I have been reading the gentleman's amendment, and I think that I can come up with a number of phrases that would apparently be permitted but which, under his amendment, would be very questionable. Think of words like ``Think Joe Smith'' or ``Joe Smith thinks about our Nation's future every day'' or ``Joe Smith, the 1st District's Congressman'' or on the crime theme, ``Joe Smith voted yes on the crime bill,'' ``Joe Smith was sponsor of the crime bill,'' ``Joe Smith is tough on crime.'' All of these would be passing muster under the amendment that the gentleman from Kentucky offers. I think that they all have a clear purpose and intent. But under this amendment, they would be permitted.
Victor Fazio: “I have been reading the gentleman's amendment, and I think that I can come up with a number of phrases that would…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment during a House debate.
Share
More from Victor Fazio
Now, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as I remember the gentleman's comments from that earlier debate, he was also talking about people who were taxpayers, as many legal residents are, who are not citizens.
Does this make them permanent in their status if they served and then leave the service, or do they lose their right to vote after they have left military service?
There may be another approach taken, if the gentlewoman will yield further, that I have not mentioned but still a way in which these growers would not be discriminated against vis-a-vis other agricultural producers?
I think it makes a bad proposal less bad, but I understand that the gentleman has the votes on his side, so I certainly will not oppose it. In fact, I encourage him to offer it. But I do think that when we begin to think about those things…





