Charles W. Stenholm: “I am very disappointed in my friend from Iowa for once again taking the political line. I was not talking down the…”

“I am very disappointed in my friend from Iowa for once again taking the political line. I was not talking down the economy of the United States. Nothing that I said had anything to do with what my colleague just said. All we are saying is, we ought to have a legitimate discussion as to the effect of the economic policies that we are, in fact, enforcing with the gentleman's vote time after time after time. I am not here tonight to talk down anything. I hope the economy booms as a result of my colleague's policy, and we are seeing signs that it is making progress. That is good and I rejoice in that. All we are suggesting, though, is, and if my colleague would agree and join with me in putting PAYGO back as he did in 1997, we could have a budget agreement, bipartisanly supported at the drop of hat. But for some strange reason, the majority is saying no, we will not do it, even less than what we did in 1997 in putting in some enforcement. Because you blindly believe that we can fight three wars and have a tax cut a week and that somehow, some way, we are going to be able to borrow this money into infinity. I respect your right to believe that. I do not. I do not. And I believe very strongly we should put some rules back that we used to have bipartisan support on, and which the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and I used to vote together on but tonight we seem to be apart on.”