I hope this may conclude my part of the debate, but I do feel I need to respond to a few of the things that have just been said in this debate. A few moments ago we had the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointing out that the counter-terrorism dollars were not in here, that we are not voting on something hypothetical, we have to be voting on the substance of this. In the next moment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is talking about how the process was not good. So we are talking about the process, not the substance of it. We are kind of getting whipsawed on both sides of this thing here.
Jim Kolbe: “I hope this may conclude my part of the debate, but I do feel I need to respond to a few of the things that have just…”
Editor's note · Context
Responding to criticisms about the debate process and the substance of counter-terrorism funding.
Share
More from Jim Kolbe
There was no question that almost all of us in the page program would not have survived the mentorship. I promised not to tell you those kinds of things. Fortunately, it is on your last day anyhow, so you are probably not going to find…
I would claim the time in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will control the time in opposition. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
It is not the money, however, that goes to assist refugees overseas. It is admissions.
This is certainly a timely topic to be talking about today as we consider the impact of United States assistance and contrast this with the foreign affairs budget for fiscal year 2018 which, as proposed, would significantly reduce our…





