Samuel Nunn said "Can I give a hypothetical so that we can be clear? Maybe the Senator from New Mexico can answer this, also. Assuming--and I do not know the exact numbers--this 5-year so-called discretionary account, which includes defense and also domestic discretionary--assuming the cap is $550 billion on that, and assuming the Grassley-Exon amendment cuts $43 billion out of that; would it be fair to say that under the Lott amendment, all the $43 billion cut would have to come out of nondefense, except for the 1995 problem? Nondefense discretionary. But the remaining $507 billion over 5 years, under the Lott amendment, could still be shifted from defense, and all of it could go into the nondefense account?" @ PoliticalQuotes.com

On the recordMarch 23, 1994

Can I give a hypothetical so that we can be clear? Maybe the Senator from New Mexico can answer this, also. Assuming--and I do not know the exact numbers--this 5-year so-called discretionary account, which includes defense and also domestic discretionary--assuming the cap is $550 billion on that, and assuming the Grassley-Exon amendment cuts $43 billion out of that; would it be fair to say that under the Lott amendment, all the $43 billion cut would have to come out of nondefense, except for the 1995 problem? Nondefense discretionary. But the remaining $507 billion over 5 years, under the Lott amendment, could still be shifted from defense, and all of it could go into the nondefense account?

Said by

Samuel Nunn

Democratic · Georgia

Source

govinfo.gov

Editor's note · Context

Discussing budget implications of amendments during Senate floor debate.

Share on X Share on Facebook Email this quote