it is almost comical to me, because the gentleman from California almost gave my speech. I think that as I sit listening to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, even Mr. Conyers, I do not think, would advocate--matter of fact, I will ask the gentleman. I do not think the gentleman advocates, whether he does or does not, setting aside the mandatory three-judge panel under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Would the gentleman be in support of that or not?
Steve Buyer: “it is almost comical to me, because the gentleman from California almost gave my speech. I think that as I sit listening…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the 1965 Voting Rights Act during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Steve Buyer
What I would like to comment on now, Mr. Speaker, really deals with a problem in the House rules that I think needs to be corrected as we go into the next session of Congress. So with regard to jurisdiction, lines of jurisdiction with…
I am leaving this body here in the next 6 months. Now, one side is saying this is all about protecting jobs, about protecting teachers, firefighters, police officers. That's great spin. I'm going home. This is about protecting the…
I would like to thank the gentleman for bringing this, and I also thank the gentleman for his leadership on the House Armed Services Committee. You are filling a gap here. This is supported by the Gold Star wives, along with other major…
Well, all right. Reclaiming my time, this was a very good moment for bipartisanship, to actually bring a work product to the floor that we could all agree on. And I am greatly disappointed, Bob, that you made that judgment call. But this…





