Precisely why we are having this kind of discussion today in dealing with these kinds of numbers is why some of us feel very strongly that there is a tremendous mistake about to be made if we get into these kinds of decisions before we have had the kind of open and honest debate in the Committee on the Budget in a bipartisan way and on the floor of the House in a bipartisan way, before we have committed as yet undetermined projected surpluses. Some of us feel very strongly that we are making a mistake, and I hope my friend from Texas will have a good two or three nights sleep on this question and will come to a little different conclusion before we make that mistake next week.
Charles W. Stenholm: “Precisely why we are having this kind of discussion today in dealing with these kinds of numbers is why some of us feel…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about budget decisions and the need for bipartisan debate.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
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…
You are mischaracterizing my amendment. We are suggesting that the tax cuts be extended through next year. You are describing something that is not going to happen in my amendment, leaving a wrong impression with the people that might be…
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…
That is the problem. That is the problem. It is a lack of understanding. PAYGO means you have got to come up with the spending cuts to take care of the amount of tax cut.





