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.
Jack Brooks: “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…”
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
This motion makes the sixth time that the other side of the aisle has seen fit to try and derail through procedural tactics the toughest, most carefully structured crime bill to come out of the House in 20 years. The effort to stall…
It has been my position from the time the proviso was at the committee--at the Rules Committee--and it will be my position in the conference, that the Racial Justice Act should be prospective only in application.
But I have never deterred from my route since then. It is these people that go back and forth that make you nervous.
The Attorney General said very clearly, and she uses English, American, you know, in her letters, said, `No such inherent conflict of interest exists in the investigation of Members of Congress.' In other words, you investigate the Members…





