Frank Lautenberg: “now that that is resolved, this amendment would force a cut in discretionary programs, if I read the amendment…”

“now that that is resolved, this amendment would force a cut in discretionary programs, if I read the amendment correctly, if projected revenues fall. That means that we would be putting national security at risk as well, because we would be taking it from defense as well as from discretionary accounts. That hardly seems the way, in my view, that the country ought to be doing business. There may be circumstances that we cannot possibly imagine at this juncture, and apart from the basic rule of saying, look, this falls outside the understanding that, again, was negotiated at length, this means that if the economy falters, critical programs, in addition to defense, would be cut. It might be a time when, if things suddenly start turning tough, you might want to make other decisions. This would tie our hands and not enable us to consider these things as expected, and there are many other conditions that might be considered. Would the Senator from Colorado suggest, if revenues fall short, that taxes ought to be increased? I hardly think so. I will not bother the Senator for a response to that; I will answer for him, taking that liberty. I just want to make the point that an agreement has, again, been negotiated, considering all prospects--revenues, expenditures, firewalls, protection of defense, development of discretionary accounts--again, through long, arduous discussions.”