Now, what I was going to suggest is I believe that the first part of the amendment is a useful statement of what is in the bill now. It is the second part that we have trouble with. If the gentleman would get unanimous consent to drop that part of it, we would accept the first part and be very pleased. I think it encourages a restatement, makes more clear that we need to have specificity and credibility of the source of the information, just as we really believe there should be.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses an amendment related to a bill and expresses concerns about its second part.
Share
More from Jack Brooks
as I said earlier, the independent counsel statute is an important law and it should be reauthorized. However, the law which expired has not fulfilled its purpose due to shortcomings in the former statute. We need to reform this law if we…
it is with some regret that I rise to oppose the legislation now being considered by the House. I realize the good intentions and the motivations that lie beyond trying to craft a legislative solution to the perceived problem surrounding…
She makes all the judgments at this point, if you combine the adjudication with the administration, and we do not want to do that.
I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary to begin general debate on H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The legislation is the result of perhaps the most extensive review of…





