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 with that statement, that by voting for the previous question and this rule it is a vote to increase the debt ceiling through $8 trillion?
Discussing the implications of a vote related to increasing the debt ceiling.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
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…
I am desperately trying to get people to understand the significance of this for our country, our children and our grandchildren,'' Walker says. ``How this is resolved could affect not only our economic security but our national…
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 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…
Other voices in this conversation
