Guaranteed'' is correct. But the bottom line is, is it a good investment and for whom is it a good investment? It is a good investment for American agriculture. And to those who continue to drag your feet and say we could not even bring this bill up and consider it, to those who continue to do that, you are in danger of doing irreparable harm to the American farmer and rancher, because we depend upon world trade, and we are a part of a 182-nation group that is attempting to have organized trade. For us to continue to drag our feet can do irreparable harm to the American farmer, and when you vote no on this, understand that.
Charles W. Stenholm: “Guaranteed'' is correct. But the bottom line is, is it a good investment and for whom is it a good investment? It is a…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of a bill for American agriculture and its impact on farmers and ranchers.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
We did it in 1997. It was Democrats like me that stood up with Republicans and got it done.
The gentleman has misstated the facts again. There is no budget. There is no budget until we get a House-Senate conference and we have a budget. If we had a budget, I would probably be standing up here agreeing with parts of what you are…
Reclaiming my time, I take back time because again you are totally misleading the body when you make that statement. If you go back to PAYGO as was originally passed in this body in 1990, repassed in 1993, repassed in 1997 with Republican…
I come to the floor very disappointed because once again the majority has chosen not to allow the Blue Dogs to have our amendment considered. I would like to ask the gentleman from Washington, why did his committee allow 19 amendments…





