[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1993

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 352 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 811.

                              {time}  1100


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 811) to reauthorize the independent counsel law for an 
additional 5 years, and for other purposes, with Mr. Torricelli in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
February 9, 1994, amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 103-419 had 
been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House 
Report 103-419.


                    amendment offered by mr. ramstad

  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ramstad: Page 10, insert the 
     following after line 20 and redesignate the succeeding 
     section accordingly:

     SEC. 6. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL.

       Section 596(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``Failure of the 
     independent counsel to comply with the established policies 
     of the Department of Justice as required by section 594(f) or 
     to comply with section 594(j) may be grounds for removing 
     that independent counsel from office for good cause under 
     this subsection.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Ramstad] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed to the 
amendment will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is both reasonable and straightforward.
  Under my amendment, an independent counsel may be removed for good 
cause for failure to comply with the standards of conduct which are set 
forth in the independent counsel statute.
  Those standards of conduct are spelled out in the statute in two 
sections, the first section 594(f), as amended by the subcommittee 
reads:

       An independent counsel shall, except to the extent that to 
     do so would be inconsistent with the purposes of this 
     chapter, comply with the written or other established 
     policies of the Department of Justice respecting enforcement 
     of the criminal laws.

  The other provision is section 594(j). This places employment 
restrictions on independent counsel and staff while they are serving 
and for periods subsequently. It also provides restrictions on law firm 
associates of the independent counsel.
  Mr. Chairman, these standards of conduct are wise and reasonable. 
Presently, however, there is no enforcement mechanism, no penalty 
whatsoever for failing to comply with sections 594 (f) or (j).
  My amendment seeks to correct this oversight. It simply states that:

       Failure of the independent counsel to comply [with sections 
     594(f) or 594(j)] * * * may be grounds for removing that 
     independent counsel from office for good cause.

  I want to emphasize again, this does not compel the Attorney General 
to remove an independent counsel, it only provides guidance.
  Clearly, the intent of this amendment is not to seek the removal of 
an independent counsel for minor or technical violations of DOJ policy.
  Mr. Chairman, if we think it is important enough to impose certain 
requirements on an independent counsel, then we should be willing to 
enforce those requirements.
  Let us remember what role an independent counsel plays. He or she 
simply acts in the place of a U.S. attorney, whom we do not want to 
conduct the investigation because of a conflict of interest. For all 
intents and purposes, an independent counsel should and must adhere to 
the very same prosecutorial standards that a U.S. attorney would have 
followed.
  Indeed, this principle is recognized in the Judiciary Committee 
report on page 20:

       Section 594(f) maintains the policy that independent 
     counsel are expected to follow the same rules as the 
     Department of Justice in their investigations and in making 
     decisions on whether or not to seek indictments. This 
     provision is designed to help ensure that an individual who 
     is the subject of an independent counsel investigation will 
     not be held to a higher standard or subject to stricter 
     enforcement of the laws than other individuals.

  The committee report on page 21 goes on to clarify that, and I quote:

       Penalties [to be applied to U.S. Attorneys] for failure to 
     comply with policy range from no sanction or administrative 
     reprimand all the way to dismissal, depending on the 
     importance of the policy and the extent and nature of the 
     divergence.

  I would suggest that all independent counsel be held to the very same 
standard for breach of established Department of Justice policies.
  Clearly, only the most serious breaches would lead to removal from 
office.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] opposed to the 
amendment?
  Mr. BROOKS. The Chairman is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
offered by my good friend and a distinguished member of the committee, 
Mr. Ramstad, the gentleman from Minnesota. Because the Attorney General 
already has the power to remove any independent counsel for good cause, 
this amendment is unnecessary.
  But of equally great concern to me is that this amendment spells out 
two--but only two--of the grounds which might constitute ``good cause'' 
under the statute. Because good cause for removal could be based on any 
number of actions, misdeeds, or circumstances, the statute has wisely 
left the determination of what constitutes the standard of good cause 
in the hands of the Attorney General. H.R. 811 continues to do so.
  On a more technical ground, the amendment on the surface appears to 
repeat the scheme that is currently in the independent counsel statute, 
but by using different words, it could lead to interpretive confusion.
  I very much respect the motivation behind the gentleman's amendment, 
but I urge that we keep the statute's current treatment of good cause 
in place. For this reason, I must urge rejection of this amendment.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would 
just quote from the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1993, 
the committee report from 1982, which totally contradicts what my good 
friend from Texas said, and I am quoting now from the committee report:

       This section should not be interpreted to mean that failure 
     of the special prosecutor to follow departmental policies 
     would constitute grounds for removal of the special 
     prosecutor by the Attorney General.

  So, this section should not be interpreted to mean that failure of 
the special prosecutor to comply with these two sections should 
constitute grounds of removal of the special prosecutor by the Attorney 
General.

       Such an interpretation would seriously compromise the 
     special prosecutor's dependence.

  Well, Mr. Chairman, obviously the legislative history spells out 
that, if the independent counsel fails to comply with existing policy, 
that that is not grounds for removal.
  That is right here in the committee report.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAMSTAD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, to my distinguished friend from Minnesota I 
say, ``This section is included in the Hyde amendment substitute, and I 
would hope that we could resolve it in that overall context and not in 
a long, separate vote in contention here on the floor. We have got 
three or four, at least, additional votes on this bill before we 
conclude this afternoon, and some of the Members are trying to depart 
from this city by plane early before that snow storm hits.''
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am one of those 
Members who would like to get out of town, but this amendment is, as 
the distinguished chairman points out, part of the more comprehensive 
amendment to be offered subsequently. However that amendment is very 
controversial. There are two other major points of contention in that 
broader amendment.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment, and I did 
not think it would be a controversial amendment. It simply says that if 
the independent counsel fails to comply with standard Department of 
Justice policies, and those are accepted widely by the criminal bar 
across this country, and they are reasonable standards of conduct, if 
he or she fails to comply with those standards of conduct, then the 
Attorney General may--not must or shall, but may--remove the 
independent counsel. If there are flagrant abuses, violations, of 
established policy, prosecutorial policy, then it seems to me it is 
only reasonable that the Attorney General have the power to remove an 
independent counsel. I think there needs to be that minimum check or 
balance, and again I would emphasize that it is discretionary.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am real puzzled by the chairman's opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAMSTAD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I believe that this 
is something that we might consider in the conference. In other words, 
I am going to be opposed to the Hyde amendment and hope we can beat it. 
But that does not mean we will exclude this concept from consideration 
in the conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] 
has expired.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROOKS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. I would just suggest, Mr. Chairman, to my good friend 
from Texas that he accept the amendment. That is an easy resolution of 
this very straightforward amendment which is discretionary, I would 
remind my friend from Texas, totally discretionary, it the independent 
counsel violates these provisions. The broader amendment, which is 
coming subsequently, Mr. Chairman, is much more controversial, so I do 
not want to muddy the waters of that amendment.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time in order to answer 
the question briefly.
  It is good cause if you limit it to just one or two issues, but there 
might be several more that the Attorney General might well consider 
good cause, and I would rather have the broader interpretation 
available to the Attorney General. That is really my only real query or 
question about rewriting the language. That is what we do not want to 
do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 227, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 18]

                               AYES--187

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Andrews (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Chapman
     Coleman
     de la Garza
     Dornan
     Ewing
     Ford (TN)
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Manton
     Martinez
     Neal (NC)
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Swift
     Tucker
     Vucanovich
     Washington

                              {time}  1133

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bilirakis for with Mr. Blackwell against.
       Mr. Ewing for with Mr. Washington against.
       Mr. Dornan for with Mr. Manton against.

  Ms. SCHENK and Messrs. JOHNSON of Georgia, WILSON, HEFNER, KENNEDY, 
and MINGE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. LEWIS of California, PETERSON of Florida, and FIELDS of Texas 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 103-419.


                     amendment offered by mr. hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde: Page 2, add the following 
     after line 6 and redesignate succeeding sections and 
     references thereto, accordingly:

     SEC. 3. BASIS FOR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.

       (a) Initial Receipt of Information.--Section 591 of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``information'' and inserting ``specific 
     information from a credible source that is''; and
       (B) by striking ``may have'' and inserting ``has'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``information'' and inserting ``specific 
     information from a credible source that is''; and
       (B) by striking ``may have'' and inserting ``has''; and
       (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Time Period for Determining Need for Preliminary 
     Investigation.--The Attorney General shall determine, under 
     subsection (a) or (c) (or section 592(c)(2)), whether grounds 
     to investigate exist not later than 15 days after the 
     information is first received. If within that 15-day period 
     the Attorney General determines that there is insufficient 
     evidence of a violation of Federal criminal law referred to 
     in subsection (a), then the Attorney General shall close the 
     matter. If within that 15-day period the Attorney General 
     determines there is sufficient evidence of such a violation, 
     the Attorney General shall, upon making that determination, 
     commence a preliminary investigation with respect to that 
     information. If the Attorney General is unable to determine, 
     within that 15-day period, whether there is sufficient 
     evidence of such a violation, the Attorney General shall, at 
     the end of that 15-day period, commence a preliminary 
     investigation with respect to that information.''.
       (b) Receipt of Additional Information.--Section 592(c)(2) 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``information'' and inserting ``specific information from a 
     credible source that is''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, what I am seeking by this amendment is to 
make this a better independent counsel bill. Right now the threshold 
for triggering a preliminary investigation by the Attorney General, 
simply requires that ``information,'' not evidence--information is 
received sufficient to constitute grounds that a covered person ``may'' 
have violated any Federal criminal law.
  I suggest to the Members that is way too low. I suggest to the 
Members to make this a meaningful, effective statute, we ought to 
elevate the triggering threshold to the ``specific evidence from a 
credible source.'' I am tightening up what is a rather loosely drawn 
piece of law that has too wide a net. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(a). I am doing 
this, Mr. Chairman, as a Republican. One would think it would be in our 
interests to have the threshold low, to catch as many people as 
possible. I can assure the Members, that is not in my interest. That is 
not my intention.
  I have always supported the Independent Counsel law. I voted for it 
in 1978. I voted to reauthorize it in 1983 and 1987. But I want it to 
be a professionally drawn, good, effective law that provides due 
process. I do not want to trigger expensive and sometimes awkward 
investigations that are brought sometimes for political purposes.
  The manpower, the resources of the Justice Department should not have 
to be expended on surmise, on rumors, on innuendo, on more allegations. 
Rather, there should be real evidence so I am asking my colleagues in a 
bipartisan way, because nothing can pass, at least from the Republican 
side, without Democrat support, to join me in raising the threshold for 
triggering this law to specific evidence from a credible source. It 
seems to me that is in everybody's interest, to eliminate the 
trivialities and the frivolities of people who want to cause somebody a 
hard time.
  I have never served on the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, but I have been told by people who do that the non-members 
would be amazed at the mail they get. The charges they get that are 
frequently off the wall, not all of them, but a lot of them are.

                              {time}  1140

  And it just seems to me that the triggering of this law ought to 
require the provision of specific evidence from a credible source.
  So I am attempting to tighten it, to fine-tune it, to sand off the 
rough edges and to help the cause of due process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] is recognized for 
10 minutes
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The amendment, has two different parts--which, for some reason, seems 
to be obscured by the sponsors in describing the amendment. Now that 
the moment of truth has arrived it is essential that all Members 
understand what both parts would do to the structure of the Independent 
Counsel process.
  It is understandable why the sponsors of the amendment emphasized 
only the first part of the amendment: For that part is nothing more 
than a restatement of the existing standard found in the Independent 
Counsel statute that guides the Attorney General in conducting a 
preliminary investigation.
  It was in the bill in 1978.
  Thus, part 1 of the Hyde amendment requires that the Attorney 
General--in determining whether there are grounds to conduct a 
preliminary investigation--find that the information submitted to her 
is ``specific'' and from a ``credible source.'' It sounds good.
  Guess what? The existing independent counsel statute (28 U.S.C. 
591(D)(1)) states the following: ``In determining * * * whether grounds 
to investigate exist, the Attorney General shall consider only (a) the 
specificity of the information received; and (b) the credibility of the 
source of the information.'' In other words, it is the same.
  If the Hyde amendment was simply a restatement of the existing 
standard, it would be superfluous but nothing more. But it is something 
more because of the second part of the amendment. That part creates a 
new, untested legal standard which eviscerates the very independence of 
the independent counsel once he or she is appointed.
  ``Hyde, part two''--as I shall call it--directs the Attorney General 
not to proceed with the process if, within 15 days, she ``determines 
there is insufficient evidence of a violation of criminal law * * *.'' 
But requiring the Attorney General to make an ultimate finding of 
whether there is a criminal violation is not the Attorney General's 
function at the ``preliminary stage'': Ultimate findings of guilt or 
not are for the independent counsel to make. In other words, the second 
part of the Hyde amendment would make the appointment of an independent 
counsel a mere ``afterthought'' since the Attorney General will have 
already prejudged the likely existence of a criminal offense.
  What is the point of having an independent counsel if the Attorney 
General is both prosecutor and adjudicator of guilt or innocence? How 
does this type of provision avoid the conflict of interest of the 
executive branch judging itself?
  For all these reasons, I must urge you to reject the Hyde amendment. 
It started out so promising and unobjectionable, but at the end of the 
road, it is a radical concept that strips away the very independence of 
the independent counsel.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I my consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really astonished at my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brooks]. I think he is trying to impute some Machiavellian 
method here. I am trying to make this a workable provision.
  Under the law that we are about to reauthorize, the preliminary 
investigation threshold question was too low. It is true the gentleman 
talks about insufficient evidence of a violation. But that comes later, 
after a 15-day inquiry. It is the beginning of the preliminary 
investigation that I want to deal with and I want to raise that 
threshold, not lower it. I do not want political manipulation of the 
independent counsel law, nor the Office of Attorney General. I want the 
trigger, the threshold of the preliminary investigation, not to have to 
happen unless there is specific evidence from a credible source of a 
violation of a Federal law. The complicated machinery of the 
independent counsel law should not get underway unless there is real 
evidence of possible wrongdoing. I am simply raising the threshold. 
After the investigation is underway, I have no problem with sufficient 
evidence.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I really wonder if the gentleman 
understands what we are saying is what the gentleman has done is 
provide that the Attorney General under his provision has 15 days in 
order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of a violation. 
And the statute has always said that they have 15 days to determine if 
there is a specific allegation from a credible source, and if there is, 
then there is a 90-day period in which an investigation takes place.
  I do not think the gentleman realizes the effect of the words he has 
written.
  Mr. HYDE. Recapturing my time, the law we are reenacting says the 
Attorney General must conduct a preliminary investigation whenever the 
she (or he) receives information sufficient to constitute grounds that 
any person may have violated any Federal criminal law. But I want to 
change that to say not mere information but specific evidence, real 
evidence--not rumors, not assertions but specific evidence from a 
credible source.
  Mr. BRYANT. The gentleman is right. But will the gentleman yield 
further?
  Mr. HYDE. Certainly I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. The gentleman stopped reading too soon. If he kept 
reading he would specifically see that the statute already says that 
the specificity of information received and the credibility of the 
source are the key factors in her determination. So it is exactly like 
the language the gentleman is talking about. The problem is the second 
half of his amendment which requires the Attorney General to determine 
in 15 days if there is sufficient evidence of a violation, and that is 
the province of the independent counsel, not the Attorney General. So 
if we leave it to the Attorney General, then we have no independent 
counsel.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. Of course I yield to the gentleman from Texas, the 
gentleman who voted no on this bill when it first was presented in 
1978, and I am still shocked about that.
  Mr. BROOKS. But I saw the light. The gentleman remembers that I voted 
for it ever since.
  Mr. HYDE. That is true. The road to Damascus is a short one for the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BROOKS. But I have never deterred from my route since then. It is 
these people that go back and forth that make you nervous.
  Mr. HYDE. I think I see a halo. I think.
  Mr. BROOKS. Now, what I was going to suggest is I believe that the 
first part of the amendment is a useful statement of what is in the 
bill now. It is the second part that we have trouble with. If the 
gentleman would get unanimous consent to drop that part of it, we would 
accept the first part and be very pleased. I think it encourages a 
restatement, makes more clear that we need to have specificity and 
credibility of the source of the information, just as we really believe 
there should be.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to elevate the threshold that 
triggers this whole complicated operation. If the gentleman is 
satisfied to have it based merely on allegations that somebody may 
make, then the gentleman is welcome. Because it is his party that may 
be the focus of these investigations--unless, of course, we are 
successful in getting Congress covered, which I hope we do. But I am 
trying to make it a more workmanlike, professional due-process 
threshold.
  The gentleman thinks there is some motive that frankly does not exist 
to eviscerate the bill. I am trying to strengthen it. If the gentleman 
does not want it strengthened, then the gentleman will prevail, but I 
hope people understand the threshold should be elevated.
  Mr. BROOKS. If the gentleman will yield further, I do not want the 
gentleman to portray my effort as weakening in any way, because I think 
that if you give more authority to the Attorney General, you will 
destroy the authority of the independent counsel.
  Mr. HYDE. No. I want to give her specific----
  Mr. BROOKS. She makes all the judgments at this point, if you combine 
the adjudication with the administration, and we do not want to do 
that.
  Mr. HYDE. I do not want to give the Attorney General more authority. 
I want to give her specific evidence rather than just information. I 
want it from a credible source, not somebody off the wall. I think that 
helps everybody. But the gentleman obviously does not.
  Mr. BROOKS. Section 591 in the bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Pardon?
  Mr. BROOKS. Section 591 in the bill, ``shall'' uses the word 
``shall,'' and it uses the same words, the same terminology exactly.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to restate what the 
chairman said. We would be glad to accept the first part of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], because it 
is simply a restatement of what is in the bill with regard to 
specificity.
  It is the second part that is the problem. I am not sure he realizes 
the catastrophic impact it has on the bill. The question is, What 
threshold do you have to meet for the Attorney General to go into the 
90-day period? The history of this act is that only 13 independent 
counsels have been appointed in 15 years. It is not as though this has 
been rushed into and independent counsels are appointed willy-nilly, 
right and left all the time. It is very rare.
  In fact, of those 13 independent counsels, almost half of them have 
decided there was no reason to prosecute.
  So changing fundamentally the threshold would be a terrible mistake. 
What the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] 
does is provide that the Attorney General would have only 15 days in 
which to determine, not if there is a specific allegation from a 
credible source, but 15 days in which to determine whether or not there 
is sufficient evidence to go forward. If you impose the sufficiency-of-
evidence standard, you have then given all of the authority to the 
Attorney General, which is the person from whom we are trying to take 
the authority in order to guarantee that a conflict of interest will 
not result in unnecessarily, unfairly, unjustly shielding her 
colleagues, 60 people in the executive branch, from an objective 
analysis and objective investigation of their activity and possible 
prosecution.
  Unless the gentleman from Illinois wants to accept an amendment in 
which we adopt the first half of his amendment and drop the second 
half, I am afraid we will have to continue our opposition to the 
amendment.
  I strongly urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in House Report No. 103-419.


                     amendment offered by mr. gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gekas: Page 9, strike line 18 and 
     all that follows through line 14 on page 10 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       Section 591(b) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) any Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress, or any person who has 
     served as a Senator, a Representative, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner within the 2-year period before the receipt of 
     the information under subsection (a) with respect to conduct 
     that occurred while such person was a Senator, a 
     Representative, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed to 
the amendment will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing the American people have 
unanimously voiced over the last several years, it is disgust with the 
Congress in the fact that the Congress seeks and often accomplishes 
exemption of itself from the laws which it imposes upon the public at 
large. There are many, many examples of it. The people not only 
perceive it but believe it, because it is actually true.
  Let me give you an example of how this occurs. Now, we are talking 
about the Congress subjecting the general public to certain laws and 
other segments of society to certain laws, but not itself to the 
disgust of the American people.
  Here is a list of them: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, the AIDS Discrimination in Employment Act, the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, OSHA, the Freedom of 
Information Act, and the Privacy Act. I state these and put them in the 
Record to demonstrate that what the Gekas amendment does in the bill 
that is now in front of us is to rectify that just a little bit to give 
to the American people the sense that we are going to be about the 
business of setting that sorry record straight, that here we have an 
independent-counsel statute that calls for the Attorney General, in the 
case of alleged wrongdoing of a member of the Cabinet, that that 
Attorney General must take action to bring that wrongdoer before an 
independent counsel, but then, lo and behold, if a Member of Congress 
is accused of wrongdoing, and God knows we have had that happen quite 
often in the past 10 years, if a Member of Congress be accused of some 
wrongdoing, then when the Attorney General gets that information, the 
Attorney General does not have to appoint an independent counsel to 
look into the wrongdoing of a Member of Congress.
  Is that or is that not a double standard, I ask the Members of 
Congress?
  At the same time I will not yield at the moment.
  Now, those who propose the bill will, in sophistry and in very 
pastor-like ways, say, ``We have taken care of that problem, Mr. Gekas. 
We have language in the bill, and you know it, Mr. Gekas, that will 
allow the Attorney General to visit an independent counsel against a 
Member of Congress.''
  But the language is not to the satisfaction of the American people. 
It says, ``may''; it says ``may be''; ``well, perhaps,'' while the 
Gekas amendment says it must investigate when allegations of wrongdoing 
are visited against a Member of Congress just as it is for members of 
the Cabinet, and that is what I want to do with the Gekas amendment, 
put for the first time in a long time Members of Congress on the same 
level of culpability, of liability, as the general members of the 
public, especially to those who are members of the Cabinet. The people 
want this, and I urge that we successfully defeat the Bryant amendment 
that will come later which is aimed at obviating, erasing the Gekas 
amendment.
  Let us make no mistake about this: the Bryant amendment that is to 
follow, because remember, the Gekas amendment will not be voted on up 
or down. The Committee on Rules took care of that. Rather, after we 
finish debate on the Gekas amendment, bill-Bryant, as I said yesterday, 
the bill, the Bryant bill that carries the bill language, the bill-
Bryant will be brought up, and then we must vote, those of us who want 
to preserve the Gekas amendment, we must vote ``no''on Bryant, because 
it just carriers that ``maybe'' language allowing the Attorney General 
to weasel out of an independent-counsel investigation of a Member of 
Congress.
  So be careful and stick with me, and we will do something for the 
American people to rectify this imbalance.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] opposed to the 
amendment?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous opposition to the 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and 
urge my colleagues to support the Bryant substitute offered by the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on 
Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.
  The Gekas amendment can only be viewed as a rhetorical smokebomb 
lobbed at Members to create panic and destroy the careful plan of the 
independent counsel statute. The amendment is a misnomer--for it 
implies that Members of Congress are not covered by the statute. That 
is plain wrong; Members have been covered since 1983. If we have truth 
in advertising, it is high time for truth in amending.
  No one has ever accused the Department of Justice of not diligently 
investigating and prosecuting individual Members of Congress, as well 
as conducting broad-scale investigations of the House as an 
institution. It has done so zealously under Democratic and Republican 
Administrations, alike. Yet, the Gekas amendment straitjackets the 
Attorney General from having the option of using U.S. Attorneys or an 
independent counsel in pursuing charges of wrongdoing against a Member 
of Congress.
  Both the administration and the Attorney General--a former prosecutor 
herself--opposed the Gekas amendment. Let me read from the Attorney 
General's letter I received yesterday on February 9, 1994, which I will 
submit for the Record of this debate. She states:

       * * * Let me reiterate the position of the administration 
     and the Department [of Justice] that the act should not be 
     amended to provide for mandatory coverage of Members of 
     Congress. Such an amendment would be at odds with the 
     fundamental purpose of the act: to deal with the potential 
     for conflicts of interest in the investigation and 
     prosecution of high-level officials within the executive 
     branch. No such inherent conflict of interest exists in the 
     investigation of Members of Congress. Moreover, I firmly 
     reject the notion that the criminal investigative process 
     should be made the pawn of political gamesmanship by covering 
     Members of the legislative branch simply because certain 
     executive branch officials are covered.

  A more thoughtful application of the independent counsel statute is 
found in the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant]. Under the Bryant amendment, and to remove all doubt, 
Members of Congress are explicitly covered by the independent counsel 
statute. The Bryant amendment authorizes the Attorney General to invoke 
the independent counsel procedures to investigate and prosecute Members 
of Congress if doing so would be in the public interest.'' Thus, under 
the Bryant amendment, the Attorney General has two options: She can use 
the independent counsel process when she believes it to be in the 
public interest; or, she can investigate and prosecute Members by using 
the formidable enforcement resources of the Department of Justice--just 
as she can do with members of the Federal judiciary, State and local 
officials or any other American citizen.
  The other body by a bipartisan vote of 67 to 31 rejected the Gekas 
approach in favor of the Bryant approach. I urge you to cast an ``aye'' 
vote in support of the Bryant substitute to the Gekas amendment.


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                 Washington, DC, February 9, 1994.
     Hon. Jack Brooks,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to take this opportunity to 
     express the support of the Department of Justice and the 
     Administration for reauthorization of the Independent Counsel 
     Act. Public trust in our government is predicated on the 
     belief that our Nation's justice system is being administered 
     in an even-handed and impartial manner; reauthorization of 
     the Independent Counsel Act is crucial to ensuring continued 
     public confidence in the integrity of that system. Both H.R. 
     811 and the Senate companion bill, S. 24, advance this vital 
     goal and make valuable improvements to the underlying Act. 
     You and your Senate counterparts are to be congratulated for 
     your efforts in reviving this measure.
       In particular, let me retirate the position of the 
     Administration and the Department that the Act should not be 
     amended to provide for mandatory coverage of Members of 
     Congress. Such an amendment would be at odds with the 
     fundamental purpose of the Act: to deal with the potential 
     for conflicts of interest in the investigation and 
     prosecution of high-level officials within the Executive 
     Branch. No such inherent conflict of interest exists in the 
     investigation of Members of Congress. Moreover, I firmly 
     reject the notion that the criminal investigative process 
     should be made the pawn of political gamesmanship by covering 
     Members of the Legislative Branch simply because certain 
     Executive Branch officials are covered.
       Again, I appreciate your consideration of the Department's 
     views and commend you for advancing this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Coble], a member of the subcommittee and the 
committee of jurisdiction.
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to the floor with no intentions of speaking 
today, but I have heard this and I felt compelled to speak.
  I hear words such as ``double standard''; I hear words such as 
``exemption'' from this proposal or that proposal. As the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] just said, this is what annoys the 
American public, seeing this body day in and day out enacting laws and 
then, very conveniently, exempting ourselves.
  We feed the Congress from one bucket filled with sweet water, and 
then the public goes to another trough and drinks from that container. 
It is simply not right. The situation is, if Mr. Gekas's amendment does 
not pass, will simply be permissive. The Attorney General will not have 
to assign anyone or do anything.
  Now, I am not wild generally about independent counsels. it is my 
belief that the public integrity section of the Justice Department can 
handle these situations, and I am particularly not wild about it in 
view of the last exercise that the Walsh investigation conducted when 
the meter ran eternally. I think it is going to end up costing the 
American taxpayers somewhere in the vicinity of $50 million. That is 
one reason why I am opposed to it. But the public integrity section can 
take care of it.
  Having said that, we are going to steam along this course whether we 
like it or not. So if we are going to go the independent counsel route, 
for gosh sake let us respond as we make everyone else respond.
  I think that is the way to go. If I had my druthers, I would say let 
the public integrity section handle it. But I do not have my druthers. 
So if we are going to go the route of the independent counsel, by all 
means, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, let us bring ourselves 
under the umbrella.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I do not know where the folks who have been 
talking on the Republican side have been the last 10 years. They are as 
capable of reading the law as we are.
  It is available to them. I guess they do not want to read it. The law 
as of 10 years ago said Members of Congress were covered by this act. 
They continue to say that we are not. They are covered, just like any 
other American, and it has been that way since 1983.
  They say they want Congress to be covered by the laws just as 
everybody else, and I agree, there are some instances where we should 
have been and we were not. But this is not one of those instances, and 
they know it is not one of them. Look at the statute. We are treated 
just like every other American under that statute, and we would be 
under my amendment as well.
  Now, the fact of the matter is this rhetoric is part of a 
premeditated strategy to pound on a Republican theme that even though 
this does not quite fit into it, it is OK with them, apparently, to 
come up here and say that it does. Read the statute.
  Let me ask a question, a rhetorical queston--and I am not afraid to 
yield to anybody. When we began this debate last year on the Judiciary 
Committee, I pointed out at that time that we had three investigations 
of Members of Congress under way by the Justice Department, four 
prosecutions in progress, and there had been three convictions in the 
recent couple of years.
  Now, I do not find any evidence that there has been any evidence that 
there has been any hesitance on the part of the Attorney General of the 
United States, Republican or Democrat, to pursue Members of Congress. I 
have never heard anyone suggest in private or in public that there is 
somebody out there who is shielded from prosecution by the Attorney 
General because they are friends with them.
  Now, if the gentleman knows of any, some case like that, this is a 
good time to tell us.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I subscribe to the statement that the gentleman made, 
but that does not preclude the new wave of authority that we want to 
put in the Attorney General to investigate wrongdoing in Members of 
Congress, high-profile Members of Congress, who have apparent or actual 
conflict of interest, and give them the additional power, the Attorney 
General, to execute an independent counsel appointment so that the 
whole world will know that this will be an independent investigation of 
a high-ranking Member of Congress who is a member of the same party as 
the Attorney General and the White House.
  This is the purpose of this bill.
  Mr. BRYANT. Are you not reading the newspapers?
  Mr. GEKAS. The gentleman yielded to me. Now, if the U.S. attorney on 
his own or the Attorney General on his own wishes to follow that, that 
is all right. But we want that opportunity mandated just like the 
members of the Cabinet are to have an alleged wrongdoing in the 
Congress, a high-ranking profile Member who is tied in with the 
Attorney General and the White House in the same party. That is what we 
are trying to get.
  Mr. BRYANT. Reclaiming my time, and the gentleman pointed out that I 
yielded to him, and I did. I wish I could get them to yield to us 
occasionally.
  I will proceed with my statement.
  Are you not reading the papers? Are you not aware that high-ranking 
Members of Congress of both parties are presently under investigation? 
Is there some indication otherwise? Have you not read the law? I will 
not yield again.
  Have you not read the law that says clearly Members of Congress are 
covered? It is optional, but what the gentleman wants to do is to make 
it mandatory. They continue this rhetoric that somehow we are not 
treated like all other Americans. The independent counsel statute was 
written for 60 people who have become such good friends with the 
Attorney General that we cannot rely on human beings who serve as 
Attorney General to investigate objectively or to prosecute. Only 60. 
Everybody else is treated the same. The public integrity unit, the drug 
unit, every other unit out there is out and available to the 
prosecutors to investigate us, just like the general public. That is 
the way it ought to be.
  I will be back in a moment with an amendment to the Gekas amendment 
that I think gives every Member an opportunity to vote on the principle 
that Members ought to be covered, but the coverage ought to be at the 
discretion of the Attorney General.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] a member of the committee.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. GOODLATTE. My colleagues, nothing angers my constituents more 
than the idea that Members of Congress are treated differently than 
others by so many different statutes, and the gentlemen from Texas are 
correct that Members of Congress are included in this bill. But they 
are treated differently than the members of the executive branch in the 
fact that the Attorney General has the option to choose to treat them 
with a preliminary investigation or not to treat them. She does not 
have that option with the other members of the executive branch that 
are included in the bill, and that is what is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, we are sending a message here that Members of this 
body, some of whom who are very high ranking, very high profile, who 
are under investigation right now; under this bill the Attorney 
General, in some instances a member of the same party as those 
individuals, would have an opportunity to turn a blind eye to those 
situations and choose not to conduct that preliminary investigation, 
and that is what we are talking about.
  The distinction here is between whether it should be optional on the 
part of the Attorney General or mandatory.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BROOKS. To my friend I say, ``The Attorney General said very 
clearly, and she uses English, American, you know, in her letters, 
said, `No such inherent conflict of interest exists in the 
investigation of Members of Congress.' In other words, you investigate 
the Members of Congress on an optional basis the way you want to. They 
haven't had any trouble doing it. But you don't mandate that they do it 
just like they do the 60 members of the executive department.''
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not designed to investigate Congress. They 
can do that anyway with U.S. attorneys all over the United States.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time because I have very 
little of it, let me say that this bill is intended to make sure that 
Members of Congress can have special prosecutors, independent counsels, 
appointed to investigate high crimes on their part, and we should make 
sure that there is no difference.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gekas 
amendment.
  I realize that an increasing number of our colleagues find that there 
is political mileage in attacking the institution of which they are 
Members, and maligning their colleagues.
  Like the American officer in Vietnam who uttered the explanation, 
``It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it,'' some 
of our colleagues believe that they must destroy this institution in 
order to get control of it.
  This amendment is based on that premise. Proponents of the amendment 
argue that the present law and the bill before us is another example of 
Congress passing laws for everyone else, and carving out an exception 
for themselves.
  The facts are that the independent counsel law and the bill before us 
do create some special exceptions, but there is no such exception for 
Members of Congress.
  The special exception is for the President, Vice President, members 
of the President's Cabinet and officials of comparable rank, high 
ranking members of the White House staff, and key operatives of the 
President's reelection efforts. The special exception provides that 
when any of these officials are to be investigated for criminal 
wrongdoing, the investigation should, in every case, be turned over to 
an investigator, and, if ultimately justified, a prosecutor who is 
independent of the control and direction of the Attorney General.
  The basis for this exception is that the Attorney General, who is 
appointed by and closely associated with the President, should not be 
investigating and prosecuting the President or other persons closely 
associated with the President.
  This special exception applies to only about 60 individuals. The 
other 250 million of us--including the 535 Members of Congress--are 
subject to no exceptional rules, but are investigated and prosecuted by 
normal Department of Justice processes.
  Members of Congress are subject to no special rules, nor should we 
be. We are not appointed by the President. Under our system of 
separation of powers, we do not work for him, and he does not work for 
us.
  There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that Department of 
Justice investigators and prosecutors are reluctant to pursue 
allegations of criminal misconduct by Members of Congress. In fact, 
prosecutions of Members of Congress of both parties is a common 
occurrence, regardless of which party controls the White House.
  Members of Congress are already subject to investigation by 
independent counsel, a fact which will be made even more explicit when 
this legislation is enacted. It is not mandatory, nor should it be. If 
we need referral to an independent counsel to investigate Members of 
Congress in every case, one would think that the four Republican 
Attorneys General we had between 1981 and 1993 would have found at 
least one occasion in which appointment of a special counsel was 
appropriate. There have been none.

  The fact is there is reason to believe that mandatory referral to an 
independent counsel would likely make prosecution of Members of 
Congress more subject to political manipulation, not less.
  Under our present system, an Attorney General who personally takes 
charge of decisionmaking in the prosecution of a Member of Congress is 
subject to special scrutiny and suspicion, and should be. If a 
political ally is involved, the suspicion is of favoritism; if an 
enemy, the suspicion is of unfair persecution.
  However, if independent counsel referral is mandatory, the personal 
intervention of the Attorney General will be mandated. Not only 
mandated, but mandated at a very early stage in the proceedings. Rather 
than thoroughly investigating allegations against a Member of Congress, 
investigators will be required to turn the matter over to the 
politically appointed Attorney General at a very preliminary stage for 
decision on the future of the investigation.
  Suppose that at this point the Attorney General decides that there is 
no basis for further investigation. Even if this is based on lack of 
evidence and not on political manipulation, it makes the process more 
suspect, and prosecution of Members of Congress much more difficult.
  Cases which should be and could be made if the regular procedures 
were followed may not be made if the case is prematurely taken out of 
the hands of career investigators and prosecutors.
  Furthermore, in cases which are initially rejected by the Attorney 
General, while it is theoretically possible that additional information 
could be produced, leading to a decision that an independent counsel 
should be appointed, this is unlikely. It is unlikely because the best 
source of such information is not anonymous phone calls to the Attorney 
General, but Justice Department investigators. However, once an 
Attorney General finds that, in the words of the statute, ``That there 
are no reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is 
warranted.'' A pretty clear message is sent to career investigators and 
prosecutors that the matter is closed.
  The shrill voices clamoring for mandatory referral of cases involving 
Members of Congress to an independent counsel seem to be proclaiming 
that the independent counsel process is superior to the normal methods 
of bringing Federal prosecutions, and that Members should always be 
investigated and prosecuted by this superior process.
  The fact of the matter is the independent counsel process is not the 
best process for prosecuting Federal crimes--the best process, the one 
most likely to lead to conviction where conviction is warranted, is the 
normal criminal justice procedure under which all but about 60 
individuals in our Nation are investigated and prosecuted. It is only 
in the case of this handful of individuals that we should and must 
resort to the extraordinary processes of the indepdendent counsel, an 
inherently inferior process for most cases, but one that is superior 
for the special circumstances of these few individuals.
  We heard much talk yesterday about coverage of Members versus cover 
for Members. The fact is the committee bill and the Bryant amendment 
provide appropriate coverage of Members. Cover for Members is found not 
in those proposals, but in the Republican proposals to free Members, in 
every case, from the time-tested and proven investigative and 
prosecutorial practices of the Department of Justice. The Republicans 
would instead force every case into a decisionmaking process not 
designed for and often totally unsuited for the circumstances 
presented.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the things 
that the previous gentleman, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Hughes], said.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan issue, and to 
suggest that it is a gross misrepresentation of the debate. The fact is 
that the Attorney General is wrong, wrong with respect to there being 
no conflict of interest. In fact there is a very real conflict of 
interest.
  It should be absolutely clear to anyone who has ever spent even 1 day 
in this Chamber that a tremendous amount of power is wielded here by 
certain Members of the House and the Senate and that there are Members 
that any administration, and it does not matter if it is Democrat or 
Republican, must do business with in order to advance its own agenda, 
and any administration, whether it is Democrat or Republican, will at 
the very least think very carefully before pursuing a criminal 
investigation of a Member of Congress who commands great power and 
influence. That is the fact.
  I say to my colleague:

       The fact is, if you just look at the very recent history, 
     we have gone through a period in which there has been a 
     scandal with respect to the House Post Office, there has been 
     a scandal with respect to the House Bank. Have we had any 
     indictments of any Members of Congress with respect to either 
     one? No, we have not. But have we had indictments and, in 
     fact, convictions of staff members? Yes, we have, multiples, 
     and yet the fact is that, because there has been a conflict 
     of interest, we have not had the kind of investigation, we 
     have not had the kind of results, that ought to come from 
     those investigations.

  Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General is wrong with respect to 
the conflict of interest.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gekas amendment.
  I hear people saying, ``Oh, we will destroy the institution'' if we 
are asked to have Congress follow the same laws and rules and standards 
that apply to everyone else. The problem is that Congress seems dead 
set on destroying itself, and it has got to be changed.
  I remember back in the Watergate scandal the so-called Saturday Night 
Massacre, because the counsel was not independent and could be removed 
and only acted at the pleasure of the Attorney General. And it is 
correct, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] pointed out, that any 
President needs Members of Congress and their support to accomplish his 
agenda and, therefore, wants to be on good terms with them and has 
reservations about anything that might step on their toes such as a 
criminal indictment.
  And making it optional? Will that happen? Look at what is going on. 
Look at what has happened with the House Post Office. Seven months ago 
there was a guilty plea in Federal Court by the former Postmaster of 
this institution, who took three counts of conspiring with Members of 
Congress to embezzle taxpayers' money.
  It was tens of thousands of dollars. Where are the indictments? They 
are not there.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I will not yield.
  Mr. BRYANT. Why not?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I will not.
  Mr. BRYANT. Why not?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Because the Ethics Committee of this body is sitting on 
it instead of investigating as it needs to do to get to the bottom of 
this scandal and hold Members of this institution accountable.
  We have guilty pleas, and we have Federal court papers identifying 
that several Members of Congress were involved in embezzlement, and it 
is time for this institution to get with it and stop the double 
standard and stop the word games of trying to exempt ourselves from the 
standards that everybody else in this country must follow.
  Mr. BRYANT. Now, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. No, sir.
  Mr. BRYANT. Why not?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I have heard enough of your rhetoric.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might desire to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], who in 1987 launched a similar 
effort to try to make mandatory the inclusion of Members of Congress as 
subjects and targets of the independent counsel.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a tremendously important amendment. Let 
us really look at the record of the special prosecutors and how they 
have evolved over the years. It is a very tough standard that we must 
put on any administration that a special prosecutor with all these 
powers can be appointed, and this person is appointed to investigate a 
specific person, and this person is semi-independent from the 
Department of Justice.
  I think that what we have to do is say that if we are going to put 
this as a standard on the administration, then we certainly should 
apply it ourselves. It can be said that here we go again, exempting 
ourselves from these laws, and that is exactly what we are doing.
  By boiling this thing down and saying it is permissive, it just 
simply yanks the heart out of the whole thing.
  This is a high standard that we place upon the administration. We 
should place this same standard upon ourselves and this body. I do not 
view this as a partisan move at all. It simply says that exactly what 
we are going to do to any administration, whether it be a Republican or 
a Democratic administration, we simply apply the same standard to 
ourselves. That is the question. It is plain and simple.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a positive vote on the Gekas amendment and a 
negative vote on the watered-down amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I will not consume all of the remaining 
time.
  I just have to observe that whenever a human being, in the face of 
the language of the law when it is laid before them and repeated over 
and over in terms that anyone could understand, continues to deny what 
is before their very eyes, there is something afoot other than a 
legitimate effort to offer an amendment to improve legislation.
  The law since 1983 has provided that Members of Congress are covered 
by the independent counsel statute when the Attorney General would like 
to appoint an independent counsel. My amendment to the Gekas amendment 
which I will offer in just a moment will continue the law just as it 
has been, and it has worked well for 15 years. After all, there have 
been only 13 independent counsels appointed.
  Notwithstanding that, as I said a moment ago, despite the outburst we 
heard a moment ago--and I noticed that the Member would not yield to 
me, apparently for fear that he would hear the words I am about to 
speak--while considering this matter in the Judiciary Committee last 
year, we had four people being investigated, I think three convictions 
had already taken place, and there were also a number of other ones 
going on at the same time. There has never been any hesitancy to 
prosecute Members of Congress.
  Let me point out one other thing that was said so very well by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] a moment ago. The great irony of 
this is that you would come to the floor and act as though you were 
somehow trying to guarantee that Members of Congress are treated like 
everyone else when the plain result of what you are doing is to put us 
in a special category that would make it harder, more cumbersome, and 
more difficult for the Attorney General to prosecute or conduct an 
investigation against the Member of Congress. Every knowledgeable 
analyst of this statute agrees with what I have just said.
  This is a shell game, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] 
described it so aptly a moment ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of Congress to vote against the 
Gekas amendment and vote for the Bryant amendment which I will bring 
before the body in just a few moments.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. 
Chairman, we do read the statute, we do read the Bryant language, we 
read the bill language, and the bill language and the Bryant 
confirmation of the present language says that when the Attorney 
General deems that it would be in the public interest, this would 
happen. These are tremendous loopholes. Discretion is given to the 
Attorney General. Public interest is what the Attorney General may 
decide it might be.
  Then it says the Attorney General may conduct a preliminary 
investigation. We are reading the law, the bill, the Bryant language, 
the very language that the gentleman from Texas wants us to read. I am 
reading it into the Record. That is permissive. It uses the words, 
``may'' and ``maybe.'' Who knows whether we will or not. It is that 
kind of language. I do not know what it is. I am reading it in the 
Record again.
  It is ``may'' language. It is discretionary on the part of the 
Attorney General, and the Attorney General may just not move against a 
Member of Congress when indeed that Attorney General would be compelled 
under similar circumstances to move against a member of the Cabinet.
  So the question remains: Shall we raise the Member of Congress to 
that state of liability and of targetism of the independent counsel law 
that we accord now to the members of the Cabinet?
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired for debate on the amendment.


   amendment offered by mr. bryant as a substitute for the amendment 
                          offered by mr. gekas

  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered as a substitute by Mr. Bryant for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Gekas: Page 10, strike lines 6 
     through 14 and insert the following:
       ``(2) Members of Congress.--Whenever the Attorney General 
     determines that it would be in the public interest, the 
     Attorney General may conduct a preliminary investigation in 
     accordance with section 592 if the Attorney General has 
     received information sufficient to constitute grounds to 
     investigate whether a Member of Congress may have violated 
     any Federal criminal law other than a violation classified as 
     a Class B or C misdemeanor or an infraction.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute amendment to which 
I referred a moment ago.
  We bring this amendment to the floor in order that every Member of 
the House might have an opportunity to vote as we voted in the 
Judiciary Committee in favor of an amendment on Member coverage. That 
amendment provides that whenever the Attorney General determines that 
it would be in the public interest, the Attorney General may conduct a 
preliminary investigation in accordance with section 592, if the 
Attorney General has received information sufficient to constitute 
grounds to investigate whether a Member of Congress may have violated 
any Federal criminal law other than minor misdemeanors.
  It makes it very plain that we continue to be covered as we have been 
covered for the last 10 years.
  As the Members know, the independent counsel law was enacted because 
the American people lacked confidence in the ability of the Justice 
Department to act impartially when allegations of criminal wrongdoing 
were made against high ranking officers of the executive department. 
Those reasons are quite obvious.
  The Attorney General is a member of the President's Cabinet and is 
part of the political team.
  While we have come to expect that Attorneys General will avoid most 
forms of partisan wrangling, it is unreasonable to expect that any 
human being who holds that job would not be influenced by the threat 
that investigation or prosecution of members of the President's Cabinet 
might pose to the success of the administration. In addition, in order 
to do their jobs, Attorneys General must form strong bonds with other 
Cabinet officers, White House officials, and division heads of the 
Justice Department itself. These are the people they work with from day 
to day to carry out the President's policies and, under those 
circumstances, it is just unreasonable to expect an Attorney General to 
act impartially when making decisions about whether to investigate and, 
if appropriate, to prosecute one of their colleagues.

                              {time}  1230

  When the law was first passed, it covered senior officials of the 
administration. Once the act's thresholds were met, use of the 
independent counsel process with regard to those individuals was 
mandatory. In 1982, when the statute was reauthorized for the first 
time, the act was amended to include a second category of coverage. 
That category provided that in other cases where a personal, economic, 
or political conflict of interest might arise, the Attorney General 
would be permitted to use the independent counsel process.
  This amendment that I offer makes it very explicit that that portion 
of the statute refers to Members of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is a good standard. It has worked 
well in the past. We make it more explicit today. The adoption of the 
amendment would obviate the language that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has brought forward, which would make it 
mandatory, thereby expanding the category of the class of those who 
would be covered by the independent counsel statute to almost 600 
people from the originally intended 60. That would be, in my view, a 
great mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], as I said a moment ago, I think basically 
originated with a political strategy to somehow continue to pound this 
theme that we are in some fashion placing ourselves in a special 
category. I am arguing that we should not place the Members of the 
House in a special category. They should be treated as they have been 
treated in the past, like everybody else is treated.
  Only 60 people are treated in a special way. It does not make sense 
to continue this argument, to say that we are somehow, by virtue of 
treating ourselves like everybody else, treating ourselves in a special 
fashion.
  In fact, as I stated a moment ago, there has been no hesitancy to 
prosecute Members of Congress. I regret very much the outrageous 
statements made a few moments ago on the floor of the House that 
suggested anything otherwise. I think it may be time for us to purchase 
a subscription to a daily newspaper for a few people who have been 
speaking a moment ago.
  There are Members of Congress, powerful Members of Congress, on both 
sides of the aisle, under investigation at the present time by the 
Attorney General, who were being investigated by the previous Attorney 
General. The fact of the matter is there is no objective evidence 
whatsoever that we ought to place ourselves in a special category.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote in favor of the Bryant amendment 
to the Gekas amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it has come down to this, the vote. The Bryant 
amendment is an endorsement of the bill language. The Bryant amendment 
embraces the bill language.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a division of the question, a very discernible, 
easy issue: Either the bill or the Gekas amendment. But by virtue of 
the games that the Committee on Rules played, the Bryant bill comes 
back out through the back door into the whole issue, reverberating what 
the bill contained in the first place. So the Bryant bill says the 
Attorney General may, if the Attorney General wants to, prosecute 
through the independent counsel mechanism. May, if the Attorney General 
finds it be in the public interest, another discretionary phrase in 
favor of the Attorney General.
  The Gekas amendment, which opposes the bill and the Bryant amendment, 
says that when such wrongdoing is alleged on the part of a Member of 
Congress and it comes to the attention of the Attorney General, the 
Attorney General must proceed with an investigation to determine 
whether or not that should lead to the appointment of an independent 
counsel. It is black and white, clear as crystal, the issue before us.
  Those who want to make sure that Members of Congress who are accused 
of wrongdoing are put under the same scrutiny as members of the Cabinet 
will vote no on Bryant, because that would be a vote for the Gekas 
amendment. Vote no on Bryant, which is a reprise of the bill, which 
gives wide discretion to the Attorney General, in favor of the later 
vote on the Gekas amendment, which will be to tighten up the Attorney 
General's discretion on the appointment of an independent counsel.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the nub of the problem, and I want the support 
of all Members.
  There is another thing that has been said by the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Bryant, which I need to counter a little bit. I believe that 
the very examples the gentleman gives, and others have given, that in 
past cases the Attorney General has utilized the U.S. Attorney to 
properly and successfully prosecute Members of Congress, does not erase 
the contention of many of us and the observation that there still is a 
potential conflict of interest, even in those kinds of cases, in the 
original impetus of the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I repeat, if there is a powerful Member of Congress who 
is put to the fire by the Attorney General, by the appointment of a 
U.S. Attorney, it still remains as a basic fact that the high ranking 
Member of Congress and the U.S. Attorney and the Attorney General and 
the President of the United States might all be of the same party.
  Even in those cases, the only way we can approach impartiality would 
be if the Attorney General turned the matter over to an independent 
counsel, so that the court would appoint someone to pursue the Member 
of Congress who has been accused of wrongdoing.
  I say that the actuality of conflict, which everybody acknowledges 
can happen, at least the appearance of conflict, which everybody must 
agree can occur when a high ranking Member of Congress is alleged to 
have done something wrong, then the only way we can make sure that the 
public will be satisfied with what we do on the floor with respect to 
conflict of interest and appearance of conflict of interest is to erase 
it by voting for the Gekas amendment and against the Bryant amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just cannot resist observing that as the gentleman 
continues to characterize our efforts here in opposing the Gekas 
amendment in favor of the Bryant amendment as some type of a 
conspiracy, that I have to repeat what I said yesterday, which was 
initially contradicted by the gentleman, and I think the gentleman has 
checked the Record and seen that it was true, that the ranking 
Republican Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Fish] voted against the Gekas amendment, and voted in a 
fashion exactly consistent with the amendment I am about to offer, in 
1987, as did 14 of the leading Republican Members of the Senate just a 
few weeks ago when the Senate voted down the Gekas amendment and kept 
language like the Bryant amendment by a margin of 67 to 31.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are pursuing a prudent course here that is 
constructive. It leaves the Attorney General in the position where she 
can prosecute the laws without any hindrances. It does not put Members 
of Congress on a pedestal, but treats us like everybody else.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Bryant, who is doing an extremely good job of managing this 
bill.
  First of all, I do want to say both the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Brooks, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bryant, the subcommittee chairman, and 
others, deserve credit. We had some skeptics say that the independent 
counsel statute was just some partisan tool that Democrats liked 
because it harassed Republicans.
  Let us just remind people of the history. The independent counsel 
statute was first enacted by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate 
under a Democratic President, Jimmy Carter. It was in fact at its most 
ferocious back then. The trigger level that set off the independent 
counsel was, by everybody's agreement, too low at that point. But it 
was set up by Democrats under a Democratic President.
  Now that a Democratic President is back in office, we had predictions 
that we would allow it to lapse. In fact, that is not the case. Once 
the Senate acted, we have moved very quickly.

                              {time}  1240

  The Senate did not act. There had been a partisan dispute in the 
Senate. The Senate finally acted at the end of last session. Here we 
are at the outset of this session moving a bill to where I hope it will 
be on the President's desk within the first week when we come back, 
because there will not be many differences between us and the Senate 
unless we adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  One point should be very clear. For those who want the independent 
counsel statute reauthorized quickly, adopting the amendment of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania will certainly delay this and may kill it 
for this reason. The U.S. Senate, of blessed memory, dealt with this 
exact issue last November. And an amendment that embodied the principle 
of the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was presented by 
the Senator from Arizona.
  The Senate, by 67 to 31, voted it down. Leading the charge were two 
Senators, the Democratic Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and the 
Republican Senator from Maine, Mr. Cohen. The Assistant Republican 
Leader, Mr. Simpson, voted against the amendment.
  The Senate dealt with this issue and very firmly, by better than 2 to 
1, said, ``We want to leave it as is.''
  If the House were, in fact, to disagree, we would be guaranteeing a 
long conference from which perhaps no bill might emerge, because the 
House and Senate position on this central issue greatly at variance 
guarantees no quick action.
  One way to get quick action so that the Clinton administration will, 
in fact, be subjected to the exact same independent counsel statute, 
remember, we are talking about the same panoply of powers aimed at the 
executive branch now as was facing Reagan and faced Bush, the only way 
to do that is, in fact, to defeat this amendment. Because if we can get 
this amendment defeated, the differences between the House and the 
Senate are sufficiently small. And there has been sufficient 
discussions on a bipartisan basis from Senators Levin and Cohen so that 
we can get a bill to the President's desk very quickly.
  Next I want to talk about the substance. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania said, if a senior member of the President's own party were 
to be indicted or investigated by that Attorney General, there would be 
the appearance of conflict. I want to defend Attorney General Barr 
against the criticism that has been leveled at him by Republicans, 
because Attorney General Barr, appointed by Bush, Attorney General 
Thornburgh, appointed by, I think, Reagan and Bush, Attorney General 
Meese and Attorney General Smith, all four men who served as Attorneys 
General under President Reagan and President Bush authorized Justice 
Department investigations of Members of Congress of both parties.
  All four of those men authorized investigations of both Democratic 
and Republican Congressmen, in some cases some senior Members of their 
own party.
  Now, all four of those men, under the statute as it then existed and 
as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] wants to reconstitute it, had 
the unchallenged authority to ask for an independent counsel. Any 
Attorney General at any time could ask for an independent counsel for 
anybody if he or she thinks there is a conflict. So if, in fact, there 
was that appearance of conflict, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
says, why did four Republican Attorneys General refuse to use the 
mechanism available to them? Why did Mr. Meese and Mr. Smith and Mr. 
Thornburgh and Mr. Barr all refuse to ask for an independent counsel?
  We will be told that they believed that it should be mandatory. That 
is the oddist profession I have ever heard. Here are four men who 
apparently insist that, I guess their argument is, stop me before I 
conflict again. Here are four men who ignored their own authority to 
ask for an independent counsel, who now tell us that what they did was 
somehow wrong, apparently, and that an independent counsel must be 
offered. If that seems illogical to Members, I think that helps them 
understand what the basis of what we are talking about is.
  Yes, when the Attorney General is asked to investigate the Vice 
President, the Secretary of Labor, the Chairman of the President's own 
party, we believe there is an inherent conflict. When a Member of 
Congress is involved, there may or may not be a conflict. We leave it 
up to the Attorney General to decide it.
  Members have also said this thing costs too much. Well, what my 
friends on the other side want to do is to increase the cost of this by 
a factor of 10. Nothing would be more likely to undermine the existence 
of the independent counsel than to increase the cost by a factor of 10, 
because 60 people are now automatically covered, they would make 600 
people automatically covered. And if we had the same incidents of 
appointments among Members of Congress and the executive branch, we 
could increase it by a factor of 10, if we made it automatic.

  Now, I am prepared to concede that the Republican Attorneys General 
erred in the past and should have appointed an Independent Counsel two 
or three times when they did not. I am sorry that they never did it. I 
am sorry that they never dealt with the potential of a conflict. I am 
sorry that they disagreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who 
said it was an apparent conflict. And he is right to use the phrase 
``apparent conflict.'' That is one of the things we legitimately are 
concerned about.
  But when four Republican Attorneys General over a 12-year period 
consistently refuse to use this authority, which they had without any 
possible challenge, how can it be argued that somehow this is the 
logical policy that they should have been forced to do it?
  Finally, let me address the procedure. We have a procedure where, 
yes, the pending amendment is already in the bill. That happens from 
time to time, because Members want to make sure that the issue is 
properly framed in debate. If it was up to me, we would never do it. If 
it was up to my friends on the Republican side, I believe from history, 
we would sometimes do it and sometimes not do it. Because we do it when 
it helped them and not when it did not.
  When we debated the Defense bill, we had the Skelton amendment. The 
Skelton amendment was the text of the bill. And we had a King of the 
Hill situation. There were two amendments prior to the Skelton 
amendment on gays in the military. They both lost. We then voted on the 
Skelton amendment. And in that case we did not even have a Gekas type 
amendment to choose between.
  We had a situation that said, if we voted for the Skelton amendment, 
it would be in the bill. But if we voted against the Skelton amendment, 
it would be in the bill.
  I challenge my colleagues to find in the Congressional Record one 
Republican objecting to that procedure. We did that. It was less 
logical than this one. Because here we will be making a choice. In the 
military issue, we choose between Skelton and Skelton. Here we are 
choosing between Bryant and Gekas.
  Now, Members may not think that the difference between Gekas and 
Bryant is great. I happen to think it is, but the difference between 
Bryant and Gekas is greater than the difference between Skelton and 
Skelton. I mean, Members who believe in that procedure, frankly, might 
have thought that it was designed not by the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Skelton] but by Red Skelton. But I did not remember a single 
Republican objection, not one, not during the rule debate, not during 
the debate on the floor.
  So we have a procedure that has been used before with Republican 
support. We have a rule that says the Attorney General can appoint, 
whenever he or she wants to, an independent counsel. And four 
Republican Attorneys General have declined to do that, and many of them 
have investigated Members of their own party and of the other party.
  We have a proposal that would increase by a factor of perhaps 10, a 
thousand percent, the cost of this. The history of the independent 
counsel is that when Mr. Nixon was in trouble, there were difficulties. 
And that is what led to the independent counsel statute. There was not 
a history of executive branch officials being unwilling to prosecute 
Members of Congress. Jimmy Carter presided over Abscam, which sent 
mostly Democrats to prison. Republican Attorneys General have indicted 
and convicted or dismissed charges against Members of Congress.
  This is a continuation of what we have had. The Democrats have a 
challenge, and I believe we are meeting it. Will we apply to the 
Clinton administration exactly the same rules that we applied to the 
Bush and Reagan administrations?
  Vote for the Bryant amendment and that is what we will accomplish, 
because we will be able to go promptly to conference with the Senate 
and put that bill on the President's desk. Vote for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and we will guarantee the 
grinding down, people will be talking about gridlock. We will have a 
difficulty with the Senate which has already rejected it, and we may or 
may not be able to resuscitate.
  I believe we will take the appropriate action, and I call for a yes 
vote on the Bryant amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bryant] a question or two.
  It is my belief that the gentleman's amendment on coverage, optional 
coverage of Congress, eliminates, of course, the mandatory coverage but 
also provides a weaker standard. Under the existing law or, rather, the 
law that we seek to reincarnate, it says, ``Preliminary investigation 
with respect to persons not listed.'' Then, of course, that would be 
Congressmen. The Attorney General determines that an investigation or 
prosecution of the person with respect to the information received by 
the Attorney General or other officer of the Department of Justice may 
result in a ``personal, financial or political conflict of interest.''
  When that happens, then the independent counsel is triggered. Under 
the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], he eliminates 
``financial, personal or political conflict of interest,'' and he puts 
in ``in the public interest.''
  It seems to me there could be a financial conflict of interest. There 
could be a political conflict of interest. There could be a personal 
conflict of interest, but the AG will not find it in the public 
interest to appoint an independent counsel.

                              {time}  1250

  Why did the gentleman change the standard? Why did he not go with the 
tried and true, proven phrase, ``personal, financial, or political 
conflict of interest''?
  Mr. BRYANT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. I would say to the gentleman, because ``personal, 
financial, or political conflict of interest,'' all of those would be 
good grounds for going forward, but we have broadened it even further 
to say if it is in the public interest for any reason, she can include 
a Member of Congress under the coverage of this statute. We are trying 
to make it easier, not harder.
  Mr. HYDE. Why did the gentleman not add it, then, instead of 
substituting it, because many of us think ``in the public interest'' is 
a different standard and one could have a political conflict, a 
personal conflict, a financial conflict, but not find it in the public 
interest. There are two different standards.
  Mr. BRYANT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the answer is 
very easy. Whenever we begin to place specific language in there, we 
then place a negative inference on the remaining language.
  We have written it in such a way that the broadest possible 
interpretation allows the Attorney General to use the independent 
counsel statute to apply to a Member of Congress if she thinks it is in 
the public interest, rather than limiting it the way it is now.
  Mr. HYDE. The gentleman keeps characterizing it as the broadest 
possible, but really and truly, the public interest may well be 
different from a personal, financial, or political conflict.
  Mr. BRYANT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it is broader.
  Mr. HYDE. I think it weakens rather than strengthens the standards, 
and I just regret that the gentleman has done that. I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. BRYANT. I do not agree with that.
  Mr. GEKAS. May I inquire of the Chair the balance of the time 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman on the other side has exhausted 
his time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I pose a parliamentary inquiry to the 
Chair?
  Mr. Chairman, the so-called Gekas amendment will not receive a yes or 
no vote at this juncture, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The first vote will be on the question of the 
substitute offered by Mr. Bryant.
  Mr. GEKAS. Further inquiring of the Chair, the so-called Bryant 
amendment would in effect, if successful, meld into the so-called Gekas 
amendment and really substitute for it, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] is a substitute for the so-called Gekas amendment. The question 
on the language of the so-called Gekas amendment would only arise if 
the substitute offered by Mr. Bryant were not to succeed.
  Mr. GEKAS. So that, in further inquiry on a parliamentary basis, if 
the Members called to vote by the Chair would have the option, if they 
wanted to support the so-called Gekas amendment, they would have to 
vote no on Bryant, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has correctly stated the position. The 
so-called Gekas amendment would not arise for a vote unless the 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] were 
defeated.
  Mr. GEKAS. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, is that quite correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The answer to the gentleman's inquiry is that there could be a vote 
on the so-called Gekas amendment as amended if the substitute offered 
by the gentleman from Texas succeeded.
  Mr. GEKAS. If the so-called Bryant amendment should fail, then the 
so-called Gekas amendment would recur for a vote, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The gentleman has stated the situation 
correctly.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for the balance of his 
time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that as the Members come to the 
floor, they will picture in their mind the following scene. A high-
ranking, high-profile Member of Congress is accused of wrongdoing in 
one form or another, and that accusation, that allegation, finds itself 
on the desk of the Attorney General.
  The Attorney General, under the concept of bill and Bryant, bill/
Bryant, may decide to call for an independent counsel, may, and may 
decide not to even investigate, could quash the whole matter right at 
the Attorney General's desk, refuse to investigate, refuse to 
articulate any concern or jurisdiction over that matter.
  Envision further, I ask the Members as they come up, this high-
ranking, powerful Member of Congress happens to be of the same 
political party as the Attorney General, and the Attorney General, of 
course, is of the same political party as the President of the United 
States.
  Under bill/Bryant, if in the public interest, and if upon further 
reflection, perhaps, maybe the Attorney General might consider doing 
something about the case, is the bill and the Bryant approach, against 
which we must vote if we want to enter the proper picture in the minds 
of the Members, and that is, we have a high-ranking, powerful Member of 
Congress on whom the White House might depend for clearance of bills 
and for initiatives near and dear to the heart of the President of the 
United States, or of the Attorney General, being of the same party of 
the Attorney General and of the President of the United States, under 
the so-called Gekas amendment, accusations or allegations of wrongdoing 
against that Member of Congress will find its way to the Attorney 
General's desk, and then under the Gekas amendment law, if it should 
become law, that Attorney General must do the duties ascribed to it by 
that law and must launch an investigation into these allegations of 
wrongdoing on the part of the powerful Member of Congress. That is the 
picture.

  If Members believe they like the picture of the high-ranking Member 
of Congress looking at the Attorney General of the same party and the 
President of the United States of the same party and seeing whether or 
not that will be followed through by the Attorney General, vote yes for 
Bryant, go ahead and vote yes for Bryant.
  If you think there is something wrong with that picture, and that the 
high-ranking Member of Congress, when allegations of wrongdoing are put 
in front of his fellow partisan in the White House and the Attorney 
General, then would it not be leveling with the American people to say, 
``We are going to have a full faith and credit type of investigation, a 
just inquiry into these facts,'' because the Attorney General under the 
so-called Gekas amendment will be compelled to relegate this to an 
independent counsel appointed by a court and an individual who will be 
appointed as independent counsel, who will have no ties with the 
President, no ties with the Attorney General, and no ties with the 
high-ranking, powerful Member of Congress. That is an advance into good 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I implore the Members to keep that vision in mind and 
vote no on Bryant, bill/Bryant, bill/Bryant, no, and vote to place into 
law the vision of better Government through the so-called Gekas 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of time for a 
rollcall vote, if ordered, on the so-called Gekas amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 188, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 19]

                               AYES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     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
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefley
     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
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--188

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     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
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     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
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Andrews (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Clay
     Coleman
     de la Garza
     Derrick
     Ewing
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     McMillan
     Michel
     Morella
     Neal (NC)
     Ridge
     Slattery
     Tucker
     Washington
     Williams

                              {time}  1317

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Bilirakis against.

  Messers. DEAL, ROWLAND, and SKELTON changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii and Mrs. THURMAN changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 339, 
noes 76, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                               AYES--339

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                                NOES--76

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Coble
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Furse
     Gekas
     Gingrich
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     King
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Levy
     Linder
     McCollum
     McHugh
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Andrews (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Coleman
     de la Garza
     Duncan
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Gutierrez
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Laughlin
     McMillan
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Neal (NC)
     Ridge
     Royce
     Slattery
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Williams

                              {time}  1326

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Fazio for, with Mr. Bilirakis against.

  Messrs. ROHRABACHER, KYL, SUNDQUIST, and PAXON changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KASICH, LAZIO, and CUNNINGHAM changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Mink of Hawaii). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 103-419.


      Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 
8, an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Hyde:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Independent Counsel 
     Accountability and Reform Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION.

       Section 599 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Reauthorization Act of 1987'' and inserting 
     ``Accountability and Reform Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       Section 591(b) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) any Senator, or any Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress, or any person who has 
     served as a Senator or such a Representative, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner within the 2-year period before the 
     receipt of the information under subsection (a) with respect 
     to conduct that occurred while such person was a Senator or 
     such a Representative, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.''.

     SEC. 4. BASIS FOR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.

       (a) Initial Receipt of Information.--Section 591 of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``information'' and inserting ``specific 
     information from a credible source that is''; and
       (B) by striking ``may have'' and inserting ``has'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``information'' and inserting ``specific 
     information from a credible source that is''; and
       (B) by striking ``may have'' and inserting ``has''; and
       (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Time Period for Determining Need for Preliminary 
     Investigation.--The Attorney General shall determine, under 
     subsection (a) or (c) (or section 592(c)(2)), whether grounds 
     to investigate exist not later than 15 days after the 
     information is first received. If within that 15-day period 
     the Attorney General determines that there is insufficient 
     evidence of a violation of Federal criminal law referred to 
     in subsection (a), then the Attorney General shall close the 
     matter. If within that 15-day period the Attorney General 
     determines there is sufficient evidence of such a violation, 
     the Attorney General shall, upon making that determination, 
     commence a preliminary investigation with respect to that 
     information. If the Attorney General is unable to determine, 
     within that 15-day period, whether there is sufficient 
     evidence of such a violation, the Attorney General shall, at 
     the end of that 15-day period, commence a preliminary 
     investigation with respect to that information.''.
       (b) Receipt of Additional Information.--Section 592(c)(2) 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``information'' and inserting ``specific information from a 
     credible source that is''.

     SEC. 5. SUBPOENA POWER.

       Section 592(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``grant immunity, or issue subpoenas'' 
     and inserting ``or grant immunity, but may issue subpoenas 
     duces tecum''.

     SEC. 6. PROSECUTORIAL JURISDICTION OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

       (a) Prosecutorial Jurisdiction.--Section 593(b) of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``define'' and inserting ``, with 
     specificity, define''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``Such jurisdiction 
     shall be limited to the alleged violations of criminal law 
     with respect to which the Attorney General has requested the 
     appointment of the independent counsel, and matters directly 
     related to such criminal violations.''; and
       (2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Scope of prosecutorial jurisdiction.--In defining the 
     independent counsel's prosecutorial jurisdiction, the 
     division of the court shall assure that the independent 
     counsel has adequate authority to fully investigate and 
     prosecute the alleged violations of criminal law with respect 
     to which the Attorney General has requested the appointment 
     of the independent counsel, and matters directly related to 
     such criminal violations, including perjury, obstruction of 
     justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of 
     witnesses.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 592(d) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``subject matter 
     and all matters related to that subject matter'' and 
     inserting ``the alleged violations of criminal law with 
     respect to which the application is made, and matters 
     directly related to such criminal violations''.

     SEC. 7. USE OF STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS; STAFF OF 
                   INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

       (a) Prosecutors as Independent Counsel.--Section 593(b)(1) 
     of title 28, United States Code, as amended by section 7 of 
     this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The division of the court should strongly 
     consider exercising the authority of section 3372 of title 5 
     so that it may appoint as independent counsel prosecutors 
     from State or local governments, and the division of the 
     court may exercise the authorities of such section 3372 for 
     such purpose to the same extent as the head of a Federal 
     agency.''.
       (b) Staff of Independent Counsel.--Section 594(c) of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended by striking the last 
     sentence and inserting the following: ``Not more than 2 such 
     employees may be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate 
     of basic pay payable for level V of the Executive schedule 
     under section 5316 of title 5, and all other such employees 
     shall be compensated at rates not to exceed the maximum rate 
     of basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule under 
     section 5332 of title 5. The independent counsel should, to 
     the greatest extent possible, use personnel of the Department 
     of Justice, on a reimbursable basis, in lieu of appointing 
     employees, to carry out the duties of such independent 
     counsel. The independent counsel should also strongly 
     consider exercising the authority of section 3372 of title 5 
     so that he or she may appoint as employees under this 
     subsection prosecutors of State or local governments. In 
     order to carry out the preceding sentence, each independent 
     counsel shall, for purposes of such section 3372, be 
     considered to be the head of a Federal agency.''.

     SEC. 8. ATTORNEYS' FEES.

       Section 593(f)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``the court may'' and inserting ``the court 
     shall'';
       (2) by inserting after ``pursuant to that investigation,'' 
     the following: ``if such individual is acquitted of all 
     charges, or no conviction is obtained against such 
     individual, at a trial brought pursuant to that 
     investigation, or if the conviction of such individual at 
     such a trial is overturned on appeal,''; and
       (3) by inserting ``, trial, and appeal (if any)'' after 
     ``during that investigation''.

     SEC. 9. TREATMENT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

       Section 594(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``An independent counsel appointed under this chapter who 
     gains access to classified information shall follow all 
     procedures established by the United States Government 
     regarding the maintenance, use, and disclosure of such 
     information. The failure to follow such procedures shall be 
     grounds for removal for good cause under section 596(a)(1), 
     in addition to any penalty provided in section 798 of title 
     18 or any other law that may apply.''.

     SEC. 10. INDEPENDENT COUNSEL PER DIEM EXPENSES.

       Section 594(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Compensation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     independent counsel appointed under this chapter shall 
     receive compensation at the per diem rate not to exceed the 
     annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5.
       ``(2) Travel and lodging in washington.--An independent 
     counsel and persons appointed under subsection (c) shall not 
     be entitled to the payment of travel and subsistence expenses 
     under subchapter 1 of chapter 57 of title 5, with respect to 
     duties performed in the District of Columbia after 1 year of 
     service under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

       (a) Administrative Support.--Section 594 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(l) Administrative Services.--
       ``(1) Administrative support.--The Administrator of General 
     Services shall provide administrative support to each 
     independent counsel.
       ``(2) Office space.--The Administrator of General Services 
     shall promptly provide appropriate office space for each 
     independent counsel. Such office space shall be within a 
     Federal building unless the Administrator of General Services 
     determines that other arrangements would cost less.''.
       (b) Compliance With Policies of the Department of 
     Justice.--Section 594(f) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``, except where not possible,'' and 
     inserting ``at all times''; and
       (2) by striking ``enforcement of the criminal laws'' and 
     inserting ``the enforcement of criminal laws and the release 
     of information relating to criminal proceedings''.
       (c) Limitation on Expenditures.--Section 594 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(m) Limitation on Expenditures.--No funds may be expended 
     for the operation of any office of independent counsel after 
     the end of the 2-year period after its establishment, except 
     to the extent that an appropriations Act enacted after such 
     establishment specifically makes available funds for such 
     office for use after the end of that 2-year period.''.

     SEC. 12. PERIODIC REPORTS.

       Section 595(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``such statements'' and all that follows 
     through ``appropriate'' and inserting ``annually a report on 
     the activities of such independent counsel, including a 
     description of the progress of any investigation or 
     prosecution conducted by such independent counsel. Such 
     report need not contain information which would--
       ``(A) compromise or undermine the confidentiality of an 
     ongoing investigation under this chapter,
       ``(B) adversely affect the outcome of any prosecution under 
     this chapter, or
       ``(C) violate the personal privacy of any individual,

     but shall provide information adequate to justify the 
     expenditures which the office of that independent counsel has 
     made, and indicate in general terms the state of the work of 
     the independent counsel''.

     SEC. 13. REMOVAL, TERMINATION, AND PERIODIC REAPPOINTMENT OF 
                   INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

       (a) Grounds for Removal.--Section 596(a)(1) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Failure of the independent counsel to comply 
     with the established policies of the Department of Justice as 
     required by section 594(f) or to comply with section 594(j) 
     may be grounds for removing that independent counsel from 
     office for good cause under this subsection.''.
       (b) Termination.--Section 596(b)(2) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Termination by division of the court.--The division 
     of the court may terminate an office of independent counsel 
     at any time--
       ``(A) on its own motion,
       ``(B) upon the request of the Attorney General, or
       ``(C) upon the petition of the subject of an investigation 
     conducted by such independent counsel, if the petition is 
     made more than 2 years after the appointment of such 
     independent counsel,

     on the ground that the investigation conducted by the 
     independent counsel has been completed or substantially 
     completed and that it would be appropriate for the Department 
     of Justice to complete such investigation or to conduct any 
     prosecution brought pursuant to such investigation, or on the 
     ground that continuation of the investigation or prosecution 
     conducted by the independent counsel is not in the public 
     interest.''.
       (c) Periodic Reappointment.--Section 596 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Periodic Reappointment of Independent Counsel.--If an 
     office of independent counsel has not terminated before--
       ``(1) the date that is 2 years after the original 
     appointment to that office, or
       ``(2) the end of each succeeding 2-year period,

     such counsel shall apply to the division of the court for 
     reappointment. The court shall first determine whether the 
     office of that independent counsel should be terminated under 
     subsection (b)(2). If the court determines that such office 
     will not be terminated under such subsection, the court shall 
     reappoint the applicant if the court determines that such 
     applicant remains the appropriate person to carry out the 
     duties of the office. If not, the court shall appoint some 
     other person whom it considers qualified under the standards 
     set forth in section 593 of this title. If the court has not 
     taken the actions required by this subsection within 90 days 
     after the end of the applicable 2-year period, then that 
     office of independent counsel shall terminate at the end of 
     that 90-day period.''.

     SEC. 14. JOB PROTECTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS UNDER INVESTIGATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 597 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by amending the section caption to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 597. Relationship with Department of Justice; job 
       protection for individuals under investigation''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Job Protection for Individuals Under Investigation.--
       ``(1) Prohibited personnel practice.--It shall be a 
     prohibited personnel practice for an employee of the United 
     States Government who has authority to take, direct others to 
     take, recommend, or approve any personnel action (as defined 
     in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5) with respect to an 
     individual described in paragraph (2) who is the subject of 
     an investigation or prosecution under this chapter, to take 
     or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, such a 
     personnel action with respect to such individual, on account 
     of such investigation or prosecution.
       ``(2) Applicability.--The individuals referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are individuals other than--
       ``(A) any person described in section 591(a); and
       ``(B) any employee of the Federal Government whose position 
     is excepted from the competitive service on the basis of its 
     confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-
     advocating character.
       ``(3) Exemption.--Paragraph (1) does not apply in the case 
     of an individual who is convicted of a criminal offense 
     pursuant to an investigation or prosecution described in 
     paragraph (1), unless such conviction is overturned on 
     appeal.
       ``(4) Remedies.--An individual with respect to whom a 
     prohibited personnel practice applies under paragraph (1) may 
     seek corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board to the same extent as an employee may seek corrective 
     action under section 1221 of title 5 (including subsection 
     (h) of such section), except that, for purposes of such 
     section, any reference to section 2302(b)(8) of title 5 shall 
     be deemed to refer to paragraph (1) of this subsection, and 
     any reference to a disclosure under such section 2302(b)(8) 
     shall be deemed to refer to an investigation or prosecution 
     described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 597 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 40 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``597. Relationship with Department of Justice; job protection for 
              individuals under investigation.''.

     SEC. 15. EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF CHAPTER.

       Section 599 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``, or until 120 days have elapsed, whichever is 
     earlier'' after ``completed''.

     SEC. 16. GAO REPORT.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit 
     to the Congress, not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a report setting forth recommendations 
     of ways to improve controls on costs of offices of 
     independent counsel under chapter 40 of title 28, United 
     States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and a Member 
opposed will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is 
nearly the last vote we will have on this very significant piece of 
legislation, the reauthorization of the independent counsel statute. My 
substitute, in my opinion, makes it a better bill. I am for the 
concept, I have always been for the concept, I voted for this when it 
was first presented back in 1978, and I have voted for it in every 
succeeding time that it has been presented. I think we should have 
learned something from experience. We should have learned from history 
how this bill has operated, and now we have an opportunity to sand off 
the rough edges, an opportunity to fine-tune it, to make it a better 
law, a more effective law.
  Madam Chairman, I suggest nobody can accuse me of trying to 
eviscerate, diminish or demean or weaken this independent counsel law.
  I ask you to put partisanship aside. I know it is difficult, 
difficult for all of us, but try to make this a better bill, try to go 
to school on the experience we have had under the most recent 
independent counsel operation.

                              {time}  1330

  This substitute is about reform, congressional reform. It is about 
accountability, budgetary accountability, and personal, professional 
accountability of the independent counsel. And it is about due process 
of law. These are things that ought to concern us mightily.
  Under the old, and I will call it the Walsh law because it is the law 
that Judge Walsh operated under, its reincarnation, which is what we 
are about today, I suggest this will be too costly without the reforms 
in my substitute. It is too open-ended and, thus, violates due process 
or has the potential to violate due process, and it is too easily 
manipulated.
  I ask anybody who is listening to me to tell me if they do not think 
the indictment of former Secretary Weinberger 3 days before the 
election was not political. Now, one may say, ``Secretary Weinberger 
ought to have been indicted.'' One could say that if they wish. But the 
timing 3 days before the election, I suggest to anybody, was 
manipulation, political manipulation, and, if it can happen to 
Secretary Weinberger, it can happen to my colleagues, and we ought to 
prevent that type of politicization of this very important office of 
independent counsel.

  Now the reason for this law is that no man or woman should be above 
the law. That only makes sense. I say to my colleagues, ``Whether you 
hold high office in the executive branch or not, nobody should be above 
the law, but let us not create an office where the office holder, the 
independent counsel, is above the law, and I fear that's what we have 
done. We have created Dr. Frankenstein in creating an office that is 
not accountable to the Congress, to the Justice Department, to the 
Committee on Appropriations, to anybody of indefinite duration, 7 years 
and $40 million.''
  I suggest we, as the trustees of the tax dollars of the people we 
represent, have a duty to put some accountability into this important 
office of independent counsel as well as fairness, due process, 
accountability, cost controls and congressional reform.
  Now the first thing in my bill, my substitute, is mandatory 
congressional coverage. We have just voted twice on the Bryant bill, 
and the Bryant bill provides optional congressional coverage. I suggest 
to my colleagues that the American people, not the American Bar 
Association, the American people, want Congress to cover itself with 
the same laws that have applied to other people, in this case a small 
few people in the executive department, but political conflicts of 
interest can arise not only just within the executive, but within 
Congress. The people want us to be covered by this law, and this is the 
only chance my colleagues will get to vote on mandatory coverage of 
Members of Congress. It is not 535 Members because, if my substitute 
passes, it will be only those Members, and may they be few, about whom 
specific evidence from a credible source has been adduced that a 
Federal crime has been violated.
  Second, Madam Chairman, effective cost controls. We need 
accountability from the Office of Independent Counsel. The independent 
counsel has to have some oversight, some restraints, and there are none 
in the bill that we are about to reauthorize if my substitute is 
defeated. My substitute requires a submission to the Committee on 
Appropriations for further money, further millions of dollars, after 2 
years. In the first 2 years the independent counsel can go right ahead 
as he or she wishes. But, after 2 years, for goodness sake come 
forward, and come to the Congress, the steward of tax dollars, and ask 
for the money, and make a showing that the money has been spent well 
and that the money will be spent well in the future with effective cost 
controls.
  Treatment of classified information:
  It is outrageous what has happened to classified information in the 
last independent counsel's conduct of the office both in court and out 
of court. Now the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] to his credit 
emphasizes in the bill and through an amendment that the rules and 
regulations dealing with classified information must be followed. What 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] omits is a sanction, and my 
amendment provides the sanction of removal if these rules and 
regulations are ignored.
  Another thing:
  I say to my colleagues, ``When you are appointed independent counsel, 
you don't have a hunting license to kill elephants and woodchucks. You 
should have a specific jurisdiction that is defined. You shouldn't go 
roaming through the forest with an Uzi shooting everything that moves. 
There should be focus, there should be direction, and you should have a 
jurisdiction that is defined, not one of these general jurisdictional 
grants that permits you to go on, and on, and on against anyone and 
everything,'' So, Madam Chairman, I am asking for focus, jurisdiction 
defined.

  Now we have already debated, my colleagues, the gentlemen from Texas, 
Mr Bryant and Mr. Brooks, and I, my amendment which was previously 
offered as a freestanding amendment to require, before the preliminary 
investigation, the 15 days' lapse, that specific evidence, not just 
information, and it must be from a credible source, not from anybody, 
that a Federal law has been violated, not may have been violated. Now, 
once that threshold is crossed, it seems to me that we can make a 
determination thereafter, one by the Attorney General, that 
insufficient evidence exists and no independent counsel need be 
appointed. But make the threshold high, make it at the outset, so this 
whole operation is not triggered for less than specific evidence from a 
credible source.
  Duration of an investigation, 7 years:
  Judge Walsh went on, and maybe 7 years was called for. I will not 
even comment on that. But somebody ought to take a look at this after a 
few years and say, ``Yes, go ahead,'' or, ``You've done your job. Fold 
up your tent,'' And what I am suggesting is that after 2 years a review 
of the appointment is made, and the court must reappoint the office or 
it expires.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Maybe you don't like the 2 years, but 2 
years ought to be enough to justify going forward or folding up.''
  Attorney fees:
  One of the great injustices in our system of justice is that people 
who are targets of investigation who get indicted, who get tried and 
who are found not guilty, are left with the satisfaction that they are 
not guilty and with enormous legal fees that never get paid, and they 
never get out from under. I suggest that if that happens, Madam 
Chairman, if someone is found not guilty or if someone is found guilty 
and their conviction is reversed, they get their attorney fees. That is 
the least we can do to make people whole who have been through a 
hellish adventure and experience, and those fees are set by the court. 
That is only fair. That is due process. That is reauthorization.
  My colleagues, a prosecutor ought to be as zealous to protect the 
innocent as to prosecute the guilty. That is due process. That is 
fairness. And I am suggesting, if we circumscribe this omnipotent power 
that the independent counsel is given, that we restrain it in a 
budgetary way, in an accountability way, and, if we expand the coverage 
to include ourselves, because we can be as capable, as much as some 
person working over in the Executive Office Building of violating a 
Federal law, then we will have done a good day's work.

                              {time}  1340

  Madam Chairman, I suggest to the Members that this improves the bill. 
It does not eviscerate it, it does not hobble it, but it makes it a 
fairer bill and it is respectful of the taxpayers' interests.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Mink). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Brooks] is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BROOKS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
require.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Madam Chairman, as I said earlier, the independent 
counsel statute is an important law and it should be reauthorized. 
However, the law which expired has not fulfilled its purpose due to 
shortcomings in the former statute. We need to reform this law if we 
are to reauthorize it here today.
  The Hyde substitute embraces virtually every issue debated and voted 
on in the Judiciary Committee. It represents a responsible and 
comprehensive reform package that will improve this law and make it a 
better law than the one that expired in 1992. Colleagues, this 
substitute is the only comprehensive reform measure that we will be 
voting on today.
  Accountability and cost control, as I stated in opening the debate on 
this bill, are central to improving the independent counsel function. 
Madam Chairman, these are they key concepts of the Hyde substitute. For 
example, the substitute provides that after 2 years each independent 
counsel shall become subject to the annual appropriations process. This 
is a responsible cost control intended to avoid runway investigations 
such as Iran-Contra, which spent over $39 million. If the substitute 
passes, the independent counsel will be subject to congressional 
oversight and the appropriations process.
  Additionally, under the Hyde substitute, every 2 years the 
independent counsel would have to apply to the court for reappointment. 
If the court determines that the investigation should continue and that 
the specific independent counsel remains the appropriate individual to 
carry on the investigation, by reappointing that individual, the court 
adds to his credibility. This provision is about accountability and 
review, and will allow us to avoid irresponsible fishing expeditions 
that last for years.
  Madam Chairman, the Hyde substitute would require that independent 
counsel comply at all times with the established policies of the 
Department of Justice with respect to the enforcement of criminal law. 
This is an amendment which I offered at the Judiciary Committee, and 
which closes a substantial loophole found in H.R. 811.
  Madam Chairman, there should be no exception for a Federal prosecutor 
with respect to Justice Department criminal enforcement policies. We 
should not provide anyone the authority to avoid compliance with 
established prosecutorial policy as set forth in the U.S. attorneys 
manual or the Code of Federal Regulations. The independent counsel, 
Madam Chairman, was intended to merely step into the shoes of our other 
duly appointed Federal prosecutors, and as such should not be made the 
beneficiary of a lesser standard regarding criminal prosecution.
  Finally, ignoring our experience under the prior law, H.R. 811 does 
nothing to safeguard the handling of national security information and 
classified documents. During the independent counsel's Iran-Contra 
investigation, numerous shortcomings in this area became evident. For 
example CIA cables--with highly sensitive markings--were released as 
exhibits during trials; in a motion to quash a subpoena, a covert agent 
was identified by name, and highly sensitive classified documents were 
inexplicably lost at the Los Angeles International Airport. At a 
minimum, we should make it clear that an independent counsel must fully 
comply with Federal law and regulations regarding the handling and 
disclosure of classified information. Most importantly, if there is 
failure to comply, then removal should occur. The problem with the 
Brooks amendment which passed yesterday regarding this issue, is that 
it imposes no sanction if an independent counsel fails to follow the 
low or applicable regulations on handling national security documents. 
As a practical matter, we cannot realistically expect that a special 
prosecutor will be prosecuted for violating 18 U.S.C. 798. The only 
realistic sanction in these kinds of circumstances is to make the 
independent counsel subject to removal for good cause--just as my good 
friend from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, proposes.
  Madam Chairman, I say to my colleagues the purposes of the 
independent counsel law was to restore public faith in our system of 
government and to ensure a fair and impartial system of justice. This 
substitute provides us the opportunity to vote for real reform of this 
important law and allows us the opportunity to make the independent 
counsel more accountable to the public. If we forego the opportunity to 
reform this law and instead allow it to remain vulnerable to the 
criticisms that it is arbitrary, too costly and unfair, then the very 
purpose of the law will be undermined. I encourage my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on the Hyde substitute.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking Republican member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish].
  (Mr. FISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FISH. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time 
to me.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute offered by the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. While I do not 
question his sincerity in putting forth this substitute, I must 
nevertheless say what it is: A radical, broadside attach on every 
aspect of the independent counsel process and authority. Parts of this 
substitute have already been offered as individual amendments, and have 
been already defeated. We need to do the same thing here.
  The independent counsel statute was devised to ensure the 
independence of action by judicially appointed counsel without 
interference by Congress or the executive branch. Yet, the Hyde 
substitute creates a new, untested legal standard for the use of the 
independent counsel process. The House earlier today defeated the 
gentleman's separate amendment on this issue.
  The substitute also includes the text of the Gekas amendment--which, 
again, the House defeated earlier today. This part of the Hyde 
substitute would take away the double-barrelled power of the Attorney 
General to prosecute Members of Congress when prosecution by the 
Justice Department would be more appropriate than use of the 
independent counsel process.
  At the same time, the substitute gives an extraordinary option to the 
subject of an investigation: It allows the target of investigation to 
be able to petition the court to terminate the investigation, and to do 
so as frequently and as often as the subject wants. I wonder what U.S. 
attorneys and local prosecutors would think about the concept.
  The substitute further requires that all independent counsel 
investigations lasting more than 2 years be tied directly to the 
appropriations process in Congress, thus politicizing the tenure of an 
independent counsel to congressional whim. Does this mean Congress can 
put a rider on a 1200-page appropriation bill and shut down an 
independent counsel investigation? It sure does.
  While H.R. 811 controls costs in the manner recommended by the 
General Accounting Office, the Hyde substitute fails to include those 
administrative and cost control provisions--including the appointment 
of a certifying employee for expenditures.
  The substitute has many other infirmities, but I hope the case has 
been made against it. Suffice it to say, passage of the Hyde substitute 
would be the functional equivalent of the Republican strategy last 
Congress--which was to render the independent counsel statute a 
nullity. I urge you to cast a ``nay'' vote.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, more accountability is necessary in 
the Office of Independent Counsel than this bill provides. The Hyde 
amendment corrects that.
  Since 1978 a permanent, indefinite appropriation within justice has 
existed to fund expenditures by independent counsels. This is a formula 
for abuse.
  We have the power today to prevent history from repeating itself. No 
one should have the unbridled authority possessed by Lawrence Walsh 
during the Iran-Contra investigation. The General Accounting Office 
found during its financial audit of Judge Walsh's investigation that 
many of the expenses incurred were inconsistent with laws and 
regulations.
  For instance, GAO computations showed that Mr. Walsh received 
reimbursements in excess of the amounts he should have received. Based 
on records provided by Mr. Walsh, GAO calculated that the total amount 
of unallowable reimbursements for lodging and meals for Judge Walsh was 
approximately $78,000 more than the allowable per diem rate.
  For at least his first 2 years as independent counsel, Mr. Walsh was 
reimbursed for first class air travel--while most businesses are flying 
their executives economy class.
  GAO concluded in its report that the problems they found in not only 
Walsh's investigation but eight other independent counsel 
investigations ``Showed a serious breakdown in the accountability over 
independent counsel administrative operation.''
  As written, H.R. 811 is too costly and easily subject to abuse by 
independent counsels who choose to wield their power as a political 
weapon. This statute needs real accountability and cost controls--H.S. 
811 does not go far enough to attain that goal.
  That is why I support provisions in the Hyde substitute which require 
the independent counsel to reapply for appointment every 2 years; place 
cost controls on independent counsels by making them subject to the 
annual appropriations process after 2 years; limit staff salaries and 
travel expenses; require each independent counsel to follow established 
Department of justice policies with respect to expenditures and 
personnel; and allow the appointing court to terminate an independent 
counsel's office when it is in the public interest.
  The Hyde substitute contains safeguards to prevent the abuses of 
power cited in the GAO report. It is clear that independent counsels 
must be held more accountable for their expenditures. The Hyde 
amendment accomplishes that goal.
  Mr. BROOKS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], a member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I think I can safely say this, and then we can yield 
back all the time and hopefully get to a vote. Most of the Members have 
heard this over and over again. Let me reiterate what the Hyde 
amendment does. It absolutely guts everything we have done so far 
today. So if you want to gut it, this is the thing you want to vote 
for.
  Madam Chairman, remember what we are trying to do today. We are 
trying to reinstate what we did before, which is to find a way that we 
can have a judicially appointed counsel that can be independent and not 
interfered with by either the Congress or the executive branch. If you 
like that concept, then you should vote ``no,'' because what this does 
is take that and stand it on its head.
  It allows interference by the Congress in a lot of different ways. It 
has some new, untested legal standards, as the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Brooks], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, pointed 
out earlier.
  It also ties this to the appropriations cycle of 2 years. That might 
sound a little political. It seems to me Members of Congress run every 
2 years. Could that be what it is about? I am sure it is not. If I 
sound like I am being a little facetious with tongue in cheek, I am.
  Nevertheless, that is what I am talking about when I say it takes 
away the independence of this judicially appointed counsel that we are 
so concerned about and want to reinstate for 5 years in this bill.
  Madam Chairman, it does some other things. It takes away the ability 
of the Attorney General to have a double-barreled shot at any Member of 
Congress. It only gives her one shot. They can do it with an 
independent counsel, but they cannot use U.S. attorneys. They cannot do 
those types of things.
  Madam Chairman, I could go on and on. The chairman listed it at the 
beginning. I know there are Dear Colleagues out. I think one of the 
problems has been we have been talking about everything except what the 
amendment does. If you want to gut the bill, you should vote for this. 
I do not. I think this is a bill that we should have passed last time. 
I think it is very important, and we should proceed.
  The final thing that I was very surprised the amendment did, is it 
took out the part of the bill that really put fiscal responsibility 
into it. What this bill says, if it is allowed to stand, is you appoint 
an employee to make sure the funds are being spent properly. If that 
employee does not do it, they have to repay. This does not have that in 
it. So if you vote for the Hyde amendment, you are, one more time, 
allowing for this money to come out, and no one knows exactly how it is 
spent.
  Madam Chairman, I would encourage Members to vote ``no'' and get on 
with it, and finally reinstate the independent counsel bill, which has 
had a long and distinguished trial period. I think we have found it has 
worked very well. Let us keep it working in the way that we had 
anticipated.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] for his 
handling of this.
  Mr. BROOKS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman, I am glad we are moving to the end of 
this debate. I think it has been a good debate. We have strong words 
that have been spoken throughout it. Strong feelings, of course, exist 
on both sides. In fact, we are trying to pass a bill today that has a 
15-year history, a noble history. We would like to see it reinstated 
basically as it has functioned in the past. The bill that is on the 
floor today would accomplish that, with some notable improvements that 
I think are constructive and respond to what we have learned during the 
operation of the statute during the last 15 years.
  The Hyde substitute which is before us for the next vote, in my view, 
would move us away from what we have learned with regard to the 
operation of the act, and I think take us away also from common sense.
  One point that has been made well here, and ought to be made again, 
is that if you do what is in the Hyde substitute and include mandatory 
coverage of Members of Congress, rather than keeping it optional, and 
also require Congress to vote every year on the appropriation for the 
independent counsel, then obviously you will be building into the law 
an enormous conflict of interest. I do not think that is workable in 
any way, and I am not sure that has been thought through, even by the 
author.
  Members should also be aware that the Hyde substitute does not 
contain the cost controls that are found in the existing bill, which is 
ironic, since the alleged extravagant expenditures of funds by Mr. 
Walsh's investigation have been raised as an argument to change the 
law.
  Under H.R. 811, an independent counsel is required to conduct all 
activities with due regard for expense. That provision is not in the 
Hyde substitute. Under the bill before us, H.R. 811, an independent 
counsel can authorize only reasonable and lawful expenditures. That is 
not in the Hyde substitute. And under H.R. 811, the bill before us, an 
independent counsel must assign a specific employee to certify that 
expenditures are reasonable and made in accordance with law, and that 
is not in the Hyde substitute.
  The bill before us provides a very reasonable and meaningful 
structure within which we can guarantee that expenditures in the future 
will be prudent and will be consistent with the public interest.
  I urge the Members not to vote to change that. I urge Members to vote 
against the Hyde substitute. Let us reinstate a law that has worked 
well for 15 years. With the changes that we have made, based upon what 
we have learned in the last 15 years, it will make it even better.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Hyde substitute and to vote 
``aye'' in favor of H.R. 811.
  Mr. BROOKS. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Just a couple of very brief comments.
  Somebody said this would render the bill a nullity. Why in the world 
would we Republicans want to weaken the Office of Independent Counsel, 
now that the administration of the folks from Arkansas are in power? We 
want an independent counsel, oh, how we want a strong independent 
counsel law. Please understand that.
  Second, the gentlewoman from Colorado says my substitute guts the 
bill. Well, it is true. It does put accountability in. It does require 
some oversight over the millions of dollars that one of these special 
creatures, who is very much above the law, can spend. If coming to 
Congress for appropriations after 2 years is somehow a bad move, then 
so be it. Do not vote for accountability. But 7 years and $40 million 
for the Iran Contra hearings and producing dust, it just seems to me 
that is not very responsible on our part.
  I want to make one last appeal to the freshmen, who came here hell-
bent for reform. We are going to reform the way this place operates. 
Here is their chance. Here is the first vote of this session on real 
reform, to include mandatorily Members of Congress under the blanket, 
under the mantle of the independent counsel law. Think about that as 
they cast their vote.
  Mr. MICHEL. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde 
substitute.
  We have now had several years of experience with the independent 
counsel statute and it seems to me we have yet to learn the lessons of 
history. Mr. Hyde, great student of history himself, rights those 
wrongs in his substitute.
  Make no mistake about it, the Hyde substitute is the only way left to 
dramatically improve this bill. If this substitute is defeated, this 
House will leave untouched the abuses of past prosecutors and the 
vicious attacks against decent public servants. We will have forsaken 
our oversight responsibilities once again.
  The Congress, without the Hyde amendment, will forfeit once again its 
constitutional responsibilities of oversight. Nowhere in our Government 
today is there a more autonomous office than that of the independent 
counsels.
  We all knew that Lawrence Walsh dangled plea bargains in front of 
lesser targets. His weapon was not justice, it was money.
  Plead guilty to a minor infraction, Mr. Walsh would say, or face 
years of legal battles to save your name and reputation at a cost that 
will leave you virtually bankrupt.

  What an abuse of power, and Congress couldn't do anything about it.
  We all knew that Lawrence Walsh was renting an apartment at the 
Watergate Hotel, traveled first class, and paid staff top dollar, and 
we couldn't do anything about it.
  We all knew that Mr. Walsh had carelessly lost highly classified 
information and that he attempted to coverup this embarrassment, and 
Congress couldn't do anything about it.
  We all knew that Lawrence Walsh had tired and had turned over day-to-
day operations to his bitterly partisan deputy--and we couldn't do 
anything about it.
  We all knew that Lawrence Walsh had essentially completed his 
investigation years ago, but we couldn't do anything about it.
  We all knew Mr. Walsh was incompetent and Congress couldn't do 
anything about it.
  We all knew Lawrence Walsh was spending, or wasting, upwards of $40 
million dollars, and couldn't do anything about it.
  We all knew that Lawrence Walsh wanted to nab George Bush. Where else 
did the leak come from about the Weinberger notes? These were notes 
that Mr. Weinberger himself told Mr. Walsh existed and could be found 
at the Library of Congress, notes that Mr. Walsh's deputies looked 
through but missed the critical information that Mr. Walsh later 
claimed Mr. Weinberger concealed.
  Congress created a legal bully and watched helplessly as rogue 
prosecutors destroyed reputations.
  Do any of you remember Ray Donovan, the former Secretary of Labor. He 
endured two trials and was ultimately found not guilty. At the 
conclusion of his long ordeal he painfully asked ``tell me where I go 
to get my reputation back?''
  And Congress, in adopting the Hyde substitute, will be getting back 
at least part of its reputation as a responsible and effective 
institution.
  I say to my colleagues that I can support a prosecutor who is 
independent of the executive branch, but it is our responsibility to 
carefully craft that office so its mission is defined, its legal 
parameters clear, the rights of the targets are the same in any 
investigation, that we do not unleash a rogue operation, and that we 
maintain proper oversight and that, yes, covers the Congress.
  I maintain that only in the Hyde substitute has the Congress 
adequately achieved these goals. I urge the adoption of the Hyde 
substitute.
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Mink). All time having expired, the 
question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 238, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 21]

                               AYES--181

     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
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     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
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     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
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Andrews (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Kennedy
     Laughlin
     Lloyd
     McMillan
     Michel
     Neal (NC)
     Ridge
     Slattery
     Washington

                              {time}  1424

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ewing for, with Mr. Washington against.

  Messrs. LIPINSKI, HAMBURG, RUSH, and WISE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GRANDY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Mink of Hawaii). The question is on 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Cardin) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 811) to reauthorize the independent counsel law for an additional 
5 years, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 352 she 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GEKAS. I am opposed to it as presently framed, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gekas moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 811) to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     bill back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 9, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 14 
     on page 10 and insert the following:

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       Section 591(b) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) any Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress, or any person who has 
     served as a Senator, a Representative, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner within the 2-year period before the receipt of 
     the information under subsection (a) with respect to conduct 
     that occurred while such person was a Senator, a 
     Representative, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner.''.

  Mr. GEKAS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] 
is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, we have just gone through a very tortuous 
exercise in the Gekas amendment as amended by Bryant, and so we never 
had the opportunity to clearly define or to vote up or down on the 
Gekas amendment, which is opposite in notion to that which the bill 
carries. Once again, this will be our opportunity to vote yes or no, up 
or down on the Gekas amendment.

                              {time}  1430

  Once again, the picture I want to paint here is this: As you prepare 
to vote, consider this, consider that you see in front of you a high-
ranking Member of Congress against whom some allegations have been made 
and which allegations reach the desk of the Attorney General.
  Under the bill that has been now amended by Bryant which really 
returns to the original language of the bill, the Bryant bill language 
under that, the Attorney General does not have any duty at all to move 
those allegations but has utmost discretion to deal with it as the 
Attorney General wants to do.
  Consider the alternative: The Gekas amendment, when these allegations 
are made against this high-ranking Member of Congress, the Attorney 
General, upon seeing them, must act on it. And why? Because we make the 
language comparable to that that is applicable to Members of the 
Cabinet.
  When the high-ranking Member of Congress is of the same party as the 
Attorney General and the Attorney General, of course, has been 
appointed by the President, all three being in the same party, if these 
is not conflict of interest there certainly is the appearance of 
conflict of interest. That is what the Gekas amendment cures. It gives 
to the American people the opportunity to say, ``Yes for Congress. It 
has finally acted to bring a sense of proportion and justice to its 
procedures at least in one area, that of independent counsel.''
  I ask for a yes vote on the motion to recommit, because in doing so, 
you are restoring the faith of the American people in the ability of 
Congress to treat its Members as all other citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardin). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Brooks] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to 
recommit.
  The Members of this body have spoken loudly and clearly on the 
application of the independent-counsel statute through the Members of 
Congress. They have voted, we have voted, this afternoon to cover all 
Members of the U.S. Congress through the Bryant amendment by a vote of 
339 to 76.
  They also voted against the Gekas amendment and the Hyde amendment.
  I do not think we need to take up any more time. We know what we want 
to do. Let us kill the motion to recommit, pass the bill, and I am 
going to Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 230, answered, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               AYES--183

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     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)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     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
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bilirakis
     Clayton
     Coleman
     de la Garza
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Laughlin
     Markey
     Matsui
     McMillan
     Michel
     Neal (NC)
     Ridge
     Slattery
     Washington

                              {time}  1450

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bilirakis for, with Mr. Andrews (TX) against.
       Mr. Ewing for, with Mr. Washington against.

  Mr. SKELTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardin). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 356, 
noes 56, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 23]

                               AYES--356

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--56

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Coble
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Gekas
     Gingrich
     Goodling
     Grams
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     King
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Linder
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Solomon
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Walker
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baker (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Clayton
     Coleman
     de la Garza
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Laughlin
     McMillan
     Michel
     Neal (NC)
     Ridge
     Roth
     Slattery
     Talent
     Washington

                              {time}  1459

  Mr. NUSSLE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOBSON, SMITH of Michigan, ROYCE, and BURTON of Indiana 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 352, I call up from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 
24) to reauthorize the independent counsel law for an additional 5 
years, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.


                      motion offered by mr. brooks

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Brooks moves to strike out all after the enacting 
     clause of the Senate bill, S. 24, and insert in lieu thereof 
     the provisions of H.R. 811 as passed by the House, as 
     follows:

                                 S. 24

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Independent Counsel 
     Reauthorization Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR REAUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Reauthorization.--Section 599 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``1987'' and inserting 
     ``1993''.
       (b) Effectiveness of Statute.--Chapter 40 of title 28, 
     United States Code, shall be effective, on and after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, as if the authority for such 
     chapter had not expired before such date.

     SEC. 3. ADDED CONTROLS.

       (a) Cost Controls and Administrative Support.--Section 594 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Cost Controls and Administrative Support.--
       ``(1) Cost controls.--
       ``(A) In general.--An independent counsel shall--
       ``(i) conduct all activities with due regard for expense;
       ``(ii) authorize only reasonable and lawful expenditures; 
     and
       ``(iii) promptly, upon taking office, assign to a specific 
     employee the duty of certifying that expenditures of the 
     independent counsel are reasonable and made in accordance 
     with law.
       ``(B) Department of justice policies.--An independent 
     counsel shall comply with the established policies of the 
     Department of Justice respecting expenditures of funds, 
     except to the extent that compliance would be inconsistent 
     with the purposes of this chapter.
       ``(2) Administrative support.--The Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall 
     provide administrative support and guidance to each 
     independent counsel. No officer or employee of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall 
     disclose information related to an independent counsel's 
     expenditures, personnel, or administrative acts or 
     arrangements without the authorization of the independent 
     counsel.
       ``(3) Office space.--The Administrator of General Services, 
     in consultation with the Director of the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts, shall promptly provide 
     appropriate office space for each independent counsel. Such 
     office space shall be within a Federal building unless the 
     Administrator of General Services determines that other 
     arrangements would cost less.''.
       (b) Independent Counsel Per Diem Expenses.--Section 594(b) 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``An independent counsel'' and inserting
       ``(1) In general.--An independent counsel''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Travel expenses.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3), an independent counsel and persons appointed under 
     subsection (c) shall be entitled to the payment of travel 
     expenses as provided by subchapter 1 of chapter 57 of title 
     5, including travel or transportation expenses in accordance 
     with section 5703 of title 5.
       ``(3) Travel to primary office.--An independent counsel and 
     any person appointed under subsection (c) shall not be 
     entitled to the payment of travel and subsistence expenses 
     under subchapter 1 of chapter 57 of title 5 with respect to 
     duties performed in the city in which the primary office of 
     that independent counsel or person is located after 1 year of 
     service by that independent counsel or person (as the case 
     may be) under this chapter unless the employee assigned 
     duties under subsection (l)(1)(A)(iii) certifies that the 
     payment is in the public interest to carry out the purposes 
     of this chapter. Any such certification shall be effective 
     for 6 months, but may be renewed for additional periods of 6-
     months each if, for each such renewal, the employee assigned 
     duties under subsection (l)(1)(A)(iii) makes a 
     recertification with respect to the public interest described 
     in the preceding sentence. In making any certification or 
     recertification under this paragraph with respect to travel 
     and subsistence expenses of an independent counsel or person 
     appointed under subsection (c), such employee shall consider, 
     among other relevant factors--
       ``(A) the cost to the Government of reimbursing such travel 
     and subsistence expenses;
       ``(B) the period of time for which the independent counsel 
     anticipates that the activities of the independent counsel or 
     person, as the case may be, will continue;
       ``(C) the personal and financial burdens on the independent 
     counsel or person, as the case may be, of relocating so that 
     such travel and subsistence expenses would not be incurred; 
     and
       ``(D) the burdens associated with appointing a new 
     independent counsel, or appointing another person under 
     subsection (c), to replace the individual involved who is 
     unable or unwilling to so relocate.

     An employee making a certification or recertification under 
     this paragraph shall be liable for an invalid certification 
     or recertification to the same extent as a certifying 
     official certifying a voucher is liable under section 3528 of 
     title 31.''.
       (c) Independent Counsel Employee Pay Comparability.--
     Section 594(c) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the last sentence and inserting the following: 
     ``Such employees shall be compensated at levels not to exceed 
     those payable for comparable positions in the Office of 
     United States Attorney for the District of Columbia under 
     sections 548 and 550, but in no event shall any such employee 
     be compensated at a rate greater than the rate of basic pay 
     payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5.''.
       (d) Ethics Enforcement.--Section 594(j) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) Enforcement.--The Attorney General and the Director 
     of the Office of Government Ethics have authority to enforce 
     compliance with this subsection.''.
       (e) Compliance With Policies of the Department of 
     Justice.--Section 594(f) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``shall, except where not possible, 
     comply'' and inserting ``shall, except to the extent that to 
     do so would be inconsistent with the purposes of this 
     chapter, comply''.
       (f) Publication of Reports.--Section 594(h) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Publication of reports.--At the request of an 
     independent counsel, the Public Printer shall cause to be 
     printed any report previously released to the public under 
     paragraph (2). The independent counsel shall certify the 
     number of copies necessary for the public, and the Public 
     Printer shall place the cost of the required number to the 
     debit of such independent counsel. Additional copies shall be 
     made available to the public through the Superintendent of 
     Documents sales program under section 1702 of title 44 and 
     the depository library program under section 1903 of such 
     title.''; and
       (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``appropriate'' the second place it appears and inserting 
     ``in the public interest, consistent with maximizing public 
     disclosure, ensuring a full explanation of independent 
     counsel activities and decisionmaking, and facilitating the 
     release of information and materials which the independent 
     counsel has determined should be disclosed''.
       (g) Annual Reports to Congress.--Section 595(a)(2) of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended by striking ``such 
     statements'' and all that follows through ``appropriate'' and 
     inserting ``annually a report on the activities of the 
     independent counsel, including a description of the progress 
     of any investigation or prosecution conducted by the 
     independent counsel. Such report may omit any matter that in 
     the judgment of the independent counsel should be kept 
     confidential, but shall provide information adequate to 
     justify the expenditures that the office of the independent 
     counsel has made''.
       (h) Periodic Reappointment of Independent Counsel.--Section 
     596(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``If the 
     Attorney General has not made a request under this paragraph, 
     the division of the court shall determine on its own motion 
     whether termination is appropriate under this paragraph not 
     later than 3 years after the appointment of an independent 
     counsel and at the end of each succeeding 3-year period.''.
       (i) Audits by the Comptroller General.--Section 596(c) of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Audits.--By December 31 of each year, an independent 
     counsel shall prepare a statement of expenditures for the 
     fiscal year that ended on the immediately preceding September 
     30. An independent counsel whose office is terminated prior 
     to the end of the fiscal year shall prepare a statement of 
     expenditures by the date that is 90 days after the date on 
     which the office is terminated. The Comptroller General shall 
     audit each such statement and shall, not later than March 31 
     of the year following the submission of any such statement, 
     report the results of each audit to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary and the Committee on Government Operations of the 
     House of Representatives and to the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.''.

     SEC. 4. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       Section 591(c) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by indenting paragraphs (1) and (2) two ems to the 
     right and by redesignating such paragraphs as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``The Attorney'' and all that follows 
     through ``if--'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may conduct a 
     preliminary investigation in accordance with section 592 if--
     ''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Members of congress.--When the Attorney General 
     determines that it would be in the public interest, the 
     Attorney General may conduct a preliminary investigation in 
     accordance with section 592 if the Attorney General receives 
     information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate 
     whether a Member of Congress may have violated any Federal 
     criminal law other than a violation classified as a Class B 
     or C misdemeanor or an infraction.''.

     SEC. 5. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL.

       Section 596(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``physical disability, mental 
     incapacity'' and inserting ``physical or mental disability 
     (consistent with prohibitions on discrimination otherwise 
     imposed by law)''.

     SEC. 6. NATIONAL SECURITY.

       Section 597 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) National Security.--An independent counsel shall 
     comply with guidelines and procedures used by the Department 
     in the handling and use of classified materials.''.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall become effective on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The motion was agreed to.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.
  A similar House bill (H.R. 811) was laid on the table.


                  appointment of conferees on h.r. 811

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 352, I move that the House insist on its amendments to the 
Senate bill, S. 24, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardin). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  The motion was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Brooks, Bryant, Glickman, Frank of 
Massachusetts, Fish, Hyde, and Gekas.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________