I would conclude my remarks at this time by saying that I believe it grossly unfair to categorize our amendment as being weakening. If we are truly concerned about deficit reduction, I believe the language of our amendment, as a supplement to, not as a replacement for, but a supplement to, clearly stands out as being more able to reduce the deficit because of the language which we put into our amendment. As the gentleman said, again, Members have talked about this language from the standpoint that somehow current law is better. It is not. And unless we in fact add our amendment, we will have current law 355 days out of the year but 10 days out of the year, 10 calendar days out of the year we will have a much improved situation over the current system.
Charles W. Stenholm: “I would conclude my remarks at this time by saying that I believe it grossly unfair to categorize our amendment as being…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to deficit reduction during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
3 years ago is when this debate began and those of us that believed that we had a little better plan, we lost that battle; and today, we are still fighting the same battle we did 3 years ago. We were told if we instigated the tax cuts that…
The effect of this motion would be to call on the House and the Senate to have a full and open debate and vote on increasing the debt limit, instead of using the budget resolution to avoid a debate on increasing our Nation's debt limit…
I will vote to increase the debt ceiling because to do otherwise would be irresponsible. But I think it is critical for us to seriously consider changing a little bit the game plan that we are under and that is reinstate pay-as-you-go. I…
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…





