I find it ironic. What we are trying to do over here is to save the taxpayers what could be up to $15 million, and we are accused of wasting the time and taxes of the American people by engaging in a debate to save $15 million. The purpose of the House of Representatives, the purpose of the people on this side, is to save money. This whole debate is about saving money. This could be easily resolved if the Speaker of the House would say: I am willing to take the smaller aircraft to land halfway in Kansas or Illinois or anywhere else, fuel up again, and head on to San Francisco. That would probably save the taxpayers $10 million. It would be a much smaller aircraft, and it would inconvenience her by about an hour to 1 hours. This is what this is all about. But what really bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that those of us who are engaging in debate, this is the type of debate that the American people want because it is the type of debate that saves them money. It is all about saving the taxpayers' money. If this is not the debate that should take place, I really don't know what should take place.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the importance of saving taxpayer money during a debate.
Share
More from Donald Manzullo
I respectfully urge you to act so that the bill can be enacted into law very soon as it needs to be in the interests of our great nation.
We had a hearing before my Asia Subcommittee on what China did to Fellowes Shredder. It was absolutely outrageous how they literally stole $185 million worth of intellectual property.
On rollcall No. 597, I inadvertantly voted ``no'' on Mr. McKinley's amendment. Had I voted correctly, I would have voted ``aye.''
President Reagan taught us you don't negotiate from a position of weakness. There are over 80 foreign government export credit agencies that vigorously support their local companies in winning export sales. We cannot unilaterally disarm…





