[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 811, INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1993
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 352 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 352
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 811) to reauthorize the independent counsel
law for an additional five years, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of
order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply
with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
the amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute for failure to comply with section 302(f) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or clause 5(a) of rule
XXI are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the
report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
All points of order against the amendments printed in the
report are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions. After passage of H.R. 811, is shall
be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 24
and to consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of
order against the Senate bill and against its consideration
are waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after
the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu
thereof the provisions of H.R. 811 as passed by the House.
All points of order against that motion are waived. If the
motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed,
then it shall be in order to move that the House insist on
its amendments to S. 24 and request a conference with the
Senate thereon.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 352 provides for the
consideration of H.R. 811, the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act
of 1993. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Judiciary Committee. Under the rule, section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of measures
that would cause the appropriate subcommittee level or program level
ceilings to be exceeded, is waived against consideration of the bill.
The rule makes the Judiciary Committee substitute, now printed in the
bill, in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The
substitute shall be considered as read.
Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act and clause 5(a) of
rule 21, prohibiting appropriations in a legislative bill, are waived
against the committee substitute.
The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report
to accompany the rule. The amendments shall be considered in the order
and manner specified in the report and may be offered only by the
member designated in the report or his designee. The amendments shall
be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. The amendments shall not be subject to amendment except as
specified in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall not
subject to a demand for a division of the question.
All points of order are waived against the amendments printed in the
report. Further, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Finally, the rule provides for a hook-up with the Senate passed bill
S. 24. After passage of H.R. 811, the rule makes it in order to
consider S. 24 in the House. All points of order are waived against the
Senate bill and against its consideration. The rule further makes in
order a motion to strike all after the enacting clause of S. 24 and
insert the text of H.R. 811 as passed by the House. All points of order
are waived against the motion. If the motion is adopted and the Senate
bill, as amended, is passed, the rule makes in order a motion that the
House insist on its amendments to S. 24 and request a conference.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 811 reauthorizes for 5 years the independent
counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act which would allow
the appointment of special prosecutors to investigate alleged
wrongdoing by top executive branch officials, including the President.
The purpose of the provisions was to ensure that investigations are
carried out impartially and without favoritism.
The bill creates a specific category of coverage under the law for
Members of Congress, allowing the Attorney General to use the
independent counsel process with regard to allegations against Members
if doing so would be in the public interest.
In addition, the legislation would establish an extensive series of
cost and administrative controls to restrain spending by the
independent counsel and to ensure better oversight of their activities.
In order to enforce cost controls, the bill requires each independent
counsel to follow the same rules that govern spending by the Department
of Justice, except in cases where the independent counsel can show that
such a restriction would be inconsistent with the law.
Under the bill, each independent counsel is also required to
designate an employee who will be responsible for certifying that
expenses are reasonable and lawful, and who will be held liable for any
improper spending.
The bill requires the General Services Administration to provide
space for the independent counsel in Federal buildings, unless GSA
determines that other arrangements would cost less. In addition, the
General Accounting Office would be required to audit the administrative
activities of each independent counsel and report the results to the
congressional committees with oversight jurisdiction.
Finally, H.R. 811 requires each independent counsel to make an annual
report to Congress describing the progress of any investigation,
prosecution, and any additional information to justify the expenditures
that the office has made.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 352 is a fair rule that will expedite
consideration of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to
support the rule and the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago this House--including 60 Members of
the majority party--sent a thundering message that restrictive rules,
which purposely shield Members from accountability, will not be
routinely accepted and should not be tolerated. But until recently
Democrat leadership seems to be ignoring the storm among its ranks.
Today we have yet another restrictive rule, which arbitrarily prohibits
fair and orderly consideration of a host of substantive, reasonable,
common sense amendments to H.R. 811, the independent counsel bill, a
bill which arguably affects every Member. Members were sent here to
participate, to cast tough votes. We are expected to debate the issues,
listen to all sides and then make our best judgments. That is the
spirit of deliberative democracy. No one said it should be easy,
comfortable or risk-free. But the Democrat leadership is bound and
determined to slam the door on Members with reasonable amendments in
trying to protect Members from being accountable to their constituents,
and to shut off debate on matters displeasing to Democrat leadership.
Time and again the majority assumes the most pretzel-like contortions
to avoid the tough votes on the controversial issues. We saw it during
last fall's debate on true spending cuts, when a sleight-of-hand
substitute was offered so Members could sound tough but do next to
nothing; and we saw it again when fiscal conservatives offered real
spending offsets to pay for necessary disaster relief and were cut off
at the pass. Even our distinguished Rules Committee chairman, Joe
Moakley, has acknowledged the trend of finding an ``out'' for Members
uncomfortable with casting tough votes. And so we have the rule today,
artfully crafted so Members never have to really vote on the central
question of whether Members of Congress should be covered by the
independent counsel statute or whether once again we should be
insulated from accountability. There will be perception of a vote, of
course, but a guided outcome is assured. Let us not forget that
Congress' approval rating is sinking lower than the thermometer
outside, in large part because most folks are fed up with lawmakers who
routinely exempt themselves from the law. The ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Fish, asked our Rules Committee for an open
rule to consider this bill. My friend, Mr. Beilenson, declared that
``this bill is a perfect candidate'' for an open rule. He made the
point that it is an important bill. We have a series of worthwhile and
relevant amendments and there is unquestionably plenty of time for free
and unfettered debate. But when it came time for a committee vote, open
debate lost in a 5 to 5 tie vote. Several very important amendments
were shut out, including two of Mr. Fish's proposals seeking to ascribe
Department of Justice standards to the independent counsel's
expenditure of money and enforcement of criminal laws. We all remember
how many millions Mr. Walsh blew in his first class approach to his
work. The distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, was denied
the opportunity to offer separate amendments to provide penalty for
failure to protect classified information, to provide for orderly
termination of the independent counsel and to establish a procedure to
reimburse attorney's fees for individuals acquitted of charges or
exonerated in an appeal disincentives for frivolous witchhunters. There
were proposals to provide for reappointment of the independent counsel
every 2 years and prevent the investigations from becoming taxpayer-
financed will o' the wisps. All of these good ideas were summarily
dismissed by the Rules Committee in a process of cherry-picking
amendments to manipulate debate and force a predetermined outcome. The
saddest part is that the majority members of the Rules Committee are so
used to accepting the dictates from on high, that they almost rubber
stamped rejection of a crucial proposal offered by Mr. Hyde requiring
that the Attorney General have ``specific information'' from a
``credible source'' before beginning an investigation. When the merits
of this proposal were made clear, the Members reversed their original
position. A glimmer of deliberative democracy in the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, if Members would step out of their partisan roles and
consider these amendments on their merits under an open rule process,
there's no doubt we'd have a much-improved final product. Don't be
fooled by the majority's promise of a clear vote on the issues our
constituents care most about--under this rule that is guaranteed not to
happen and it means a piece of legislation that is much worse than it
needs to be. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, so that I may offer an open rule. Failing that I urge a
``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following printed material:
Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments To the Independent
Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1993
1. Open Rule.--This amendment to the proposed rule provides
for a 2-hour, open rule for the consideration of H.R. 811,
the ``Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act,'' and makes
the Judiciary Committee's amendment in the nature of a
substitute in order as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule. Sec. 302(f) of the
Budget Act and clause 5(a), rule XXI are waived against the
bill, and 5(a), rule XXI is waived against the substitute.
VOTE (Defeated 5-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss,
Beilenson; Nays--Derrick, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter.
Not voting: Moakley, Hall, Wheat.
2. Clinger No. 1.--``Executive Office Accountability Act of
1994'' Amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to establish
an Office of Inspector General within the Executive Office of
the President.
VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Derrick, Beilenson, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
voting: Moakley, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
3. (En Bloc)--A) Hyde No. 3.--Ensures that the independent
counsel complies with all laws and regulations regarding the
use and disclosure of classified information. B) Hyde No.
5.--Provides that the division of the court, which appoints
an independent counsel, will specifically and precisely state
the exact purpose of the investigation. In addition, the
initial jurisdiction would be limited to the alleged
violations of criminal law that prompted the appointment of
the Independent Counsel. C) Hyde No. 8.--Strikes provision in
the bill which states that ``no officer or employee of the
Administrative Office of the United States Court shall
disclose information related to an independent counsel's
expenditures, personnel, or administrative acts or
arrangements without the authorization of the independent
counsel''. D) Hyde No. 9.--Prohibits the federal government
from taking an adverse personnel action regarding an
individual being investigated or prosecuted by an independent
counsel, unless a conviction has been handed down. E) Hyde
No. 10.--Encourages the appointment of state & local
prosecutors as independent counsels.
VOTE (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Present: Beilenson.
Not voting: Moakley, Frost, Hall Wheat.
4. Hyde No. 6.--Allows the division of the court to
terminate an independent counsel once it determines that an
investigation has been substantially completed.
VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Present:
Beilenson. Not voting: Frost, Hall, Wheat.
5. Hyde No. 7.--Provides that an individual would receive
their attorney fees if they are acquitted or if their
convictions are overturned on appeal.
VOTE (Defeated 5-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss,
Beilenson; Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter.
Not voting: Frost, Hall Wheat.
6. (En Bloc).--A) Fish No. 12.--Requires that independent
counsel comply with established Justice Department policies
regarding the expenditures of funds. B) Fish No. 14.)--
Provides that the independent counsel shall comply with the
established policies of the Department of Justice with
respect to enforcement of criminal laws and the release of
information relating to criminal proceedings.
VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
7. Meyers No. 17.--Requires that an independent counsel's
final report be limited to discussion of specific illegal
actions investigated and the outcome of any prosecution.
VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
8. Gekas No. 19--Requires an independent counsel to apply
for reappointment every two years.
VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
9. Gekas No. 20--Provides that after two years in office
the independent counsel's office would be subject to the
appropriations process.
VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
10. Traficant No. 2--Adds a new section to the Act to give
the Attorney General authority to have an independent counsel
appointed to investigate allegations that Justice Department
attorneys engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, corruption, or
fraud.
VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
11. Gekas No. 18--Mandatory Congressional Coverage & Bryant
No. 27--Discretionary Congressional Coverage (King-of-the-
Hill).
VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss;
Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not
voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
12. Adoption of rule--
VOTE (ADOPTED 5-4): Yeas--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon,
Slaughter; Nays--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Not voting:
Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules Restrictive rules
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent\2\ Number Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)............................................. 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)............................................. 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)............................................. 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)............................................. 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)............................................. 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88)............................................ 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90)............................................ 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)............................................. 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)............................................. 55 12 22 43 78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of
order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is
otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called
modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for
consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are
restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''
Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Feb. 9, 1994.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993...... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical 30 (D-5; R-25).. 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
leave. 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993...... MC H.R. 2: National Voter 19 (D-1; R-18).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
Registration Act. 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993.... C H.R. 920: Unemployment 7 (D-2; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.
compensation. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993..... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization 13 (d-4; R-9)... 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.
Act of 1993. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency 37 (D-8; R-29).. 1(not submitted) (D-1; R- A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
supplemental Appropriations. 0).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget 14 (D-2; R-12).. 4 (1-D not submitted) (D- PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.
resolution. 2; R-2). 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 670: Family planning 20 (D-8; R-12).. 9 (D-4; R-5).............. PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.
amendments. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993.... C H.R. 1430: Increase Public 6 (D-1; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
debt limit. 1993).
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993...... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited 8 (D-1; R-7).... 3 (D-1; R-2).............. A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
Rescission Act of 1993.
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993...... O H.R. 820: Nate NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).
Competitiveness Act.
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
of 1993.
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel NA.............. NA........................ A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).
Safety Act.
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993...... MC S.J. Res. 45: United States 6 (D-1; R-5).... 6 (D-1; R-5).............. A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)
forces in Somalia.
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993..... O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental NA.............. NA........................ A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993..... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget 51 (D-19; R-32). 8 (D-7; R-1).............. PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27,
reconciliation. 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch 50 (D-6; R-44).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June
appropriations. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993.... O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993.... MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement.. 7 (D-4; R-3).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993.... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. 53 (D-20; R-33). 27 (D-12; R-15)........... A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993.... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).
Track''.
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993.... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations 33 (D-11; R-22). 5 (D-1; R-4).............. A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993.... O H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993.... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and Water NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993.... O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard NA.............. NA........................ A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993.... MO H.R. 2010: National Service NA.............. NA........................ A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
Trust Act.
H. Res. 218, July 20, 1993.... O H.R. 2530: BLM authorization, NA.............. NA........................ .................................
fiscal year 1994-95.
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 14 (D-8; R-6)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July
assistance supplemental. 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 15 (D-8; R-7)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
assistance supplemental.
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993.... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).
Authority Act, fiscal year
1994.
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993.... O H.R. 1964: Maritime NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).
Administration authority.
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense 149 (D-109; R- .......................... A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).
authority. 40).
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993.... MO H.R. 2401: National defense ................ .......................... PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.
authorization. 13, 1993).
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993... MC H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act 12 (D-3; R-9)... 1 (D-1; R-0).............. A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense ................ 91 (D-67; R-24)........... A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993... O H.R. 1845: National NA.............. NA........................ A: 238-188 (10/06/93).
Biological Survey Act.
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993... MC H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities, 7 (D-0; R-7).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.
museums. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).
compensation amendments.
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2739: Aviation N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).
infrastructure investment.
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.
compensation amendments. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate 15 (D-7; R-7; I- 10 (D-7; R-3)............. A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).
America Act. 1).
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 281: Continuing N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).
appropriations through Oct.
28, 1993.
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993.... O H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).
Act.
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 283: Continuing 1 (D-0; R-0).... 0......................... A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).
appropriations resolution.
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993.... O H.R. 2151: Maritime Security N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).
Act of 1993.
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993..... MC H. Con. Res. 170: Troop N/A............. N/A....................... A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).
withdrawal Somalia.
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993..... MO H.R. 1036: Employee 2 (D-1; R-1).... N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).
Retirement Act-1993.
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill 17 (D-6; R-11).. 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993..... O H.R. 322: Mineral exploration N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993..... C H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
1994.
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status 27 (D-8; R-19).. 9 (D-1; R-8).............. F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 796: Freedom Access to 15 (D-9; R-6)... 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).
Clinics.
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young 21 (D-7; R-14).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).
Offenders.
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993.... C H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill. 1 (D-1; R-0).... N/A....................... A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3: Campaign Finance 35 (D-6; R-29).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).
Reform.
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993.... MC H.R. 3400: Reinventing 34 (D-15; R-19). 3 (D-3; R-0).............. A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).
Government.
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994..... MC H.R. 3759: Emergency 14 (D-8; R-5; I- 5 (D-3; R-2).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3,
Supplemental Appropriations. 1). 1994).
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994..... MC H.R. 811: Independent Counsel 27 (D-8; R-19).. 10 (D-4; R-6)............. .................................
Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
I rise in support of the rule and, indeed, in support of the
Independent Counsel Act.
The Committee on Rules has met its obligation. In a bipartisan basis,
alternatives and changes are available to the House, assuring that if
it is the House's will, by the end of this day or no later than the
next, this House will be covered. There will be an independent counsel
statute providing for an appropriate threshold and a means of assuring
public confidence in the operations of this House. Therefore, I urge
its adoption and compliment the committee on providing the broad
alternatives and the opportunity to settle, after so many years of
debate, this nagging question.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, however, also on another subject and
appreciate the committee yielding me the time. For some time it has
been difficult to explain and may now be impossible to defend the
administration's policies with regard to Bosnia. I understand the
difficulty the administration faces and that there is an international
embargo that cannot be violated by any one nation.
{time} 1330
However, indeed, that does not answer the question of why the United
States is enforcing an embargo with the U.S. Navy when arguably we no
longer find it in our national interest.
More inexplicable is why indeed, following the slaughter of last
Saturday, the administration thinks there needs to be another week, or
perhaps another provocation, before we can justify the elimination of
the guns that are taking scores of lives, innocent lives, every day.
I understand there are allies who disagree. I understand we might
have to go it alone. However, indeed, our conscience, indeed our
heritage, argues that we do no less. It is time to defend the
defenseless in Bosnia and bring the slaughter to an end.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker. I am not quite sure, we all have
heartfelt concern about Bosnia on this side of the aisle, as the
gentleman has outlined, but I am not quite sure how this is relevant to
the debate on the rule. I can understand why the other side does not
want to talk about this rule, but I hope we will talk a little bit more
about it, because that is what is the subject before us.
Mr. Speaker, to that end I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me
time. Because American lives might be at stake here, I think I might
just respond briefly to the previous speaker.
Mr. Speaker, American foreign policy under Republican and Democrat
administrations alike has always been to support and defend true
democracies around the world from external attack. I call Members'
attention to that: outside military aggression. Internal disputes and
civil wars are another issue altogether.
If we were to lift the arms embargo on the official Bosnian
Government, which we should have done months ago and allow them to
defend themselves and allow them to obtain the strategic weaponry
necessary to defend themselves, without sending one American soldier
into this civil war situation, that is the direction we ought to be
going.
Let us get back to the subject we rose to speak on.
Mr. Speaker, this modified closed rule on a bill as important as the
Independent Counsel Act is an insult to the entire House and the
American people.
Last week this House had the good sense to turn down a rule because
it denied the House a right to consider an important amendment that was
technically nongermane. This week, the Rules Committee does not even
have that excuse with which to defend this rule.
This rule blatantly and intentionally does not allow a large number
of germane amendments--amendments offered in the Judiciary Committee.
What is the excuse today? Frankly, I have not heard a good one yet--
either upstairs in the Rules Committee last night, or today on the
floor of the House. The best that can be said is that the Rules
Committee is making some decisions for the whole House thus saving us
some time.
The Rules Committee is sitting in judgment on the substance of major
legislation and summarily executing certain amendments that it does not
like for what ever reason.
I, for one, Mr. Speaker, am fed up with the Rules Committee playing
procedural nanny for this House as if we are a bunch of babies who are
incapable of making decisions for ourselves and our constituents.
How long are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle going to
put up with this kind of Mary Poppins paternalism? How long are they
going to run for cover behind her skirts and under her umbrella?
Mr. Speaker, we offered an open rule in the Rules Committee and it
was rejected on a 5 to 5 vote. One Democrat join us in support of that
open rule, which is some progress.
I might note, however, that the last time this Independent Counsel
Act was reauthorized in 1987, we considered it under an open rule and
the sky did not fall.
After the open rule was rejected last night, we offered a series of
other motions to make in order amendments submitted by various
distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee:
The ranking Republican, Mr. Fish, was denied two important amendments
he had submitted;
The very distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] was denied
some seven amendments he had submitted; and
Another hard-working member of that committee, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], was denied two important amendments he had
submitted.
And on and on it went. Our motions were defeated, most on party line
votes--some 12 motions in all. What has this House come to that we
cannot seriously legislate anymore?
Even a distinguished Democrat Member of the Rules Committee admitted,
after sitting through all the testimony, that most of the amendments
offered were serious and legitimate attempts to improve this
legislation. But this House will not be permitted even to consider or
vote on those amendments.
Mr. Speaker, as if that were not enough, the Rules Committee devised
an ingenious device to avoid a tough vote on the issue of mandatory
congressional coverage by the independent counsel.
It provided that the Gekas amendment which mandates such coverage can
be trumped by a Bryant amendment that essentially restates what is
already in the bill, and that is that congressional coverage is
discretionary.
What that means is that the House will have a chance to vote on a
meaningless amendment in order to avoid a meaningful one. That is
because, if we vote for the Bryant substitute for the Gekas amendment,
the House will never get to a vote on the Gekas amendment.
As one Democrat, perhaps unintentionally put it, ``the Bryant
amendment gives congressional cover.''
Yes, that is what this clever procedure is all about--giving Members
cover instead of giving Congress coverage under a law we impose on the
executive branch.
And do not think the American people are not on to our evasion of the
laws we impose on others. Here is another example.
Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a profile in cowardice!
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in voting down the
previous question so that we can have an open rule that will allow all
germane amendments to be considered under the regular order.
That is what we did in 1987. Are we a lesser Congress and lesser
legislators than we were then? I hope not.
Vote ``No'' on the previous question so the House can vote ``Yes''
for an open rule.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I do not know. To a degree we have
politicized all this business, and these bills have become the special
prosecutor retirement plans and programs.
I think this bill is flawed for one major reason, a grave sin of
omission. The intent of this act is to provide a mechanism to avoid the
potential conflicts of interest or the appearances of conflicts, or
conflicting loyalties which could arise if, in fact, the Attorney
General or the President had to conduct or supervise a criminal
investigation of themselves or other high-level, high-profile political
figures.
This bill has been applied to political machinations in Washington
that serve the purposes of Democrats and Republicans. Whichever side of
the aisle one is on, we try and use it to make our point.
I had an amendment that was a little different. The true, ultimate
conflict in this whole process is when the Justice Department, the
foxes in the henhouse, have to investigate and prosecute themselves.
Nothing happens unless the Justice Department initiates it, and the
so-called Traficant amendment said when the Attorney General finds
credible evidence from credible witnesses that a U.S. attorney is in
fact responsible for misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, fraud,
bribes, or any other allegations, that a special counsel, special
independent investigator, would be assigned.
{time} 1340
Without that, what do we have, folks? The Justice Department
investigates themselves. Is that not why we have the law, for the
Justice Department in the conflict of investigating the President? Is
that not why we have the law? Then how in the hell can we stand to let
the Justice Department investigate themselves?
You see, the trouble with this bill is it is political. The Traficant
amendment was about rights, because the people on the end of the list
who are meting out the justice system by these U.S. attorneys are the
American people whose rights have been ripped off with no recourse
through some political process that Congress beats their chest about,
but it does not do a damn thing for the people. It might solve the
promises of the political aspirations here, but it does not help the
people.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes fabulous points.
Unfortunately, the gentleman may not know that his amendment was
offered in the Rules Committee and was voted down, sadly. It was
offered by Republicans because we do not think this should be a
partisan issue. Unfortunately, it was the gentleman's own party that
let him down.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I have come to understand that, and I am disappointed.
But the committee did not have any hearings, and I have asked the
chairman. I will submit this in the form of a bill, and I have checked
with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
I will submit it in the form of a bill and here is all I ask: If this
be the Democrats, who for some reasons do not want to get the Justice
Department mad, you know we are afraid of getting the IRS mad, and
maybe we are afraid of getting the Justice Department mad, and I would
like to, if I could, enter into a colloquy with Chairman Bryant and ask
is it possible, because this was a new initiative that is germane, that
I think should have been made in order, and I am going to submit it as
a bill, and I would ask the chairman to give it that consideration, and
is that possible?
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to respond by saying that
the gentleman's very strong remarks about the intent of the Rules
Committee, or our intent in carrying this bill, I think, are perhaps a
little bit stronger than they should be, to say the least. The
gentleman's proposal had never been heard before by the subcommittee,
and I was unaware of it, and I was not even aware that the gentleman
was going to be asking to have it made in order in the Rules Committee.
If we are going to take a step like this, it should require careful
study and hearings. It is for a different treatment from the purposes
of this bill, which are very noble and good.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Taking back my time, if the gentleman did not have a
chance to study it, it was germane, and we can study some of these
rights issues for 50 years. Will the gentleman give me the
consideration to look at the bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torricelli). The time of the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has expired.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bryant] to ask him if he would give me the consideration of a hearing
and studying this bill.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, as I stated just a moment ago, I think we
will give careful consideration to it, and perhaps have a hearing. But
having just heard about it in the last 15 minutes, I would not want to
make a commitment in regard to hearings.
Mr. TRAFICANT. In concluding my time, let me say that I sat around
over there for 4 hours. I am not on the Judiciary Committee. But I want
to say this to the Rules Committee: This is a germane amendment, and it
is the only one that deals with the rights and preserves and protects
the rights of the American people. And we had better start becoming a
special interest concern group for the American people.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the
ranking member on the Committee on Government Operations.
(Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, the rule fails to allow significant
amendments. Why the majority party finds it necessary to strangle
debate when we have the time to debate the issues honestly and openly,
is a question the American people deserve to have answered.
I am particularly disappointed that the Rules Committee rejected my
amendment to H.R. 811, which like the independent counsel legislation,
was intended to further confidence in Government--this time, as it
concerns the operations of the White House.
The amendment sought to establish an independent inspector general
and a chief financial officer within the Executive Office of the
President. An internal watchdog, and annual, audited financial
statements, would have gone a long ways toward ensuring public
confidence in the operations of the White House. Known independently as
the Executive Office Accountability Act, this measure has been
cosponsored by every Member of the Republican leadership and 15 members
of the Government Operations Committee.
We could all cite examples of past White House mismanagement and
malfeasance in both Republican and Democratic administrations: the
misuse of travel resources; the travel office debacle; skirting of
procurement laws to buy millions of dollars worth of unnecessary
equipment; and retroactive personnel and pay actions. Episodes such as
these only fuel the pessimism and mistrust Americans feel toward their
Government.
If my amendment looked like a political statement then the Rules
Committee failed to read it carefully. An honest consideration of my
proposal reveals that it was crafted not with a Democrat President in
mind, but with any President in mind. An inspector general can be a
valuable resource for the Nation's Chief Executive. The Executive
Office of the President is a huge complex with outlays of nearly $200
million in fiscal year 1993. The Executive Office of the President
[EOP] conducts countless administrative tasks such as payroll actions
and travel reimbursement. No other organization in the executive branch
allows so many routine administrative tasks to go unchecked and
unaudited. And, it is only these routine, administrative tasks which I
hope to reach with my inspector general proposal.
When drafting this legislation I went to great lengths to give the
President authority over his inspector general enjoyed by no other
Government official. Both the inspector general and the chief financial
officer at the White House are appointed by and under the direct
control of the President himself. The President has full power to
prohibit or suspend any IG review which he believes interferes with his
constitutional authority as President or Commander in Chief. The
amendment provides the inspector general with adequate tools to serve
as an independent watchdog, while ensuring that Presidential authority
is not improperly infringed.
I sincerely believe that this is an amendment President Clinton would
have thanked Congress for passing in the months ahead. But the Rule
Committee is denying him the benefits an IG and a CFO have to offer,
and denying this body the opportunity for honest, open debate.
If you believe in the concepts supporting enactment of the
independent counsel legislation, and you believe that all Government
functions should be held accountable, then I urge you to oppose this
rule.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
(Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I regret very much
the remarks I heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], make a moment ago, and in saying
that, I am basically repeating my statement from the Rules Committee
meeting of yesterday. The fact of the matter is this rule is very fair.
It allows a vote on the question of whether or not there ought to be
mandatory coverage of Members of Congress. It allows two votes on it.
If Members want mandatory coverage of Members of Congress, then vote
against the Bryant amendment. If they want mandatory coverage of
Members of Congress, vote for the Hyde amendment. The rule allows two
votes on this issue. For a Member to stand on the floor of the House
and say it does not allow a vote on this issue is just, in my view, a
simple case of misleading the Members of the House.
This rule makes in order 10 amendments. Six of them are Republican
amendments and four of them are Democratic amendments. And it provides
two clear alternatives, a Democratic alternative and a Republican
alternative on the issue of coverage for Members of Congress. And it
makes in order a Republican substitute for the entire bill which
includes virtually every amendment offered in the Judiciary Committee
on the Republican side as well as several other amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that it occurs to me that this
institution needs a defense by the Members here that know better from
some of the allegations that were made a moment ago. There is no
evidence of hesitancy on the part of an Attorney General or Justice
Department to prosecute Members of the House of Representatives. I
cannot remember a time during the last 11 years when there was not some
type of a prosecution of that nature going on.
The fact of the matter is the amendment I offered says that the
Attorney General can, when it appears that it is in the public
interest, designate an independent counsel to carry on the
investigation of a Member of Congress. But she does not have to do so.
Why? Because the independent counsel bill was designed to cover about
60 members of the executive branch who we have assumed that the
Attorney General could not objectively investigate because they are her
colleagues.
Advocates of mandatory Member coverage would increase that to 600
people, thereby impeding the ability of the Attorney General to take up
a routine investigation of a Member of Congress without having to go
through the cumbersome process of an independent counsel.
I would submit to the Members that, even if they disagree with my
analysis, for some to claim that the Rules Committee is somehow denying
Members of the House the opportunity to vote on this issue, is, in my
view, the product of a purposeful, partisan strategy which some Members
are bringing to the floor today to attempt to disgrace this
institution. I believe this institution is full of good people. But I
think it is quite often the case that groups within this institution
sit together in the evenings and develop strategies that are designed
to reflect well on them at the expense of everybody else. And I think
that description characterizes the rhetoric we have heard today.
{time} 1350
You say that somehow we are trying to keep the American people from
being able to have an independent prosecutor pursue a Member of
Congress that somehow we are involved in some great coverup. I would
remind you, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], in 1987 when this matter was brought
up on the floor of the House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish],
the ranking Republican member of the Committee on the Judiciary, voted
against mandatory Member coverage. Was he involved in some coverup? Of
course not. So, for goodness sake, soften your rhetoric.
Let us talk about facts here. Drop the demagogery. Let us get back to
dealing with the real issues before the House, and that is what kind of
an independent-counsel statute we ought to have. Let us make it apply
to the 60 people it ought to apply to, and in those unusual cases where
the Attorney General thinks it is in the public interest, she can
choose an independent counsel to pursue a Member of Congress. But do
not tell the public and do not tell the Members of this House that they
are not being given the opportunity to vote on this issue, because they
are.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have profound respect for the gentleman. I
differ dramatically from his characterization, and I will stick to my
guns, and I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will. We
will find out.
Mr. Speaker, I yield minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the previous gentleman
who was speaking that I do not have the time to yield. But he came
close to having his words taken down when he talks about demagogery. We
did not do that, out of respect to him.
Let me just say this: 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?
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4\1/2\
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to respond to
one thing the gentleman from New York said that I am sure even he would
admit was mistaken if he thinks about it, when he said this was Mary
Poppins paternalism. If it was anything, it would have had to have been
Mary Poppins maternalism. I am sure the gentleman from New York, on
sober reflection, would agree with me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this terrible procedure we just
heard about where an amendment that is the base text of the bill is
offered. Why, that is such an outrageous procedure that the last time I
heard of it it was in the armed services bill on the question of gays
in the military, and it was supported by the Republicans that we do it
that way. That was the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Skelton].
The fact is that this Republican preference for open rules is the
most occasional burning passion I have ever seen. I have rarely seen
people so intermittently zealously committed to a principle which they
are prepared to abandon on alternate days of the week, because I will
tell you that during the past 12 years that I have been here I have
fought against Republicans time and again, because I wanted amendments
to tax bills and trade bills.
When we dealt with the question of fast track on NAFTA, one of the
great issues that drove this issue, and the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Levin] had an amendment that he wanted to make in order dealing
with the terms under which NAFTA was debated, the Committee on Rules
would not let it happen, and the overwhelming majority of the
Republicans were there voting with the Committee on Rules, voting on
the Committee on Rules to keep it out.
If people wanted a rule that we are always going to have open rules,
OK, but let us not have this inconsistency masking itself as burning
principle.
Second, let us talk about what would have happened if we had an open
rule. First of all, I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania would have been out of order. We have two arguments on the
Republican side: First, you are spending too much money on the
independent-counsel issue; and second, you are not spending nearly
enough money on the independent-counsel issue.
Because right now about 60 people are automatically covered because
they are that close to the President than it is inconceivable to think
that there would be objectivity.
With Members of Congress, we said there may be a problem and there
may not be and we will leave it up to the Attorney General. They would
increase by a factor of 1,000 percent the number of people covered
automatically. It would go from 60 to 600. There are 60 of them, and
then there would be 550 of us. Let us assume that we are twice as
honest as they are, that would cost five times more. If you assume we
are half as honest as they are, that would cost 20 times more, because
when you go from 60 covered people to 600 covered people, you
dramatically increase the cost.
I do not believe my friend from Pennsylvania had CBO score this. I
think he is in violation of the pay-go, because this will inevitably
cost more money, unless you are prepared to vouch for the insistence
that no Member of Congress will ever again be investigated, and I do no
think so. I wish, but I do not think so.
So the fact is that we are talking about a rule which presents every
important issue, and I have been dealing with the independent-counsel
statute as a member of the committee since I got here, every important
issue will be before the floor of the House.
Why is it not a totally open rule, in addition to trying to help out
our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania? You heard it here, 10
amendments are in order, 3 of them noncontroversial, en bloc from the
chairman, 7 other amendments of some controversy, and then they said 2
were turned down by this one and 2 from this one, 7 from this one and 1
from that one. There were 27 amendments offered. Take 27 amendments,
debate each one of them for a couple of hours, have a rollcall, and you
do not get a bill in time, and that might suit some people.
Because on the whole, the Republican Party has been trying to slow
this bill down. In fact, in the Senate 14 Republicans, including the
assistant leader of the Republicans in the Senate, the gentleman from
Wyoming, voted to keep Member coverage the way it is in the Bryant
amendment, and the justification for having the Bryant amendment and
the Gekas amendment this way is this, it is to prevent the distortion
that might come from people who would say people voting for the Bryant
position were against Member coverage. Members are covered here.
There have been four Republicans to be Attorney General since the
independent-counsel statute was adopted, adopted, by the way, by
Democrats under a Democratic President; not Ed Meese, not William
French Smith, not Richard Thornburgh, and not William Barr, no
Republican Attorney General, not one of the four Republican Attorneys
General that served under the independent-counsel bill have used his
unquestioned, unchallenged authority to appoint an independent counsel.
Any one of the four of them anytime a Member of Congress was accused of
something could have invoked the independent-counsel provision.
They indicted Republicans. They indicted Democrats. They were not
holding back that I can see.
After four Republican Attorneys General under two Republican
Presidents consistently said, ``We do not need the independent-counsel
statute for Members of Congress,'' I am hard pressed to believe wholly
in the importance of making that drastic, expensive change right now.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], who is on the Committee on the
Judiciary and who I think is going to recharacterize some of the
creative inspiration we have just heard.
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time.
I want to be brutally frank with Barney to start the discussion that
I want to place in the Congressional Record, and to the effect that
brutally frank as he was, he was incorrect on his assertion that my
amendment would not be in order or not be found and no point of order
and so forth, because I am not going to yield now, Barney. I am just
refuting what you are saying, and then later you can come back on the
floor if you want. At this moment I ask you to sit down and listen to
me carefully, because I am very intent, as intent as you were during
your presentation.
In any event, we have learned from the Parliamentarian, the
Department of Justice, from the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
and everybody else interested in this that there is no point of order
placeable against the Gekas amendment, and if that was the thrust of
what the gentleman from Massachusetts was saying, he was dead wrong. If
there is some modification of that he wishes to make, he may gain some
time and modify it at a later point.
In the meantime, what has been said here and what has been affirmed
and reaffirmed by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], my excellent
friend with whom I have coworked on 1,000 issues, is that the bill and
the Gekas amendment are the points of confrontation, and that the
Bryant amendment simply comes in from behind this whole episode and
readopts the bill language so that the Members of the Democratic Caucus
can have cover.
Some people allege when they vote on Bryant that they will be working
for Congressional coverage to match the bill and overcome Gekas.
{time} 1400
Now, wait a minute; that is too complicated. Let us put it this way:
Bill and Bryant are the same, bill/Bryant; bill/Bryant have the same
language. The bill and Bryant who comes in at the end of the cycle.
Bill/Bryant is the same language; they say the Attorney General may, in
the discretion of the Attorney General may--maybe, might--may bring an
action and call for independent counsel against a Member of Congress
when allegations are suitable to that are made.
``May.'' And that is exactly what the people of the United States
from corner to corner are aghast at seeing time after time on the floor
of the House and in the Congress in general, that we play favorites
with ourselves, that we place ourselves in a category different from
the ordinary citizen in one instance, and from other people in
Government in a second instance. May, now, the Gekas amendment simply
does the Bryants of the world a favor; it takes bill/Bryant's word for
it that he, bill/Bryant, wants the Members of Congress to be possible
targets of independent counsel. We help bill/Bryant in the Gekas
amendment, elevating Members of Congress to the same stratum of
possible targets of independent counsel as are members of the
executive. That is what the American people want: for us to do away
with the appearance of favoritism on our part, to do away with the
appearance of special treatment for Members of Congress, and to do away
with the reality of special treatment for Members of Congress, when you
look at the bill and see if the Attorney General under the bill/Bryant
can only be in the discretion of the Attorney General while in the
Gekas amendment you make it mandatory.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] was talking about
increasing the cost. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] admits in
all his dissertations that 535 Members of Congress are already in a
list in front of the Attorney General. There is Frank, there is Bryant,
there is Gekas, there is Solomon in the list that the Attorney General
has before her, even under the bill/Bryant language. So the Attorney
General is looking over this list under bill/Bryant ``may,'' and has
535 names from which allegations could be vested against any one of
them and then may decide to prosecute. I take that same list and say
she must have it in front of her to use as a possible list of targets
for the appointment of independent counsel, the same expense, the same
time, the same energy that could be expended in a ``may'' bill on bill/
Bryant's part that they may look over the list of 535 extra targets
that bill/Bryant continuously talks about and puts over here, that they
must cover if indeed allegations are made against a Member of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say about this later. I will want to
talk about bill/Bryant.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would almost believe that this is a
foreign policy bill with all the Machiavellian diplomacy that seems to
be going on here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Indiana [Ms. Long].
(Ms. LONG asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the bill.
Mr. Speaker, in 1978, Members of this body saw fit to enact an
independent counsel statute to ensure that Federal officials are held
accountable to the people of our country. I rise today in support of
this rule and H.R. 811 to reauthorize the independent counsel law.
Few people disagree that there are occasions when it is necessary to
have a special prosecutor who is independent of the Attorney General.
There has been a need throughout U.S. history for a mechanism to
appoint a temporary independent prosecutor to investigate alleged
wrongdoing by high-level Federal Government officials. During President
Grant's administration, a special prosecutor was appointed to
investigate the so-called whiskey ring. We had further independent
investigations in the 1920's with the Teapot Dome scandal, another
during the Truman administration and, of course, the independent
investigation of the Watergate cover-up which prompted the
authorization of the special prosecutor rule under the 1978 Ethics in
Government Act.
The authorization of the independent counsel law is the right thing
to do if we are to avoid conflict of interest in maintaining the
integrity of this Government. The Attorney General is at the same time
the chief Federal law enforcement official and a Presidential appointee
who is a key member of the President's Cabinet. Cases involving
possible wrongdoing by high-level executive branch officials,
therefore, present a fundamental conflict of interest--it is too much
to ask for any person to investigate a superior and it is too much to
ask the public to feel easy about the vigor and thoroughness with which
such an investigation could be pursued.
With this reauthorization, the independent counsel law would also be
extended to include Members of Congress when there is a perceived
conflict of interest. I support the inclusion of this discretionary
authority for the Attorney General and I hope this Congress will not
politicize the independent counsel law by making the coverage of
Members of Congress mandatory. The Department of Justice must continue
to have the primary role in prosecuting crimes involving official
misconduct.
It is time this Congress took steps to ensure the American people's
confidence in the integrity of its Government. The independent counsel
law is the single most important reform to come out of Watergate and it
was unfortunate that it was allowed to lapse during the 102d Congress.
I hope that 103d Congress has the good sense to reauthorize it. I urge
support of the bill.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, let me just state for the record that
the Bryant amendment or the bill and Bryant amendment, with nearly
identical language passed the Senate with a bipartisan majority, and
the Gekas amendment was defeated by 67 to 31 in the other body.
Now, that may not reassure a lot of Members here, but let us state
that for the record.
The rule is fair. It allows 10 amendments, 4 by Democratic Members
and 6 by Republicans. The rule provides for these two clear
alternatives, a Democratic alternative and a Republican alternative, on
the issue of coverage for Members of Congress.
The rule makes in order a Republican substitute for the entire bill,
which includes virtually every amendment offered in the Committee on
the Judiciary. Finally, the rule also makes in order several individual
amendments on other major issues in the bill.
Let me state what the Bryant amendment does, which we urge all
Members to support: Members of Congress would be explicitly covered by
the independent counsel law for the first time.
Second, the Bryant amendment authorizes the Attorney General to
invoke the independent counsel procedures to investigate and prosecute
Members of Congress whenever the Attorney General determines that, ``It
is in the public interest.'' This again passed the other body with a
bipartisan majority.
Mr. Speaker, earlier in the 1-minute discussions a Washington Times
story came up about the Whitewater issue. Let me just state what the
managing partner of the Rose law firm, Ronald M. Clark says. He
strongly denied the reports in the Washington Times that the firm had
shredded Whitewater documents, ``Totally false.'' This is the managing
partner of the firm.
When asked whether the firm had shredded documents related to
Whitewater, Mr. Clark stated, ``Absolutely not.'' The Washington Times
reports ``a source'' as a ``Rose employee,'' and not an attorney with
the firm. Mr. Clark also states that the firm's employees are under no
gag order or anything else, so they can speak freely.
Let me just quote one of the sources that the Washington Times has
for the story. It is reported that a second employee who took part in
the shredding would not talk about it, but declined to say the incident
had not occurred. This is ``the source:'' ``I am not going to comment.
I am not going to say anything about what happened. I would just prefer
not to say anything about this at all.'' This is one of the sources for
this story, which has absolutely no foundation, no credence.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today on the independent
counsel is a good one. It is one that guarantees coverage of Members of
Congress. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], a very ethical and
dedicated Member of this body, who has a long record on this issue, has
put forth a good bill which we should all support.
Member Coverage and the Independent Counsel Statute
the democratic alternative--the bryant amendment
Under the Bryant Amendment, Members of Congress would be
explicitly covered by the Independent Counsel Law for the
first time.
The Bryant Amendment authorizes the Attorney General to
invoke the Independent Counsel procedures to investigate and
prosecute Members of Congress whenever she determines that it
is ``in the public interest.''
Nearly identical language was adopted by a bipartisan
majority in the Senate.
the republican alternative--the gekas amendment
The Gekas Amendment requires the Attorney General to invoke
the independent counsel procedures whenever a Member is
accused of wrongdoing.
The Gekas Amendment removes the Attorney General's
discretion to prosecute Members of Congress--even in cases
where a Justice Department prosecution would be more
appropriate than an independent counsel.
The Gekas Amendment imposes special treatment for Members
of Congress, treating them differently then every other
American except for a very select few officials in the
executive branch.
The amendment would increase the cost of the independent
counsel process by requiring a tenfold increase in the number
of persons with mandatory coverage.
The Gekas Amendment was defeated on the Senate floor by a
vote of 67-31.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of
H.R. 811, the independent counsel reauthorization.
This is a fair rule. It makes in order 10 amendments, 6 of which are
being offered by Republicans and 4 by Democrats. The rule provides for
two clear alternatives on the issue of independent counsel coverage of
Members of Congress--one Democratic and one Republican.
The rule even makes in order a Republican substitute for the entire
bill which includes almost every Republican amendment offered in the
Judiciary Committee.
We will hear all sorts of opposition to the rule based on the claim
that the Republicans are unable to discuss issues they care about.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said and the rule
makes clear, the major issues surrounding this legislation will be
debated and voted upon during consideration of H.R. 811.
It is imperative that we pass the rule and the bill. H.R. 811
provides a 5-year reauthorization of the independent counsel and
includes new and strong rules to prevent wasteful government spending.
In addition, the Bryant amendment mandated for the first time that
Members of Congress be explicitly covered by the independent counsel
law.
Mr. Speaker, today, when the public's trust and respect for
government is at a record low, we must act to reauthorize the
independent counsel and explicitly state that Congress is covered by
the law. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the rule and H.R.
811.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] our ranking member on
Whitewater and well known for other matters.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased to hear the gentleman from
New Mexico fill us in on the latest incident in the whole matter of
Whitewatergate. I mean we get so many denials on the floor these days
that you cannot keep up with them. One has to wonder how many more
rules we will have to debate to keep getting denials about what is
happening in Whitewatergate. All we would like to know is where are all
these documents? I mean if the documents are not being shredded at the
Rose law firm, where are they and why can they not be made public? Of
course, they cannot be made public because the President refuses to
allow them to be made public.
Mr. Speaker, one of the dirtiest little secrets that Washington has
is that this House of Representatives has been in control of the
Democrats for 40 years. For 40 years Democrats have carved out for
themselves positions of privilege and power and then sought all kinds
of ways to hang onto those positions to make certain that they keep
themselves separate from things other Americans have to live by.
There is no greater contrast that you can come up with than the
difference between the Democrats and Republicans than this rule because
in this case the Democrats are saying flatly, ``We don't want Congress
covered by the same laws that we pass for others.'' Republicans, on the
other hand, in fighting against this rule, are saying, ``We want
Congress to live under the laws that other people have to live under.''
It is a great contrast here to understand that. The American people
have said flatly, ``Congress, why don't you live under the same laws
you pass for us and pass for others?'' In this case, what the Democrats
are trying to do is, from their positions of privilege and power, are
saying, ``No, we want an exception''.
Under this particular bill, Republicans are seeking coverage for
Congress under the independent counsel statute. The Democrats do not
want coverage, they want cover.
And so what they have done is put a procedure into place where the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] will come in with his substitute to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] to make certain the
Democrats never have to vote on the real issue of whether or not to
cover Congress, really, under the independent counsel statute.
{time} 1410
When we get to the question of the Bryant amendment, it is being
reported, and he admits his is optional coverage. As my colleagues
know, the question here is optional. For other people that would be
covered under the statute it is mandatory.
And let us understand here that what we are talking about is
criminals. We are talking about a people who allegedly have committed
criminal acts. ``If you're in the Congress, you may have an independent
counsel. If you're not in the Congress, you will have an independent
counsel.'' That is the difference. ``If you are privileged and if you
are in a position of power in the Congress, you may be covered. If you
are not in the Congress, you will be covered.'' There is a big
difference here, my colleagues.
The dirty little secret that the Democrats have controlled this body
is no more evident than on this floor today.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the remarks of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] are most unfortunate and, in
my view, do not reflect well on him for having spoken in those terms.
I say to my colleagues, No. 1, you are given two opportunities to
vote on the issue of mandatory member coverage. Two opportunities. No.
2, for the gentleman to say that this is some type of a Democratic
conspiracy, which, by the way, the gentleman says about everything he
speaks about on this floor, I think would raise a serious question
about why these Republican Senators voted exactly opposite of what the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has advocated.
Senator Stevens from Alaska--
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaRocco]. The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bryant] should refrain from referring to specific votes from the
Senate.
Mr. BRYANT. Could the Speaker pro tempore clarify his ruling? I am
not sure what I am prohibited from doing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may refer to the vote total,
but not to the specific Members of the other body and how they voted.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the vote was 67
to 31, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has succeeded
in preventing me from calling the names of 14 distinguished Republican
Senators who the gentleman has basically indicted in his statement
today as co-conspirators with a bunch of other people that are trying
to prevent the American people from getting something the gentleman
thinks they deserve.
I would also say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that you stated
here on the floor of the House that somehow the effort is afoot by
these 14 Republican Senators and us to keep Congress from being covered
under laws that apply to everybody else. The independent counsel
statute is designed to cover only 60 people in the executive branch. It
does not apply to everybody else.
We are treated, as Members of Congress, like everybody else except
that the Attorney General is permitted, at her option, if she believes
it is in the public interest, to assign an independent counsel in those
cases. But we are treated like everybody else in regard to independent
counsel. Sixty people are treated differently.
I say to the gentleman that you know the distinction, but it does not
fit into your propaganda, and I think that your premeditated efforts to
come forward on the floor of the House here and make these statements
today are part of just that, partisan propaganda, Mr. Walker.
I say that we should pass a bill for once without all of this
rhetoric and deal with the issues on the merits.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry of how much time remains
on each side and get an idea of how many speakers there will be?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has
6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Derrick] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished whip of the minority party, the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Gingrich].
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, let me pick up the dialog that was just
going on because I think people in this country deserve to be told the
truth, and the truth is the Democratic leadership uses the Committee on
Rules, in its 40th years of one party control of this House, in order
to rig the game for itself.
Now the truth is, if I understand it, and the gentleman from South
Caroline [Mr. Derrick] can certainly interrupt me if I have this wrong,
but the truth is the way this will be rigged is that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be allowed to offer a direct amendment
which will, in fact, cover the Congress under independent counsel. We
will not at that point have a vote on Mr. Gekas. We will not have a
chance for every person in the country to see every Member vote yes or
no on covering the Congress. At that point the Democratic leadership,
through the Committee on Rules, has rigged the game so that the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] will offer an amendment which will be
a substitute for Mr. Gekas. Mr. Bryant's amendment, and the current and
the newly offered bill actually weakens current law. Current law says
that the Attorney General, if they are concerned about, quote,
personal, political or financial conflict of interests with the accused
Member, have an obligation to appoint counsel. that is now being
replaced by the much broader term in the public interest.
So, in fact we will never get inside the amending process in the
committee. We will never get a freestanding vote on the amendment to be
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
I ask my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick],
``Is that not correct?''
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. DERRICK. I say to the gentleman, You're going to get an
opportunity to vote on the Hyde substitute, and you can vote on
everything that you and the Republicans want to put in there--
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time because what the
gentleman just said, of course, was, in fact, ``No.'' There will never
in the Committee of the Whole during the amending process be a vote on
Gekas. That is what the gentleman said.
I say to the gentleman, You don't want to tell the country that when
we offer the motion to recommit, which we will offer if Bryant passes,
and the motion to recommit is the Gekas amendment, that every Democrat
walking on this floor will be told, Oh, don't vote for the motion to
recommit. That's a Republican procedural vote. And you weren't willing
to make Gekas freestanding as a clean vote on the House floor in the
Committee of the Whole because you know that faced in the Committee of
the Whole as an amendment with Gekas that your Democratic Members will
be afraid to go back home and say, Oh, I voted against covering
Congress because every organization in the country in small business,
every organization in the country in taxpayer groups, every
conservative and citizen organization, is saying they are sick of
Congress passing laws that don't apply to Congress, and Gekas is the
only amendment that truly applies, despite the Independent Counsel Act
to the Congress.
Let us go a step further. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], one
of the most distinguished members of the Committee on the Judiciary in
either party, a man who has earned the right, earned the right by years
of service, to come to this floor with amendments, went to the
Committee on Rules with eight amendments--eight. But the Democrat
leadership did not want to face Mr. Hyde's eight amendments because
they might pass. So, they said, ``Oh, let's rack them up into one
package, and then let's find one or another excuse to not vote for the
Hyde substitute.''
I say to my colleagues:
Well, look later on today since the gentleman from South
Carolina has pointed out to his Democratic colleagues. You
get a chance on the Hyde substitute to vote to cover
Congress. So, if you want to vote to cover Congress, even
under this rule, vote for the Hyde substitute, not quiet as
clear as Gekas, has six other things attached to it because
of the way the Democratic leadership for 40 years has run
this place. Doesn't quite let the American people see it as
clear as they could, but it is there.
Mr. Speaker, I just think it is a shame and a travesty that the
Democrat leadership is so afraid of its own Members and so afraid of
the American people that on an issue of honest Government it cannot
come in and offer a rule that makes in order the legitimate amendments
of people like the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], the ranking
member; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] who deserves a
clean vote, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] who has served
so ably in that. These are all committee members. There are members who
have earned the right by their service on the Committee on the
Judiciary to offer on the floor a clean debatable amendment with a
clear up or down vote. But in that setting the Democrat leadership,
which absolutely owns the Committee on Rules by 9 to 4, said:
Oh, no. Even on a matter of cleaning up government, even on
a matter of reform, even on independent counsel, we simply
aren't in a position where we can allow the American people
to see the votes.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the fact that the one
amendment that they did make in order changes the date in the bill from
1993 to 1994. They made that amendment in order. They found ways to do
that. But they could not allow legitimate amendments speaking to the
real substance of the bill.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
{time} 1420
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I just came on the floor, and I understand
that in previous discussion concerning the rule a statement was made
about a vote I cast a number of years ago on similar coverage. That was
in 1987, I believe, about congressional coverage. My recollection is
that at that time the amendment was offered by Mr. Shaw and I voted in
favor of it. It is also a matter of record that I voted for this
provision, the Gekas amendment, in the Judiciary Committee bringing
this bill to the full House.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman
from New York, who is our ranking member and our leader on the
Judiciary Committee, making it clear, despite the earlier claim by a
Democrat who is seeking to confuse the situation, that in fact he had
voted for it.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaRocco). The gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Gingrich] has approximately 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, with only 30 seconds left, let me just say
in closing that I think the country needs to watch all year every rule,
watch the way the game is rigged, and watch the way leadership closes
off debate and the way the Democrat leadership closes off debate, and I
would appeal to my Democrat colleagues, if you want to show your
independence of the machine, if you want to show you are not afraid to
face the Gekas amendment, if you want to show you are willing to vote
directly in the Committee of the Whole for an amendment to have
Congress covered by the bill, vote ``no,'' send it back up to the Rules
Committee, and let us bring an honest open rule back that gives us a
vote on Gekas and does not masquerade by pretending to give what it
takes away with another hand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time on the minority side has expired.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the prior gentleman speaketh too much.
He knows very well that if you want to vote on Gekas, you vote ``no''
on Bryant, and if Bryant does not pass, you get a vote on Gekas.
Mr. Speaker, you get a vote on Gekas on a motion to recommit. You can
also put Gekas in the Hyde amendment and get an opportunity to vote on
it there. That is three times you have the possibility of getting a
vote on Gekas. You can turn it any way you want to. There were 10
amendments made in order, 4 of them were Democratic initiatives, 3
Republican initiatives, so this is a very fair rule. It gives an
opportunity for the House to vote on the issues that are before the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Hughes].
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, listening to the minority whip reminds me of
my younger days when I visited the carnival and saw the shell game.
That is what this is all about. Many of the Republicans as a matter of
policy have been opposed to the independent counsel statute for years.
They find many reasons basically to gut it, to derail it, and to
attempt to weaken it, and this business about not covering Congress is
just nonsense.
First of all, the Department of Justice is in the executive branch of
the Government, as my colleagues know. There is no conflict involving
the prosecution of Members of Congress who step out of line. They have
been doing it all down through the history of the executive branch of
the government. The conflict comes in because we ask the Attorney
General to investigate and prosecute Members within the executive
government, numbering some 60. The minority whip misquoted the law.
This does not weaken the law. It is permissive now. Why should we
require the Attorney General in every instance to prosecute Members of
Congress, Democrats or Republicans, unless there is a need to do that?
The Attorney General has that authority now and will have that
authority in this legislation.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
(Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the proposed
rule to govern floor consideration of H.R. 811, and I compliment the
fine work of Chairman Moakley and the members of his committee in
crafting this rule. I must say that the rule is so fair and
accommodating to the minority that it gives this body the high pleasure
of voting on some amendments twice--first as stand-alones and then all
wrapped up in a sweet omnibus substitute package designed to eviscerate
every single fiber of the independent counsel statute.
I want to draw special attention to one of the amendments to be
considered--that is the application of the independent counsel statute
to Members of Congress. Despite the fact that it truly is a red
herring, some Republicans have made this issue the heart of their
debate on the entire legislation. The irony is that the act, and H.R.
811, have provided for Member coverage since 1982, but that large fact
seems to be an overlooked tiny detail to those making the ruckus. But,
let's resolve today that we won't overlook small details in this
debate.
It's high time for this body to cut through this charade and to take
the issue head-on. It's a scare tactic, and we must resist it to
finally put an end to the increasing practice of some of lob smoke
bombs in the hope the Members don't take the time to really consider
the issue. The proposed rule allows us to do so by making in order both
the Gekas and the Bryant amendments.
The Rules Committee graciously has made in order three on my
amendments that are of a technical nature. I don't believe any
controversy is raised by this en bloc amendment; but, I would pause a
moment on one part. There is absolutely no disagreement between the
Republican and Democratic sides that the independent counsel should
follow the Department of Justice guidelines and procedures with regard
to the handling of classified material. That is, in fact, the existing
law. To make that crystal clear, one of my amendments makes that
requirement explicit in the independent counsel statute.
While the Rules Committee in its considerable wisdom did not permit
all proffered amendments--including, I might add, one of my own--I
believe the rule is a fair and workable one and deserves our strong
support. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and let us go on with the important
business at hand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249,
nays 174, not voting 10 as follows:
[Roll No. 16]
YEAS--249
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Natcher
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--174
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--10
Bilirakis
de la Garza
Ford (TN)
Hastings
Huffington
Laughlin
Neal (NC)
Rangel
Roukema
Washington
{time} 1448
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Bilirakis against.
Mr. Washington for, with Mrs. Roukema against.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaRocco). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 174, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 17]
AYES--242
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murphy
Nadler
Natcher
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--174
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooper
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--17
Becerra
Bilirakis
de la Garza
Durbin
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Hastert
Hastings
Huffington
Hyde
Laughlin
Murtha
Neal (NC)
Rangel
Roukema
Velazquez
Washington
{time} 1506
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Bilirakis against.
Mr. Washington for, with Mrs. Roukema against.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________