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 votes for it and Democrats joining, like myself, in putting that in place, it worked. There is nothing in this amendment that suggests that you, the majority party, must cut entitlement spending in order to achieve a tax cut.
Charles W. Stenholm: “Reclaiming my time, I take back time because again you are totally misleading the body when you make that statement. If…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the implications of the PAYGO amendment during a debate on tax cuts.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
I appreciate the honesty in which he comes forward and with a straight face attempts to say why they denied us a chance. They can find time for 19 amendments, most of which are a joke. The rhetoric sounds good. What we offered in our…
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…
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…
The Blue Dog budget this year proposed to spend no more than President Bush recommended that the Congress spend, and we intend to stick with that. When my colleague talks about spending and he talks about revising history, in the 8 years…





