My friend from Texas has now three times made a very impassioned speech regarding that this is for the troops, and I want to again say, every single person over here supports our troops. In addition to that, I will say I support our President 110 percent. In fact, I believe in our opposition to this rule that I am supporting the President more than you are. Here is why. The President asked for $27.1 billion. This bill is $29.4 billion. You made reference to the Senate, in having a package to go to the Senate. The Senate is proposing to spend $31 billion. That means we are going to compromise somewhere between 29.4 and 31. That is not what the President asked for. This is more than just supporting our troops. We all support the troops. This is about fiscal responsibility and the debt limit.
Charles W. Stenholm: “My friend from Texas has now three times made a very impassioned speech regarding that this is for the troops, and I…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing fiscal responsibility and troop funding during a debate on a spending bill.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
We did it in 1997. It was Democrats like me that stood up with Republicans and got it done.
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…
The gentleman has misstated the facts again. There is no budget. There is no budget until we get a House-Senate conference and we have a budget. If we had a budget, I would probably be standing up here agreeing with parts of what you are…
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…





