On the recordJune 27, 2013
As I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman would have been accurate had the motion to recommit been worded ``promptly,'' but it was worded ``forthwith,'' so it would only have delayed the bill by a total of 10 minutes or 15 minutes, however long the next vote was set for. It would not have sent the bill back to committee, and it would not have disrupted the movement of the legislation. So that part of the statement is not accurate and not a good explanation for why the Republicans uniformly opposed this excellent policy last year, even if it is, as the chairman says, reemphasizing existing law. We happen to think it's a really great existing law, and we wanted to make that point last year. Your side didn't. I'm glad that you've come around on looking at the companies that do business in Iran and Syria as serious threats to the United States and are going to essentially support the amendment that we offered last year, which you opposed. That's the best I can do, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes we change our minds around here. We haven't. All the Democrats, I expect, will vote in favor of this amendment, as they did last time. Apparently now, most or all Republicans will vote. That is a privilege we have around here, to change our minds. I just wish they had opposed it on better grounds last time rather than saying, well, it would have delayed the bill by 15 minutes. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
