I think I did use the term ``cut.'' What I meant to say, and what I stand by, is the appropriators, in effect, cut this money from the original appropriation of the President. That represents a difference in priorities, the $431 million annual backlog, with a total backlog of $3.85 billion. It would be the priority of the Senator from Nevada that the President's recommendation not be reduced as the appropriators did, and I appreciate the chance to clarify that point.
William Bryan: “I think I did use the term ``cut.'' What I meant to say, and what I stand by, is the appropriators, in effect, cut this…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing budget appropriations and priorities during a congressional debate.
Share
More from William Bryan
Finally, let me conclude by saying that the administration has indicated the President may veto this legislation because of the heavy tilt toward managed care plans, the lack of accountability, and the lack of provisions that would…
I wish to respond to the gracious statement by the chairman of the Energy Committee. Although we have had strong differences on this issue, the differences have been professional, not personal. He has been very professional in the way in…
There are no maps. That will give you some indication of what a shoddy, moving target this has been as we have tried to debate and expand on it. It is simply indefensible public policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
How does closing the only lab entirely focused on preparing and protecting first responders against threats of terrorism make any sense?





