The alleged protection that the Senator from Mississippi seeks to impose for defense spending here applies only to the incremental cut, the Grassley-Exon cut, and that is all. I know this is somewhat confusing, but as I read this thing--and clearly, as the Senator from Georgia perceives it--there is no protection for the remaining portion of discretionary spending. In short, given the fungibility of money, this amendment does not protect military spending at all, as far as this Senator is concerned, and I think my views are well known on that. I would like to see military spending take its chances just with all of the other discretionary spending. But if it is the intent of the Senator from Mississippi to fence off and wall off military spending and protect it, this amendment simply does not do it. All it does is simply wall off that portion of the Grassley-Exon cut as you take this out of Defense. All the rest of this big pool of money is there, and the appropriators can do as they wish with it.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment related to defense spending during Senate debate.
Share
More from James Sasser
A working family of four making $16,000 a year would get no credit under this plan. Is that not 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…
this amendment, I think, is a splendid bipartisan effort on the part of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] to do something about the urgent problem of education in this country today. The…
I do not think this amendment is really something we can expect very much from. We have heard proposal after proposal in this body over the years that Congress give up its responsibility, give up our duty, give up ways to giving up finding…





