my colleague from Maryland is exactly right. He answers his question with his question. In fact, it obviously is far more reasonable. Again, I recall the then-minority leader, Senator Dole, making the case in part that it was not just the politics. He worried about the damage being done to the Presidency, the office of the Presidency. So he made that appeal on the basis that we ought not to damage the office of the Presidency. Of course, we are well aware that our colleague from Kansas, the majority leader, is an active candidate for the office of the Presidency today, and yet yesterday in the Rules Committee when the matter came up as to whether or not we ought to try and put some limitation on this for 5 weeks and a limited amount of money, there was a vote. Our colleague, Senator Ford of Kentucky, offered an amendment to the open-ended proposal and said, ``How about 5 weeks, $185,000, with an additional month to wrap it up?'' The majority leader was there for the vote. He voted against that and voted for the open-ended proposition. Only 5 years ago he was, of course, making a strong case in the other direction.
On the recordMarch 6, 1996
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of presidential politics during a debate on funding limitations.
Share
More from Chris Dodd
Nov 30, 2010
We need to start thinking 'intermestically' about domestic immigration and international economic development policies at the same time.
Nov 30, 2010
it was a great honor to have Father Gregoire Fluet, my parish priest in East Haddam, CT, provide the opening prayer this morning. I thank him immensely for his words. Reaching back to Archbishop Carroll was a wonderful way to begin the…
Nov 30, 2010
The United States has lost its credibility on human rights in Latin America because we haven't practiced what we've preached.
Nov 30, 2010
I frankly don't see the sovereignty issue as playing a role as an impediment as much as the sheer ability of the cartels to corrupt.





