Columbia Bill

[Gabu]

Abstain.

[Jake]

I'd like the opinion of the Secretary of State on removing Section Four before I vote.

[True Democrat]

I'd like the opinion of the Secretary of State on removing Section Four before I vote.

I do not support the removal of section four.  Instead, I believe we should simply change it.  The first part is fine.  The only part I have a problem with is the restrictions.  The State Department in no way supports economic restrictions, but when it comes to military restrictions, I feel that many of the weapons could possible end up in the hands of the terrorists.  That is why the State Department supports partial military restrictions.

So, on this amendment, I would advise the Senators to vote Nay.  Instead, write an amendment that includes the current restrictions in the Foreign Policy Review.

[The Dowager Mod]

Aye

[Jake]

On that note, Nay

[True Democrat]

On that note, Nay

Thank you.  Try to convince more Senators

[Gabu]

I'll change my vote to nay.

[DanielX]

I'll change my vote to nay.

^^^^^

[Platypus]

True _____, you have EVERY ability to change it yourself, but thanks to your actions, you've just made sure that the preable and section three won't be scrapped.

Thanks a lot.

[True Democrat]

True _____, you have EVERY ability to change it yourself, but thanks to your actions, you've just made sure that the preable and section three won't be scrapped.

Thanks a lot.

But if Section Four goes into effect, then I can no longer change the Columbia review because the Senate can overrule me.

[Platypus]

My amendment was to REMOVE section 4. What are you arguing? You wanted it or not?

[True Democrat]

My amendment was to REMOVE section 4. What are you arguing? You wanted it or not?

I'm sorry.  I didn't understand what you were saying.  I just think that Section Four needs to be revised, not taken out.  The Senate, if they are committed to this cause, should do this.  I really don't care that much either way.  Also, could you please explain what Section Three is?

[Platypus]

Re: section three. From the info Jake gave (the link doesn't work), "These sections remove waivers placed on the transfer of funds that forbid appropriations if human rights abuses are discovered to have been occuring at the Colombian government's hands. Section 3204(b) removes restrictions that hold US troop numbers to less then 500 personnel."

Whilst I would consider supporting 3204(b), I don't support at all the repeal of the other sections, if they are what Jake suggests they are.

Re: 4. The sentae can make foreign policy, and can indeed make it's opinions known, I have no problem with that. But it shouldn't replace the Secretary's analysis and whilst it can suggest a different stance, it is and should be the Secretary's position to report the stance of the government.

[Jake]

Hugh, do you not understand this law right here? Section IV, Clause 3 is relevent here.

[Platypus]

I was unawatre of it. It was my impression that it was WMS's creation and wholly a responsibility of the Secretary.

In any case, we may have the power to amend it, but I personally believe, 'it (the senate) shouldn't replace the Secretary's analysis'.

[MAS117]

Nay

[Bono]

Where the hell is Columbia.

[MasterJedi]

Didn't you want to amend something in this bill Jake?

[Jake]

As soon as the previous one is closed.

[MasterJedi]

As soon as the previous one is closed.

Ok, I'll change my vote to Nay and not get Al in here.

[minionofmidas]

Upon reviewing this again, I no longer support it.  Somehow, I missed that we’d be giving money to fight drugs.  But, before it loses my full support, is Hugo threatening violent action against Columbia?  Does he look like he might?

No. Of course not. This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with Venezuela.

[minionofmidas]

Also, could Sam someone provide figures on how much money we're currently providing to Colombia?

[The Dowager Mod]

Mr President i move this bill be tabled indefinately.

[PBrunsel]

I'll second the tabling motion.

[Ebowed]

I third the motion.