[mrsmith]

Congressional Record
(House of Representatives - October 23, 2001)
[Page: H7206]

Mr. CONYERS. "...we are now debating at this hour of night, with only two copies of the bill that we are being asked to vote on available to Members on this side of the aisle. I am hoping on the other side of the aisle they at least have two copies. "

Two copies ( and a 1,000 copy machines in the House LOL!).
Please let me know how Ron Paul responds to your telling him that it is wrong for politicians to lie to you, that you are not some sheep to be led around by the nose that way.

I'm always fascinated by how politicians respond to finding out that some of us take our duties as a citizen of a Republic seriously.

[Viva Le Dissention]

So am I reading this correctly to say that there were four copies of a bill for 435 voting members of the House?

I think that's what it says--and if that's correct, I certainly agree with Ron Paul in his statement that the bill was not available for House members to read prior to a vote.

I don't really know anything about whether the bill was available, but I do know that four goes into 435 about 110 times. One copy per 110 House members? There is no way they could read it, or probably even see it.

[freeeee]

Two copies for 435 Representatives is not remotely sufficient. I have never heard of such a thing happening in any other case. The fact that copies were not made available to every member as they are routinely done in all other cases speaks volumes about the slimy tactics used in Congress that night.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Ron Paul couldn't have seen the bill since, as usual, he had his head entirely up his @$$.

[steve-b]

we are now debating at this hour of night, with only two copies of the bill that we are being asked to vote on available to Members on this side of the aisle

Thank you for admitting that the overwhelming majority of Representatives had no opportunity to read the bill.