I am trying to figure out--I wish it were true that we could be obstructionists, because if we were obstructionists, that meant if we vote ``no,'' it would stop the bill. But they have got 40 more votes than we do, so how in the world could we be obstructionists? I need some help on that because the logic seems to be very hard for me to grasp.
The speaker questions the label of obstructionism in the context of a legislative debate.
Share
More from W. Todd Akin
On rollcall Nos. 697 and 698, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 697 and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 698. Authorizing the Clerk to Correct Engrossment
The question involves the Avondale shipyard-- which used to be Northrop Grumman, it is now a part of Huntington--and there are essentially three possibilities of what might happen to the shipyard. One possibility is that we leave the…
On rollcall Nos. 111 and 112, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on both. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 hour.
On rollcall No. 134, 135, and 136, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on all three. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. The…
Other voices in this conversation
