Let me first respond to my colleague by saying, look, we all know there are very significant amendments here. Take the amendment. Every time you call for a vote, you take out of the debate much more significant amendments that we need to debate here. You are going to win today. We thought you had written the bill the way you wanted to write it in the first place. You have got the votes to do it. Why now trample upon the little bit of time that we have to try to make up for it here? You could have written this bill any way you wanted to. We accept the amendment, and let us go forward.
Ronald Dellums: “Let me first respond to my colleague by saying, look, we all know there are very significant amendments here. Take the…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about the legislative process and amendments during a floor debate.
Share
More from Ronald Dellums
I would assert here, very straightforward and very aggressively, that how a Nation chooses to spend its money is a profound statement about a Nation's principles, its values and its priorities. And in that regard I am extremely proud to…
Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman talked about conventional deterrents, it is not in the platform, it is in the weapons. And the weapons are standoff smart bombs and precision-guided missiles. Second, remember, we do not have zero, we have…
It would place a limit on U.S. costs for handling the expansion of NATO to 10 percent of the total cost, or $2 billion, whichever is lesser, for fiscal years 1998 through 2010. With respect to background, Mr. Speaker, Congress, the House…
One very quick response to the gentleman is: The logic. Do we build up to build down. To build up we are going to spend billions of dollars and we know we are ultimately going to build down. That is the answer to the gentleman's point…





