not to take away from the seriousness of the moment or the debate that we heard about the line-item veto and the debate we are hearing today, I will say about my chairman and ranking member of the full committee, since this circumstance has happened, it has sure picked up the most colorful debate in committees. That had been absent for quite a while. I want to congratulate my friend from West Virginia on laying out the situation as it really is. But we are here and we have to deal with the moment as it is, and given the President's desire to improve the quality of life for the men and women in uniform, and given the President's dedication to a balanced budget as reflected in the real world, and the real world is appropriations--that is where we actually spend the money. We can debate on the budget all we want to but accounting time is when we start appropriating dollars for the real world. The ranking member on military construction appropriations, Senator Murray, has worked hard with our colleagues in the House and also with the administration before we finally passed a conference report and sent it to the White House for the President's signature. We worked very hard to take out those items that would have been objectionable, and it reflected the intent of Congress, both through the budget statement and through the appropriations statement and the charge that was given us when appropriating the money.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of appropriations and the budget process in relation to military construction.
Share
More from Joseph T. Burns
we are quickly approaching a season known for giving thanks and goodwill. Next week is Thanksgiving. Far too often, we fail to recognize those who work year-round to improve the lives of the less fortunate. This Friday, the Golden Harvest…
I rise in support of a measure that I introduce today, with the support of my colleague, Senator Wyden. We worked closely on the CAN SPAM bill together, and after four years of effort finally saw its successful passage last year. I am…
Mr. Chairman, we have had this debate before. We had it in subcommittee, we had it in committee, and the same rhetoric is here on the floor today. The opposition and the Woolsey amendment would roll back time and take us back prior to 1998…
Absolutely. So what we are going to do is tax only those people who make over $4,000, a king's ransom at that time, and unfortunately, at least for the Congress, they were trying to use the existing Constitution. Because of its vagueness…





