Is it not true, however, that the language which is in this bill that I just read clearly provides there will not be any interference with an interrogation session, that those procedures are to be determined by the President, and that it explicitly says there will not be any interference with the interrogation and the procedures will guarantee there will not be? That is the point of this language. I don't understand how the statement could be made that this language in this bill interferes with the interrogation by civilian authorities and the FBI when the very language here says they will not interfere with that interrogation. I wonder if the Senator could explain to me his agreement with the Senator from Illinois that something in this bill would result in an interference with an interrogation.
Share & report
More from Mike Levin
I thank Mr. Neal, and I salute his eloquent statement. I hope everybody listens. Usually, legislation has either rhyme or reason, or both. This bill has neither. It is dramatically unreasonable. It adds insult to injury. It would further…
All we have to do is look at the last few weeks in my great State of California and see record wildfires, 3.6 million acres and counting. And we have seen this all throughout the Western United States, truly unprecedented. And we also have…
There is absolutely no sense in making a special exception to open the waters along the Pacific Coast for drilling. Supporters of this amendment clearly represent districts many miles from the nearest coastline. Maybe they never saw the…
I proudly present Brenda Jones as a new Member of Congress for Michigan's 13th Congressional District for the remainder of this Congress. Brenda Jones was elected in a special election earlier this month. She very much wanted to…





