Discussion · Senate
John Hoeven Republican
“My colleague misunderstood what I said. My resolution is about the United States and Canada working together to stop wildfires. Doing more to prevent these fires helps people in both countries.”
“Mr. President, if I could, I am wondering if my colleague heard the speech I just gave. I guess I want to repeat it because maybe she might have missed it. The United States and Canada--this is what I said, so I can’t think of a bigger mischaracterization of what I just said. And I am not even sure why. If she wanted to come down and criticize our President, that is fine. She can do that, I guess, whenever she wants if that is what she wants to do. But to completely mischaracterize what I said, I don’t think is fair. So I am going to reiterate what I said just a minute ago for the record. I even referenced the fact that I grew up 50 miles from the Canadian border. I went back and forth to Canada so many times I couldn’t even count. But, and I go on, with a shared border between the United States and Canada, we want to manage it to the benefit of people residing in both countries. I am reading from the speech I just wrote; I was listening to the mischaracterization. That is what I am calling for. And in the resolution itself, I make it very clear that this is something that is important to benefit both countries. So, again, you know, I think it would be--if my colleague wants to object, I understand she has that right. But I think it is unfair to characterize that other than I am saying we need more action on these wildfires. Now, if she feels we don’t need more action on these wildfires, it is just fine, OK. But she shouldn’t misrepresent what I am trying to do, which is call attention to the fact that we need more work done so we can avoid these wildfires in the future and that that is something that is mutually beneficial for both of our Nations. And with that, I would yield the floor to my colleague the good Senator from Ohio.”
-
Speech in the House
Signal 33 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysis
Mr. President, if I could, I am wondering if my colleague heard the speech I just gave. I guess I want to repeat it because maybe she might have missed it. The United States and Canada--this is what I said, so I can’t think of a bigger mischaracterization of what I just said. And I am not even sure why. If she wanted to come down and criticize our President, that is fine. She can do that, I guess, whenever she wants if that is what she wants to do. But to completely mischaracterize what I said, I don’t think is fair. So I am going to reiterate what I said just a minute ago for the record. I even referenced the fact that I grew up 50 miles from the Canadian border. I went back and forth to Canada so many times I couldn’t even count. But, and I go on, with a shared border between the United States and Canada, we want to manage it to the benefit of people residing in both countries. I am reading from the speech I just wrote; I was listening to the mischaracterization. That is what I am calling for. And in the resolution itself, I make it very clear that this is something that is important to benefit both countries. So, again, you know, I think it would be--if my colleague wants to object, I understand she has that right. But I think it is unfair to characterize that other than I am saying we need more action on these wildfires. Now, if she feels we don’t need more action on these wildfires, it is just fine, OK. But she shouldn’t misrepresent what I am trying to do, which is call attention to the fact that we need more work done so we can avoid these wildfires in the future and that that is something that is mutually beneficial for both of our Nations. And with that, I would yield the floor to my colleague the good Senator from Ohio.