So the appropriate manner in which this body functions requires us to bring it forth today. I certainly congratulate the Senator from Nebraska for his energy and initiative in putting this package together and bringing together a large number of Senators who support it. It is a logical step in the process which we have been trying to undertake here as a Government and as a Congress in our efforts to reduce the cost of the Federal Government and to get under control the spending of the Federal Government. Last year, Congress passed the President's package. That included $5 billion of spending restraints in the first year of a 5-year period. That $5 billion is going to be completely eliminated by today's supplemental emergency appropriation, which is going to require us to spend upwards of $10 billion to help out the folks in California, primarily. And that is an understandable and necessary expense. But the fact is that if you undertake the California expenditure--and I think we should, obviously, in order to benefit the people who suffered from the earthquake--you are essentially creating a situation where there is no spending restraint this year within the President's budget, because the $5 billion would have been wiped out. In the outyears, there was also not a great deal of spending restraint in the budget. This is an attempt to address the spending side of the ledger of the Federal Government through a bipartisan package of spending cuts.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the implications of federal spending related to emergency appropriations for California.
Share
More from Sen. Judd Gregg
To get back to the Senator's prior question, I believe my answer was accurate. If you look at the definition, you will see, if the funding is available, the capacity is there to assess the fine. If the community decides it does not want to…
the remarks of the President in the State of the Union address last night were excellent remarks that summarized some of the concerns that many of us had relative to the issues raised last night by the President. The President, of course…
If the Senator from Rhode Island will yield, I think it would be unusual for someone to travel from Montana to New Hampshire and find that the water in New Hampshire was any less of a quality than it was in Montana. I believe the scenario…
This whole issue of excessive attorney fees, and a great deal of lawyer activity today is a problem with the system. So I do not see that that is necessarily going to be impacted negatively by delaying the fine. Second, I would point out…





