I remember one of the saddest days standing in the back of the Senate a few weeks later and watching it lose by one vote. If it had passed the Senate at that time, we could not have passed the budget last year that we passed and we would not be here tonight talking about asking for a new plan, or increasing the debt ceiling. You could have borrowed money to fight the war. That is totally permissible. Emergency. But you could not borrow the money, $750 billion, to give this generation a tax cut with our children and grandchildren's money. You could not do that, any more than State and local governments could who have to operate under a constitutional requirement. That is what we are here tonight to talk about...
Charles W. Stenholm: “I remember one of the saddest days standing in the back of the Senate a few weeks later and watching it lose by one…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a balanced budget amendment and its impact on current budget discussions.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
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…
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…
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…





