However, I do disagree that we require a supermajority. The fact of the matter is, to project that far in advance--again, I said it earlier in a discussion, that we are working with estimates. We are looking at a particular point in time, the condition of our economy, the condition of the revenue stream that we get from, really, an ebullient marketplace and high tax collection. That has given us revenues that make the balanced budget a reality, to permit the tax cuts that have been established. Again, we each take a little bit of time for editorial comment to say--with which I disagree. I do agree with the portion that is devoted to the middle class and devoted to education. But it cannot be only my way. I regret that, but that is life and the reality. Mr. President, I hope we will be able to defeat this amendment. I think it does violate the agreement as we understand it.
Frank Lautenberg: “However, I do disagree that we require a supermajority. The fact of the matter is, to project that far in…”
Editor's note · Context
Debating the requirement of a supermajority vote for budget decisions beyond 2002.
Share
More from Frank Lautenberg
We also need to expand our research into climate change so we better understand the coming impacts, and how to mitigate them.
Efforts to consolidate these grants could shift critical grant funds away from the areas most at-risk for a terror attack, like my State of New Jersey.
I have long been concerned with the understaffing of air traffic controllers at Newark Liberty and I am concerned the sequestration-imposed air traffic controller furloughs will disproportionately impact this airport.
I am concerned that with our budget difficulties we will continue to see declining budgets for Defense Nuclear Non-Proliferation activities in favor of Weapons Activities.





