Columbia Bill

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As introduced by Senator Jake...

The Colombia Bill

Recognizing the Uribe government in Colombia represents a strong ally in South America and acts as a bullwark against Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and finding that support for this ally is crucial to Atlasia's interests in the region, the Senate agrees to take the following steps to address this situation.

1. Military aid to Colombia under the Foreign Military Financing Program shall be raised from $ 108,000,000 in FY 2005 to $ 250,000,000 in FY 2006.

2. Economic aid to Colombia under the International Narcotics Control Program shall be raised from $ 484,000,000 in FY 2005 to 600,000,00) in FY 2006.

3. Sections 3201, 3204(a), 3204(b), and 3207 of H.R. 4425 (The 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act) are hereby repealed.

4. Under the heading of Colombia in the Foreign Policy Review, it shall read:
The democratic movement in Colombia is greatly encouraged, and Atlasia will take all steps possible to support a quick transition to full and fair democracy. We recognize Colombia's support for eliminating narcotics terrorism in South America and shall designate Colombia as having no military or economic restrictions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Shall I bring this to a vote or do either side want more time?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could you all please calm down?

I call a vote on the following amendment:

"The Preamble and Sections 3 and 4 are removed"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

IIRC we can't actually table things at the moment (could be wrong). Might as well do an informal vote on it though; not that anyone has to take any notice if it passes, btw.

Aye or Nay on "tabling" this bill

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How long has the table vote been going on? Just would like someone else to check...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Ayes have three, the Nays four. This bill has not been tabled. Are there any proposals to amend this bill? If yes please post. If not a vote will have to be called soon.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I call a vote on Jake's ammendment

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd also like to note that I may be absent for the final passage of this bill; if possible, I'd like to cast an absentee ballot for that occassion:  Nay.

Not sure if it is *technically* possible... but I'll allow it anyway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No it doesn't pass, CheeseWhiz screwed it up with that case so an abstain is like voting Nay. -_-

Only the case for a *Constitutional* Amendment

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I call a vote on this bill

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I call a vote on this bill

Don't you mean Jake's other amendment?

Either way for both I vote Aye.

Missed that. Yes, it's on his other amendment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Three Nays to Two Ayes and God knows how many abstaining... this amendment has failed.

I call a vote on the bill

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Nays have Five, the Ayes Two. The Nays have it, the Nays have it.

This bill has failed

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not yet, we need six nays for it to fail.

That ruling only affects Constitutional Amendments and stuff. Court has absolutely no say over anything that is clearly internal and not mentioned in the Constitution and all that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meh. Nay for the record then.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that court ruling; it has to do with the fact that with only 5 nays, you could end up with a 5-5 vote and then need the VP to break the tie.

In theory, yes, I guess so. For that to happen you'd need every Senator to vote though.
OSPR is quite vauge on this sort of thing actually.