I just think making a differentiation between disasters in Nebraska and South Dakota and Texas from those disasters in Florida, which I concur are very serious and should be addressed, but it really makes no real sense for us to set a precedent of deciding some disasters are worse than others. You were making that point. I just wanted to say, we are not arguing that point. We are saying a disaster is a disaster, and the President in his request to this body did not require offsets of the disasters which you are defending and supporting, which I concur with you. What I do not understand is why the leadership on your side has suddenly decided we want a separate rule for other disasters. That makes no sense.
Charles W. Stenholm: “I just think making a differentiation between disasters in Nebraska and South Dakota and Texas from those disasters in…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing disaster relief funding and offsets during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
But I sat here and listened carefully to his very eloquent speech that was totally irrelevant to the motion that is before the House. We are not talking about raising taxes. We are talking about being concerned about the rising deficit…
3\1/2\ years ago, there was a lot of talk around here about budget surpluses. Some folks actually claimed there was a danger that the government would pay off our debt held by the public too quickly. Today, projections of large budget…
I appreciate the refreshingly honest statement of the gentleman from Kansas and what he just said because he stated quite clearly this is a vote to increase the debt ceiling. I want to ask the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she concurs…
I personally do not believe we should pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our children's future. That is why I support the Tanner substitute, which will extend the 10 percent tax bracket without increasing the deficit. This debate…





