No, with all due respect, well, if you want to fight the war by shortchanging the troops in order that you can have your rhetorical answers on that, fine. I will be happy to yield for a simple discourse, but every time you start that rhetoric that has put us into a $2.4 trillion hole in 4 years.
Addressing concerns about funding for troops during a debate on military spending.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
That is the problem. That is the problem. It is a lack of understanding. PAYGO means you have got to come up with the spending cuts to take care of the amount of tax cut.
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…
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…
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…
Other voices in this conversation
