On the recordMarch 17, 2016
I appreciate the gentleman's comments and observations. He and I, frankly, have a factual disagreement on whether or not the budget that was reported out does, in fact, reflect the agreement. Technically, he may be accurate. But, of course, the problem with this budget taking so long to present--which I know the majority leader and the Speaker were hopeful it would have been done either in very late February or very early of this month--clearly, the disagreement, as everybody knows, is that so many of your caucus did not want to abide by the agreement that the three leaders of their party voted for back in December. And we understand there are additional actions going on to placate those on your side of the aisle who don't want to follow the agreement; and, in fact, they are looking for cuts beyond to return to sequester. That is why I referred to the sequester in my opening remarks, although the Speaker said we have gotten beyond that argument. Well, obviously, we haven't gotten beyond that argument. And that is, obviously, why your budget has been delayed and why we are not considering it before we leave here for the Easter break and, therefore, will not consider the budget in March. So I understand that we have a different perspective perhaps--not a disagreement necessarily, but a different perspective on what the budget process is presenting. If I can go on, Mr. Leader, let me ask you this. Very frankly, we are concerned about adjourning next week.…





