if the Members of the majority can stand the shock of my speaking from the majority side, I would simply say that I had not wanted to go through this amendment because there are a number of things in this bill that I do not want to cut out, but we have not been given any other opportunity to cut out the things that I think really need to be cut out with respect to this new adventure in Colombia. And absent our ability to get more consideration of that, I am going to support the Ramstad amendment. I think it gives us no choice, given the choice the House presented to us today.
David Obey: “if the Members of the majority can stand the shock of my speaking from the majority side, I would simply say that I had…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Ramstad amendment related to U.S. involvement in Colombia.
Share
More from David Obey
I would point out that more than half of all disaster relief since 1993 has gone to just four States: Louisiana, Florida, California--the gentleman's home State--and Mississippi; and 80 percent of all disaster relief since 1993 has gone to…
To hear the gentleman talk, you would think that this bill is being gobbled up by a huge number of earmarks, causing the deficit to explode. The gentleman used a chart. I've got a chart too. This bar represents the total spending in this…
I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 25, noes 376, answered ``present'' 22, not voting 10, as follows…
I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, noes 260, not voting 11, as follows: [Roll No. 433] AYES--162…





