That was an interesting point that was just raised by the chairman of the subcommittee with regard to the numbers. He makes the point that their numbers are consistent with the President's original presentation. However, when the Democratic budget was brought to the House floor, one of the points that they made was that they had massaged the President's numbers to do some other things in other areas. This was one of the areas that got massaged downward. When we come back now with the authorization, what we are suggesting is, having had all that massaging take place, we are now going to boost it back up, and it seems to me it is entirely consistent for us to say once the House has acted in budget numbers, we ought to be consistent with that. The gentlewoman is absolutely right with regard to the OMB number for 1996. That is a very firm number generated by the Director of Management and Budget that is reflected in the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. I thank her for making the point.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing budget numbers and their consistency with the President's original presentation.
Share
More from Robert Walker
The point is that here we have this Tetracofico that includes these four items, including the giant money bag that we know from the original bill was a $12 billion item. It is not here, but guess what is coming, folks. Guess what is just…
I want to reflect on the fact that the one amendment that they did make in order changes the date in the bill from 1993 to 1994. They made that amendment in order. They found ways to do that. But they could not allow legitimate amendments…
But the President came up here and told us about that. What about crime? The President has said that the crime bill is a major priority. Surely they have included the crime bill?
I assume what we do then in our budget is we probably have to raise taxes in order to do this.





