I, too, must say I have to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment for the same reasons that the chairman has talked about, because I, too, would like to have increased the funding for research, just as I sincerely would have liked to increase the funding for conservation, just like we will have a later debate about increasing the funding for rural development. But as we live within the budget of $73.5 billion, these decisions were made; and I feel compelled to stay with the commitment at this point in time and encourage our colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Charles W. Stenholm: “I, too, must say I have to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment for the same reasons that the chairman has…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment related to funding during a debate.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
Mr. Chairman, I planned to offer an amendment today that would prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from spending appropriated funding to add species to the endangered or threatened species list until the Fish and Wildlife Service…
I hope our colleagues are paying a little attention to this tonight, because when we have been on this floor offering to be part of a solution, if people are watching this right now, folks are beginning to think, I would hope, okay, what…
one of the reasons why he has not brought it up is we cannot have the kinds of budgets that have been here in this body for the last 3 or 4 years and get to a balanced budget. We have to change our overall budget philosophy and go back to…
I want to say it is with a little bit of mixed emotion tonight that I address this body for the last time. I guess it kind of came to me in a real way just a moment ago when my grandson, who is sitting beside me, asked me a moment ago…





