[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7540-H7545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3166) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to 
the crime of false statement in a Government matter, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3166

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Government Accountability 
     Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF FALSE STATEMENT PENALTIES.

       Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

       ``(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, 
     whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the 
     executive, legislative, or judicial branch of Government of 
     the United States, knowingly and willfully--
       ``(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, 
     scheme, or device a material fact;
       ``(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statement or representation; or
       ``(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing 
     the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or 
     fraudulent statement or entry;

     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 
     years or both.
       ``(b) Subsection (a) does not apply--
       ``(1) to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's 
     counsel, for statements, representations, writings or 
     documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge in 
     that proceeding; or
       ``(2) to--
       ``(A) any non-administrative matter; or
       ``(B) any investigative matter, other than with respect to 
     a person furnishing information pursuant to a duly authorized 
     investigation;

     within the jurisdiction of an entity within the legislative 
     branch.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 
will each be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for decades, section 1001 of title 18 of the United 
States Code has been a powerful tool in the hands of prosecutors 
seeking to address the willful misleading of the executive, judicial, 
and legislative branches. Over the years, section 1001 has been used to 
prosecute a wide variety of misconduct. Notable prosecutions under 
section 1001 include those of Colonel North and Admiral Poindexter, and 
more recently, the case against former Congressman Rostenkowski.
  On May 15, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically changed Federal 
criminal law dealing with the offense of willfully misleading a branch 
of Government. In the case Hubbard versus United States, the Supreme 
Court limited the application of section 1001 to only the executive 
branch, leaving the offenses of misleading Congress and the courts 
outside its scope.
  On June 30, 1995, the crime subcommittee held a hearing to examine 
how section 1001 could be amended to ensure that those who willfully 
mislead any branch of the Government are held accountable. At that 
hearing, all of the witnesses agreed that law enforcement must have the 
ability to punish those who willfully mislead the Government. But they 
further agreed that such an ability must be weighed against our 
commitment to free speech, a balanced adversarial system of justice, 
and a genuine separation of power between the three branches of 
Government. The witnesses also counseled that we proceed with care. 
Certain legislative fixes may be unintentionally problematic over the 
long run.
  H.R. 3166 is responsive to the concerns raised at our June hearing. 
The bill provides us with the means of punishing those who willfully 
mislead the executive, legislative and judicial branches, while at the 
same time avoiding unintended consequences.
  The bill applies section 1001 to all three branches of the U.S. 
Government, with two exceptions. First, the bill has a judicial 
function exception, which provides that section 1001 does not apply to 
a party to a judicial proceeding or that party's counsel, for 
statements, representations, writings, or documents submitted by such 
party or counsel to a judge in that proceeding. This exception applies 
the criminal penalties of section 1001 to those representations made to 
a court when it is acting in its administrative function, and exempts 
those representations that are part of a judicial proceeding from the 
scope of section 1001. I believe that the failure to establish such a 
judicial function exception would chill vigorous advocacy, and, as 
such, would have a substantial detrimental effect on the adversarial 
process. I am pleased to note that the Department of Justice supports 
the bill's judicial advocacy exception.
  The second exception is the legislative advocacy exception. This 
exception, which I introduced at the Judiciary Committee markup, and 
which was agreed to without opposition, is the result of much work by 
Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Without such an exception section 1001 would be a blanket application 
to all communications made to Congress, including unsworn testimony and 
constituent mail. Such an unlimited application would create an 
intimidating atmosphere in which all communications would be made with 
the threat of section 1001's criminal penalties constantly at hand. 
Such an atmosphere would undermine the free flow of information that is 
so vital to the legislative process.
  This bill's legislative function exception limits section 1001's 
application in a legislative context to administrative and duly 
authorized investigative matters, thereby avoiding the creation of such 
a counterproductive atmosphere.
  At the same time, section 1001 continues to apply to the many 
administrative filings that have been covered in the past. As such, it 
covers Members of Congress who knowingly and willfully lie on their 
financial disclosure forms, initiate ghost employee schemes, knowingly 
submit false vouchers, and purchase goods and services with taxpayer 
dollars. That is the result accomplished by this amendment.
  Importantly, statutes such as perjury and contempt of Congress 
continue to provide a means of holding accountable those who willfully 
mislead Congress when they knowingly and willfully mislead Congress.
  I believe that the institutional interests of the Congress, and the 
interests of the American people, are advanced when unsworn 
congressional testimony and legislative advocacy occur without the fear 
of possible criminal prosecution for misstatements. The functioning of 
this body would be seriously undermined, and the people poorly served, 
if all statements and correspondence from constituents were subject to 
criminal prosecution. H.R. 3166 avoids creating such an atmosphere.
  I would like to thank my friend from New Jersey, Congressman Martini, 
for his leadership and hard work on this bill. He has been out front on 
this issue since the Supreme Court handed down Hubbard, and has worked 
with parties on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we moved a 
good bill through this House. I want to congratulate Mr. Martini on a 
job well done.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, when I yield again I am going to yield to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] to let him describe this legislative work 
he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the provisions in the bill. Could I inquire of 
my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, why this 
bill has no report?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7541]]

  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, it has no report because we were trying to 
get it out here on time. It should be. There is a report that is coming 
with it, but it has none at the present time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Could I ask my good friend if he would withdraw this 
bill until such time there is a report for all of the Members?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield further, there will be a 
report filed before the vote on this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. I said will he withdraw this bill now? We are asking 
everyone to get a report sometime in the future, sir. That is not 
according to the rules of the House?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield further to me, it is 
according to the rules that we have a report out here before the bill 
is voted on and it will be out here before it is voted on, before we 
actually have a vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Is someone supposed to trust the gentleman in the 
meantime?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield further, no one has to vote 
on it until they get a report to read.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to yield to the gentleman 
any more. I think his answer should have been ``no'' about 2 minutes 
ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I object to the procedure that is going on now. I object 
to this bill being brought up until, according to the rules, Mr. 
Parliamentarian, there is a report accompanying it. Therefore, I ask 
that this measure be withdrawn from the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The Chair is advised that 
that is up to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. CONYERS. It is up to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. 
That is what I thought.
  I would like to appeal to the gentleman from Florida again, a 
distinguished and able member of Judiciary with whom I have worked ever 
since his first day in the House of Representatives. Would the 
gentleman please take the bill off of the floor until such time as he 
gets a report?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to say yes or no.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. No, I will not do that.
  Mr. CONYERS. I did not ask for the rest. I just wanted a yes or no.
  Mr. Speaker, I object to the procedure on the floor, and I would like 
to press my objection to the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 20 minutes. He may debate 
the question. This is a motion to suspend the rules, which will require 
a two-thirds vote. Does the gentleman raise a specific point of order?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are acting out 
of order even on a suspension of the rules here. This is not a club 
meeting, Mr. Speaker. The least that the subcommittee chairman could 
have done was advise us that he did not have a report, which would have 
led me to some form of my usual generosity, but just to say we don't 
have a report, we'll get one later this is under suspension of the 
rules, nobody needs to read the report. What would 400 other Members 
want to know about the report for? Just listen to the debate and vote 
for it when it passes. What is the difference? Why do we need reports 
here, anyway, by the way?
  Has the gentleman not learned anything in the course of all the years 
we have been trying to be legislators, responsible? What is this? I 
think it is extremely inappropriate for the Committee on the Judiciary, 
of all committees, that we would be proceeding this way. Are we going 
to just continue to have informed debate around here without reports? 
Because it will be here shortly, it's on the way, it's at the printer? 
The truck is pulling it up to the Capitol any minute. I don't know what 
you need a report for.

  Then to have the unmitigated gall to say, ``Well, so what? I'm not 
going to withdraw it, I'm not going to apologize, I'm not going to do 
anything because we're in control here. We don't need reports, the 
majority. If you don't like it without the report, vote against it, I 
guess.''
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing we can do here but be subject to the 
gentleman from Florida's arbitrary, uncooperative decision that we will 
not have a report accompanying his bill.
  How come? Well, I do not know. He just felt like it today.
  Well, I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the House 
of Representatives does not work like this, and the gentleman as a 
committee chairman, I know he has not been a subcommittee chairman 
long, but it seems to me that he should check the procedure, maybe with 
the Parliamentarian, maybe with the counsel for the committee, maybe 
with even our people if he would like. We would be delighted to do 
that. But just to say ``We're bringing a measure on the floor, a very 
important measure, by the way. But we don't need reports around here, 
gang. Check with us this evening, tomorrow, whenever. But let's have 
some informed debate that nobody but the Members of the Committee on 
the Judiciary know anything about, and then let's hold it over for a 
vote and then we'll decide whether you want to pass a law into the 
United States Code Annotated.''
  Oh, is it unimportant? Is it a technical amendment? No; it is very 
serious. It modifies a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It would seem that 
lawyers, of all people, would have some kind of civil consideration for 
the way we pass things in the House of Representatives.
  If the Committee on the Judiciary does not care about the rules and 
procedure of the House, should anybody else? We are the ones that try 
to set the rules and procedure for the Committee on the Judiciary, for 
the Congress. We are the ones that are able to modify the Supreme 
Court's decisions, as we are doing.
  And so we come in here, dragging in on Tuesday afternoon, the first 
measure up, and the first thing we say is, ``Well, there's no report, 
Ranking Member of Judiciary. What do you need a report for?''
  ``Well, would you please consider getting one?'' ``No; I will not. 
Anybody that wants to read the report can read it when we get it.''
  ``Well, when will you get it?''
  ``We'll get it this afternoon. I guess we will get it this afternoon. 
Read it after the debate if you really want to find out what happened, 
because we don't have to do that around here. Don't you understand? 
Republicans run the House. So it's OK. You don't like it? Vote no. You 
don't like it? Appeal to the Speaker. You don't like the Speaker's 
ruling? He says see the subcommittee chairman.''
  And so this is what it is like in 1996 in the people's body, in the 
House of Representatives, where we have a bunch of my wonderful friends 
over here looking at each other saying, ``I wonder why we don't just go 
ahead and pass this bill and forget the report.''
  But what about the next bill, I would ask the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum]? Does that one need a report? Or does the subcommittee 
chairman of that measure have the same option that you do to tell 
everybody, ``You don't need a report. It's on the way. Get it later. 
We'll debate this some other time. Or if you don't understand the 
debate, get a copy when it's printed.''
  But the rules of the House require this elemental courtesy to every 
single Member of the House of Representatives, and the gentleman is 
refusing to go along with the rules. I think that is very unseemly, I 
think it is very inappropriate, particularly coming from the committee 
that we both serve on.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCollum. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan, of course, is a very 
distinguished Member of this body and I know that he intends to 
characterize the situation as it accurately should be characterized, 
but the truth be that the rules of the House of Representatives in this 
Congress are no different than they were in the last on this point, 
and, that is, that when we have a bill under suspension, there is no 
requirement that any report be filed whatsoever by any committee on a 
bill under suspension, which is what we have today with this bill that 
is before us. It is customary for Judiciary bills to get a report 
because that is something we would like to do, that is something that 
Judiciary members like you and I like to produce. We like to have those 
filed with bills. And if a report is going to be filed, because we

[[Page H7542]]

want to do that, we like to do that, to explain the bill in the record, 
then that has to be done technically before the bill is formally voted 
on. We are going to request a recorded vote, I am, and I suspect we 
will get one based on the number of people here today, and there will 
be a delay of a vote, so that a report can be filed and will be. But 
there is absolutely no requirement that a report be filed.
  I might also remind the gentleman from Michigan, my good colleague, 
that this bill is not controversial in its nature, it passed without a 
single vote in opposition in both the subcommittee and the full 
committee, it was worked out in a fully bipartisan sense, as the 
gentleman knows, and there is no intent whatsoever on our part to pass 
a bill with any kind of pulling the wool over somebody's eyes with not 
having some technical whatever. We are abiding by those rules on a very 
noncontroversial, though a very important bill.
  Last but not least I might add why we do not actually have the report 
we would like to file out here today and fully intend to do so is 
because the leadership had initially scheduled this bill for next week 
and did not give us sufficient notice that it would be out here this 
week. We would like to get this bill passed as soon as possible, as I 
am sure the gentleman from Michigan would, and this is the window of 
opportunity, this week, to pass it. If we do not do it today, if we 
waited around to voluntarily do the report we do not have to do before 
we brought it out here and debated it, we would not get it 
accomplished.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Martini], who is the author of this legislation. I 
congratulate him again. It is a fine bill and it does something that 
has been needed to be done for a long time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank Chairman McCollum as 
well and the crime subcommittee counsel, Paul McNulty and Dan Bryant, 
for their hard work and efforts in bringing this important legislation 
to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, the question facing the House of Representatives is 
whether or not individuals who knowingly and intentionally issue a 
materially fraudulent or false statement to the legislative or judicial 
branch of the Federal Government should be subject to criminal 
prosecution under title 18, section 1001 of the United States Code.
  The Government Accountability Act, H.R. 3166, is intended to amend 
section 1001 of 18 United States Code in a manner that would make its 
application consistent with the legal precedents established prior to 
the Supreme Court's May 15, 1995, decision in Hubbard versus United 
States.
  As a result of the Court's action in Hubbard, this year, for the 
first time in over 15 years, Members of Congress filed their financial 
disclosure statement without fear of prosecution or penalty for issuing 
fraudulent or false statements on these forms.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that is wrong and I also believe that the 
public has a right to know that congressional financial disclosure 
forms are filled out truthfully and accurately. The requirement to do 
so is one of the many applications of section 1001 of 18 United States 
Code that need to be addressed. That is why I introduced the Government 
Accountability Act.
  I am pleased to say that this bipartisan legislation enjoys 
cosponsorship and support from by both the chairman and ranking member 
of the crime subcommittee.
  My legislation closes a loophole in Federal law that was created by 
the Supreme Court's ruling in Hubbard versus United States.
  As a result of this decision, section 1001 of 18 United States Code 
is now only applicable to individuals who knowingly and willfully issue 
a materially false statement to the executive branch of the Federal 
Government.
  Individuals who issue false statements to the legislative or judicial 
branch of Government can no longer be prosecuted under section 1001.
  In Hubbard, the Supreme Court held that, ``a court is neither a 
department nor an agency within the meaning of section 1001.'' This 
clearly infers that Congress is certainly not an agency or department 
of the executive branch. In fact, Federal courts have recently used 
Hubbard to overturn the conviction of a former Member of Congress and a 
former HUD official who lied to Congress.
  Federal prosecutors have also been forced to drop key indictments or 
counts in criminal proceedings against several former Members of 
Congress as a result of this decision.
  As a former assistant U.S. attorney in Newark, NJ, I know firsthand 
the importance of section 1001 of 18 United States Code. In my opinion, 
this is a critical provision of the law which protects the Federal 
Government from false or fraudulent statements.
  Mr. Speaker, quite simply, this is an issue of parity. I can think of 
no reason why we would hold false statements issued to Congress or the 
Judiciary with any less severity then those issued to the executive 
branch.
  In the past, section 1001 of 18 United States Code has been used to 
successfully prosecute Members of Congress who have lied on their 
financial disclosure form, initiated ghost employee schemes, knowingly 
submitted false vouchers, and purchased personal goods and services 
with taxpayer dollars.
  Without a viable false statement statute these crimes could very well 
go unpunished.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear that the intention of 
my legislation is not to create a tidal wave of special prosecutor and 
independent counsel investigations into this Administration or any 
future administrations.
  Rather, H.R. 3166 is meant to restore and clarify the Federal False 
Statement Statute to its pre-Hubbard application.
  Much of the initial attention surrounding congressional efforts to 
restore the Federal false statement statute focused on applicability of 
section 1001 to the judicial branch.
  My legislation applies section 1001 to the judicial, as well as the 
legislative branch, however it specifically exempts formal courtroom 
proceedings.
  Federal law enforcement officials must have the ability to bring 
charges against those who willfully and knowingly mislead the Federal 
Government. However, I felt that statements made to a judge in a 
courtroom setting should be exempted from the scope section 1001.
  Accordingly, H.R. 3166 includes language drafted by the Department of 
Justice to address this concern in a manner that will not have an 
adversarial effect on the judicial process, a negative effect on the 
judicial process, but also remains consistent with Federal case-law 
precedents stemming from the Morgan and Mayer decisions, which were 
decisions which followed Hubbard.
  An attorney should not be exposed to a criminal indictment for simply 
defending an unscrupulous client who is advancing a false or fraudulent 
defense.
  The goal in applying section 1001 to the judicial branch should be to 
provide a penalty for individuals who may lie or issue false statements 
in the context of the administrative duties of the judiciary branch, 
not its litigation proceedings.
  Further, during the House Subcommittee on Crime markup of H.R. 3166, 
some of my colleagues also expressed concern that the Government 
Accountability Act did not contain a congressional advocacy exception 
that would exempt certain types of legislative advocacy from the scope 
of section 1001.
  These individuals were concerned that by codifying 1001's 
applicability to Congress we may inadvertently chill legislative 
advocacy.
  Congress has always been the arena in which the American people have 
come to express their ideas and beliefs. We must ensure that we do not 
stifle public debate on the issues before this body.
  While I believe that H.R. 3166 as originally drafted would afford 
protection to those individuals who engage in advocacy of the 
legislative branch, I am supportive of the bipartisan amendment, the 
gentleman from Florida, chairman McCollum, offered in Committee that 
exempts the application of section 1001 from nonadministrative matters 
before the Congress.

[[Page H7543]]

  By limiting the application of section 1001 in a congressional 
setting to administrative matters and exempting legislative advocacy 
from its scope, we avoid the stifling of public debate before this 
great body.
  The McCollum language will apply section 1001 to administrative 
matters like the Member's Financial Disclosure Form and duly authorized 
investigations of the congress.
  Prior to the Hubbard decision, an uncertainty or vagueness existed 
among the various Federal courts concerning the applicability of 
section 1001 to Congress. Accordingly, Federal prosecutors pursued 
indictments under the Federal false statement statute with extreme 
caution in matters pertaining to Congress.
  Enactment of legislation like H.R. 3166 would leave no doubt about 
the application of section 1001 to Congress. That is why this bill now 
contains a so-called legislative advocacy exception in order to avoid 
unintended consequences of codifying 1001's applicability to the 
legislative branch.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have demanded a Federal Government 
that is not above the law. Without an applicable Federal false 
statement statute, we will seriously jeopardize the ability of this 
institution to protect itself from both internal and external fraud.
  I am pleased that the leadership has recognized the importance of 
this legislation and has brought it to the floor today.
  In closing, I want to again thank Chairman McCollum and his capable 
staff, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan reform bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentleman of the House of Representatives, we are in the 
process of amending a U.S. Supreme Court decision whose ruling applies 
to Members of the House of Representatives, applies to witnesses that 
may come before the House of Representatives and there are Members in 
broad daylight alleging that this is a minor provision, amending the 
Supreme Court's decision and we are talking about how minimal this is. 
The distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum], alleges that there is no objection. How on Earth would 
he know? Nobody has ever seen the report. Nobody would even know about 
the bill if my colleague was not on the Committee on the Judiciary. 
What in the world is going on around here that makes this matter so 
important that without a report, we would ask on a suspension calendar 
that a matter changing the Supreme Court, the law of the land, that it 
be sent without a report. Well, I do not know why. What is the rush? 
Question: How can we have an informed debate without a report? The 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], author of the measure, is 
familiar with this. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Crime, is familiar with this. But what about the 
400 other Members of Congress that may not have attended the Committee 
on the Judiciary meetings? What do they get? Well, they get nothing. 
They get the response that customarily we give Members a report, but 
today, because Republican leadership has indicated that this bill goes 
today, it is not going at all. Question: Why not?
  Another inquiry that I may have, is are we saying here that the 
Republican leadership, or may I speak more personally, the Speaker of 
the House saying that we will not allow a vote on this bill if it does 
not come up today or that it will not be brought forward? And by the 
way, where is this matter in the Senate? Does anybody happen to know or 
care? Are they waiting for us to send it over to them so that they can 
send it out? Do you know if it is marked up or not? Well, look, the 
House takes care of its own business and the Senate takes care of its.
  So we are in a very embarrassing situation, because if that is the 
way this House is going to be run, this is one Member that is going to 
take exception to this. I think it is unseemly. I think that it 
completely misses the point of a very important law that is in the 
process of being made. Someone said it will be--not someone, I am 
sorry, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum], said it would be printed in form and would be sent to 
the Members today. Well, what time today, I ask the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum]? Will it be before the vote or after the vote? 
And how much time would the Members have to read the report before they 
vote on it? Or does it matter, really? I mean, if you like it, we are 
putting it on suspension, we are rushing it through. No one can amend 
this, and now we do not have a report because we only supplied it 
customarily, we do not have to supply. So if you like this law or do 
not like it, just listen to the debate, listen to the author, and as 
far as we know, everybody should go along with this and that is the way 
we make laws in the United States now under the Gingrich regime. I take 
exception to this, sir, and I am ashamed of my subcommittee chairman 
who would allow himself to get drug into this ridiculous and 
embarrassing process.
  Now, both parties usually send out a whip package which gives us a 
heads-up on what is coming up on the legislation. Usually for Members 
that would like a detail, they include the report that it can be 
referred to, but there is no report here. Members can read the brief 
summary. I do not know what Republicans put in their whip packages, but 
we put a brief outline of the measure. Why, the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Martini], with a bill which he deserves full credit for, 
would he allow this measure to come up in such a haphazard way? Does 
the gentleman not have any respect for the law or the process? Does the 
gentleman not understand how the House of Representatives customarily 
works? Does he not want Members to at least vaguely understand what in 
the world he is doing that changes a U.S. Supreme Court standing 
decision? Does it not reach that level of seriousness that the other 
400 Members might at least, if they chose to be informed, would have a 
report available to them? Does the gentleman have no respect for the 
process of this great House of Representatives? What do we want to turn 
this into, a club, a political club where the biggest gang gets up and 
says, well, this is it, there is not objection? How do we know there is 
no objection? How do we know there are not reservations? My colleague 
does not, and neither do I. But I have enough respect for the rest of 
my colleagues to object as strenuously as I can to this very shabby 
process.

                              {time}  1300

  This is a very important piece of legislation. It is not a simple 
bill. The changes that the gentleman has grafted on to the Supreme 
Court decision and the existing law are very important and are very 
serious. I only wish that the gentleman and the Members on his side of 
the aisle would take it as seriously as we do on ours.
  We think it is a good measure, but that does not mean that I can 
arbitrarily cut off the debate from everybody else in this body because 
they have not seen the report. Do we not have any pride about this 
House of Representatives in which we serve? Do we not want to really 
make the House a democratic forum for all of us so that the American 
people can understand how we make process? Maybe the gentleman does. I 
think deep down in our hearts all the Members do.
  I think we are very serious about the business that brings us here to 
Washington, DC. I am looking into the faces of some very serious 
Members. But what about the process? What if there was one Member in 
the House that wanted to take exception, maybe even wanted to ask a 
question, where would he or she go to get the information? Does that 
not concern the gentleman at all? Does he not want to say that this 
bill was passed in broad daylight with the acquiescence and full 
understanding in the customary manner that we pass legislation around 
here?
  The gentleman has already bumped it up to the Suspension Calendar. We 
cannot amend it now. We only have limited debate, and still we cannot 
do it right. I think this is disgraceful. And then to refuse to take it 
off the floor for no good explanation whatsoever insults not just the 
Members of Congress, I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum], but everybody in America that is expecting that we will pass 
legislation, especially from the lawyers in the Congress, in a fair and 
decent bipartisan manner. And that is not what is happening here today.

[[Page H7544]]

  So with all deference to all of my colleagues and for all my 
colleagues who are pleased that at least one Member would have the 
temerity to raise his voice and say, ``Process, fellas. Process.'' That 
is what tests whether a House is working fairly or not.
  It is not that, oh, we customarily send out reports but we were in a 
hurry today; we did not need it today. If Members do not like it, they 
can catch the report when it is printed. If they have a question, they 
can see me off the floor or check with staff and they will give that 
Member a response. But we are pushing this baby through Tuesday 
afternoon, first up, whether we are ready or not, whether people have 
had a chance to study it or not. Who cares. We are going to do it our 
way. It is unanimous anyway, which we do not know about at all. It is 
simple. It is not; it is very complex.

  So I ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCOLLUM] again, with all 
the fairness of which I am able to muster at this time, please withdraw 
this measure from the floor and have it rescheduled.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, I happen to know this is a very serious matter, and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and I agree on that point.
  Second, I am not in the least bit embarrassed or disgraced or feel 
ridiculous about bringing this out here without a report, because the 
rules of this Congress, as have been the rules for many years, do not 
require a report on a bill that comes under suspension.
  This is a special procedure for those bills that are considered 
noncontroversial. Those are bills that are scheduled only once a week, 
normally, sometimes in the late sessions, once or twice more 
frequently, so that we can expedite the process of handling them within 
the scheduled confines the House has for deliberating on those bills 
that will take more time on the floor, hours and hours of amendments.
  The Justice Department just recently has endorsed even the amendments 
to this bill and fully supports it. There is nobody that I know of, 
though maybe somebody is opposed to this bill, but the point is that 
the reason for the report is not to prepare people on a Suspension 
Calendar bill to vote on a bill, but to provide legislative history. 
However, this report is ready. It will be filed here sometime today 
before we have the vote, and anybody who wants to read the report, scan 
it or otherwise before they vote, will have that opportunity.
  I am sorry the gentleman feels inconvenienced, but the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Crime, had full notice that we did not have the report, would not have 
it ready, well before we brought it out here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. This is a corrections bill, it is necessary, and it is necessary 
now.
  Mr. Speaker, a stunning decision by the Supreme Court last spring 
once again leaves this institution above the law. In Hubbard versus 
United States, the Court held that section 1001 of 18 United States 
Code is only applicable to individuals who knowingly issue a false 
statement to the executive branch, implying that penalties for lying do 
not apply if the individual is lying to Congress. So, in effect, we 
have a law on the books that says individuals cannot lie to the 
executive branch, but it is OK to make false statements to the 
legislative branch of the Government. That is not good government. 
Think about what that means. It means individuals who do business with 
the Government or testify before congressional committees are not 
legally accountable for the accuracy of what they say and do, and that 
includes Members of Congress themselves. In fact, the Supreme Court's 
decision makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute 
Members of Congress who have been charged with kickback schemes, ghost 
employee schemes, check-kiting and falsifying financial disclosure 
reports. It also means that pending prosecution cases and prior 
convictions of Members of Congress are in jeopardy of being overturned.
  Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct. There are no rules for criminal behavior in the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct. The Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct does not become a criminal enforcement committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this institution cannot allow criminal activity to go 
unpunished--and unless all three branches of Government are included in 
the false statement statute that is exactly what may happen. H.R. 3166, 
the Government Accountability Act, will extend the false statement 
statute, clearly and incontrovertibly, to all three branches of the 
Government. If we are to restore some honor to this institution and 
hold all Members accountable for a breach of trust--then we must 
include ourselves in the false statement statute, and this is what we 
are doing. I support this measure and encourage my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
on the way he has handled this, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Martini] for his insistence on bringing it to this stage.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the time of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if there is a way 
for a Member to file a dissenting view on this report if the report is 
already being printed?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. If the gentleman can 
get it to us on time, we will be glad to give him a dissenting view and 
put it in. We are going to be doing a report and putting it in before 
we have a recorded vote later on today. So if the gentleman has a few 
minutes to do it, we will get it in.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
how much time is the gentleman giving any Member that might want to 
file a dissenting view?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Well, Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, again I might 
add, to anybody that wants to know, the rules are there is no report 
required at all in a suspension bill. We are not doing anything unusual 
today.
  I think the most unusual thing is that there has been not one whit of 
discussion on that side of the aisle about the merits of this bill, 
about the substance of it. We are today talking about restoring the 
False Claims Act of the U.S. Congress to all three branches of the U.S. 
Government, executive, legislative, and judicial, and it is remarkable 
in its nature. It should be aired and debated fully, I agree.
  We have, on our side of the aisle, discussed it in great detail. The 
report will give the technical information for legislative history, and 
I would encourage the gentleman and all participants on both sides of 
the aisle to vote for this bill. It is a very positive bill, supported 
by the administration, one that is needed to correct an error, in my 
judgment, of what the Supreme Court has said to us about how the law 
reads now, and I will again urge a very favorable and a strong vote in 
support of passage of this bill under suspension of the rules today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3166, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

[[Page H7545]]



                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the bill just considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________