On the recordJuly 11, 2013
I've been listening, as you've observed, to the judgments. What the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) just did was to state one sentence, but it had an ``and,'' and he gave a second reason he was opposed. The first reason was that it increased poverty, and the second was that it undermined children. That was in the same sentence. It seems there was little substantive difference between the statement that preceded it for which you did not charge time and the statement of the gentleman from the Hispanic Caucus. I would like to understand the parliamentary difference that the Speaker perceived in those two statements. The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman engaged in embellishment.
