James Sasser

I am pleased the conference committee agreed to fully fund this program in the conference report. This program is important and does deserve full funding. And I thank Senator Gorton and Senator Harkin for their efforts with respect to this…

My thanks are to Senator Boxer for her tireless efforts on behalf of these children's programs. The Budget Committee, as well as America's children, have been well served by her participation in this year's budget process.

It is my understanding, that every appellate circuit that has examined this issue has held that State laws that allow the timing of perfection to ``relate back'' to an earlier date are consistent with and not in conflict with Federal…

Yes indeed, Madam President. That would be my view also. The ``relation back'' provision merely relates to determining when a security interest in a motor vehicle is perfected in accordance with State law. Clarifying that ``relation back''…

But it would not be effective really in safeguarding the discretionary spending from being raided.

But it is true, is it not, that a family of four making $16,000 a year gets no tax credit under this Republican proposal that the Senator from Indiana is lauding today? Is that not correct?

Is the Senator from Indiana trying to represent that this is a refundable tax credit to people who make under $16,000 a year?

If they are paying no taxes and this gives them no tax credit, they would get no benefit under this proposal.

A working family of four making $16,000 a year would get no credit under this plan. Is that not correct?

As I understand the way this tax credit works, or child-care credit works, if a family is making $1 million a year they would get the same tax credit per child as a family making $30,000 a year. Is that correct?

We restored in the Budget Committee 70 percent of the President's cut of the so-called low-income home energy assistance, and we also tried to increase funding for prenatal care. The thrust of this amendment offered by the Senator from…

But the truth is, they constructed this problem for themselves, and they constructed it by moving ahead in the face of assertions that if you do this, military spending is going to take 75 percent of the cuts. But they went ahead and did…

I say to my friend from Georgia that hope springs eternal in the human breast. I understand that. But I may not be counted on the side of the Senator from Georgia when the roll is called.

First off, I say to my friend from Georgia, this amendment is silent on the question of 1995. It does not protect 1995 at all. It does not even attempt to protect 1995 at all. So defense would be subject, in 1995, to taking those chances…

But in the event his wins, then the Senator will modify his amendment and the modification will be in such a way that you still fund the Byrne provision but you will take the funds from where at that juncture?