Columbia Bill

[Platypus]

1. We're in the middle of huge spending cuts, and you want to give a different nation's military-and one that's hardly clean-an EXTRA $142,000,000?!?

2. See (1)

3. Whilst I would support removal of 3204(b), but based on the description you gave of the others (the link doesn't work), I wouldn't support that except in wartime, and even then would hate to do so.

4. That is the Secretary's job, not the Senate's.

Colombia is better then Venezuala, sure, and Uribe does seem to be genuine in his desire for democratic reform. But we can't afford this bill, and shouldn't implement it 'just in case'; it goes to far in just about every area.

[Platypus]

The Senate can write Foreign Policy based on previously passed acts Hugh and Colombia is at war with the FARC and so are we.

I believe that the analysis of the countries and our relationship with them should be left to the secretary. If there is precedent, perhaps it is time to start a new one of the Secretary having complete control over that process. I have no problem with the Senate dealing with foreign policy, obviously, but I think that role is best left to the Secretary.

Let's be honest-how much does FARC have to do with this? This bill, as stated in and of itself, is about assisting a 'bullwark' to Venezuala. We're not at war with Venezuala, I believe.

If this bill was more specifically aimed at FARC, I *might* support it. But I do not at the moment, and I strongly oppose repealing s3201, 3204a and 3207 of he 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act; based on your description of them they are very important sections that were put in for a purpose, and that prupose still stands.

[Platypus]

I propose an amendment to remove the preamble and sections 3 and 4 of this bill.

[Platypus]

Aye

[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.

[Platypus]

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

[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.

[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'.

[Platypus]

well, it's unnecessary, but here's a fourthing.

[Platypus]

Aye

[Platypus]

Whilst I will not be supporting final passage of the bill, it is slightly less awful if amended as Jake suggested. So, in case this bill actually passes,

Aye on the amendment.

[Platypus]

what does 3204a dictate?

[Platypus]

Nay