyzes that proposal finds it unrealistic. It is unrealistic for two reasons. First of all, in the sixth or seventh year, whatever Members are in office clearly are not going to have the ability to make those cuts in just 2 years. Those are going to be draconian cuts, and the political fallout, obviously, will make such cuts unacceptable. The other realization, Mr. President, is that regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, President Clinton will not be in office when those cuts arrive in 2001 and 2002.”