I know he had a lot to say there and challenged to do it in a brief period of time. Again, before I yield to my friend from Georgia, let me respectfully suggest to my friend from New Jersey, again, as has been stated by my colleagues, this is not about leverage, this is about the future. It is about a free society, people of goodwill from opposite points of view agreeing to broad parameters, in terms of debate, upon which disagreements may be resolved. What is especially disturbing is that this pattern portends something that is less than the common good, because, in the words of columnist Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post 2 months ago, 'When one side continues to repeatedly distort the facts and the evidence, then the purpose is not to debate, it is to destroy.'
NAN A. S. HAYWORTH: “I know he had a lot to say there and challenged to do it in a brief period of time. Again, before I yield to my friend…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the importance of constructive debate and the dangers of distorting facts.
Share
More from NAN A. S. HAYWORTH
I would answer his question with an interrogative of my own. Is the gentleman aware of the extensive hearings held this summer by many different Members of the House outside Washington, D.C.----
I would implore you that one key aspect of that financial education should be regarding the unintended consequences of Federal intervention in the markets...
the opportunity costs of companies not listing other things of Sarbanes-Oxley as being as high as $1.4 trillion.
if my friend would yield briefly, I just wanted to return to the floor first of all to thank my colleague from Texas and to state what is obvious to his constituents. He brings a dedication and a passion to this Congress in his first term…





