Here is what I wrote then:
It is absolutely amazing! Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce VOTED AGAINST INCREASED PORT SECURITY. What was she thinking? Doesn't she care about our nation's security?
Yesterday, an amendment put forth by Rep. Sabo for increased port security, was defeated by a narrow margin (AYES 208 NOES 210). Pryce voted against the amendment! Why? Is she afraid to vote for any amendment written by a Democrat? A majority of the people in Ohio's 15th congressional district support increased port security, but Pryce would rather blindly follow Ney, Boehner, and DeLay. Why won't Pryce listen to her constituents? No matter what she says, there is no way for Pryce to justify her vote against this important amendment. The bottom line is--DEBORAH PRYCE VOTED AGAINST INCREASED PORT SECURITY.
*Here is what Pryce said today when new legislation was passed (Union Tribune):
Lawmakers wrote legislation that adds teeth and accountability to the panel that reviews and investigates investments that involve foreign governments or have an impact on critical U.S. infrastructure. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States includes representatives from several different agencies.
The measure updates the committee “for a post-9/11 world where national security and homeland security need to be considered much more strongly,” said Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio.
Does Pryce votes for port security measures when the legislation is written by Republicans? Does Pryce vote for port security only when an election is months away? Could this be called a flip flop? Was she against the legislation before she was for it?