My point is that almost $1 billion in spending cuts and unused spending will not go to deficit reduction because the deficit lockbox, which was supported on this floor earlier this spring by 418 Members and only opposed by 5, cannot be offered as an amendment to this appropriations bill. It is precluded under this rule as it was precluded in the rules for the three previous appropriations bills. On that basis, without reference to the word hypocrisy but with reference to the word candor to the American people, I would urge a defeat of the previous question.
Jane Harman: “My point is that almost $1 billion in spending cuts and unused spending will not go to deficit reduction because the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of spending cuts and the deficit lockbox during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Jane Harman
I do think, as you said, that decertifying this deal or at least in some way pulling away from this deal is going to make it harder to negotiate with the North Koreans.
But imposing sanctions and continuing to impose them on Iran's malign behavior in the region, which is permissible, is the right way to go.
Should it have addressed Iran's other malign behavior? Yes, it should, and it still could, if this side agreement were entered into.
I think we should be very, very careful, given the Iraq experience, and if the people of Iran who elected their government by more than 50 percent in a four-way field want to change their government, then let them do that.





