The American people want the U.S. Congress, Members of Congress, covered under this Independent Counsel Act. The Gekas amendment does just that. The truth of the matter is the House is not going to have the opportunity to vote for that on the floor, because it is the intention of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], according to his testimony in the Committee on Rules, to offer a substitute knocking out the Gekas amendment. That means he is putting right back the same language as is in the bill now. If it was not a subterfuge, then why is he even bothering to offer his amendment knocking out Gekas? If we simply have an up-and-down vote on Gekas, and if the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] fails, then the Bryant language is already back in the bill. Who can explain that?
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses the need for Congress to be included under the Independent Counsel Act and critiques an amendment.
Share
More from Gerald B. H. Solomon
Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of title X (page 277, after line 2), add the following new section: SEC. 1038. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS CONCERNING THE NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. (a) Findings.--The Congress…
the previous speaker was a Democrat, and he was bragging about how small these deficits are in the next 5 years under the Clinton program. Let me read them to you, ladies and gentlemen. In 1995, $171 billion; that is small? In 1996, $166…
All of the tax cutting provisions out of the Republican alternative. And then we have added an additional $300 billion-plus in spending cuts, which we have itemized and have passed out to all Members. That is how we arrived at this…
I could not help but smile a little at that list of special interest groups that oppose this. You know, every veterans organization--and there are hundreds of them in America in your district and mine--support this down the line. They are…





