Russ Feingold: “Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment for the very reason that it does attempt to immunize the Defense…”

“Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment for the very reason that it does attempt to immunize the Defense Department from the further cuts that are represented by the Exon-Grassley amendment that was added at the committee level. I do not think any area of our Government should be immunized from the need for deficit reduction. And we cannot make any mistake about what the purpose of this is. The goal is to take a major area of public spending--an area where I think there is still too much spending--and to keep it off the table at a time when we are just beginning to make progress on deficit reduction. We know the recent history. The President last year showed real leadership in helping us, encouraging us, to establish a level of deficit reduction in the budget of $500 billion. That figure became known not only here in Washington but throughout the country as a figure that we were going to try to achieve. It stuck in people's minds. They asked us questions such as, ``How are you going to get that amount of money? How quick will the cuts come into effect?'' But that figure of $500 billion was very important last year in the budget process in keeping our feet to the fire.”