[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11137-H11139]
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 agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 535) providing for the concurrence of the 
House, with an amendment, in the amendments of the Senate to the bill 
H.R. 3166.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 535

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, the bill 
     H.R. 3166, to amend title 18, United States Code, with 
     respect to the crime of false statement in a Government 
     matter, with the Senate amendments thereto, shall be 
     considered to have been taken from the Speaker's table and 
     the same are agreed to with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
     amendment to the text of the bill, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. RESTORING FALSE STATEMENTS PROHIBITION.

       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 the 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 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 or magistrate in that proceeding.
       ``(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of 
     the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to--
       ``(1) administrative matters, including a claim for 
     payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or 
     services, personnel or employment practices, or support 
     services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation 
     to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer 
     within the legislative branch; or
       ``(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to 
     the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or 
     office of the Congress, consistent with the applicable rules 
     of the House or Senate.''.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFYING PROHIBITION ON OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.

       Section 1515 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) As used in section 1505, the term `corruptly' means 
     acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing 
     another, including making a false or misleading statement, or 
     withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document 
     or other information.''.

     SEC. 4. ENFORCING SENATE SUBPOENA.

       Section 1365(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     in the second sentence, by

[[Page H11138]]

     striking ``Federal Government acting within his official 
     capacity'' and inserting ``executive branch of the Federal 
     Government acting within his or her official capacity, except 
     that this section shall apply if the refusal to comply is 
     based on the assertion of a personal privilege or objection 
     and is not based on a governmental privilege or objection the 
     assertion of which has been authorized by the executive 
     branch of the Federal Government''.

     SEC. 5. COMPELLING TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY FROM IMMUNIZED WITNESS.

       Section 6005 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or ancillary to'' 
     after ``any proceeding before''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``or ancillary 
     to'' after ``a proceeding before'' each place that term 
     appears; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by adding a period at the end.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].


                             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 House Resolution 535.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  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, 1996, 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.
  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 or magistrate 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 from the scope of section 1001 those 
representations that are part of a judicial proceeding. The failure to 
establish such a judicial function exception would allow a prosecutor 
to threaten his or her opposing counsel with criminal prosecution for 
statements made by such counsel to a judge in the case before them. 
Such threats would clearly chill vigorous advocacy, and, as such, would 
have a substantial detrimental effect on the adversarial process.

  The second exception is the legislative function exception. This 
exception is the result of much work by Members on both sides of the 
aisle, and much work with the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is agreed 
to by all these parties. The purpose of this provision is to guard 
against creating an intimidating atmosphere in which all communications 
made in the legislative context--including unsworn testimony and 
constituent mail--would be subject to section 1001's criminal 
penalties. Such an atmosphere could undermine the free-flow of 
information that is so vital to the legislative process.
  The legislative function exception limits section 1001's application 
in a legislative context to administrative matters and to any 
investigation or review that is conducted pursuant to the authority of 
a committee, subcommittee, commission or Office of Congress, consistent 
with applicable rules. I think it is important to note that the term 
``review,'' as used here, refers to an action that is ordinarily 
initiated by the chairman of a committee, subcommittee, office, or 
commission, consistent with the performance of their oversight or 
enforcement activities. ``Investigation or review'' is not intended to 
include routine fact gathering or miscellaneous inquiries by committee 
or personal staff. While the operation of this provision is not 
contingent on any changes to the Rules of the House, certain changes to 
the rules may be advisable in the future to provide increased clarity 
regarding what constitutes an ``investigation or review'' for purposes 
of this section.
  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.
  Importantly, statutes such as perjury and contempt of Congress 
continue to provide a means of holding accountable those who 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.
  The bill includes three additional sections which, along with the 
amendments to section 1001, help to safeguard the legislative and 
oversight roles of Congress assigned to it by the Constitution. All of 
these sections have been worked out and agreed to by both sides in the 
House and the Senate.
  In brief, section three responds to the D.C. Circuit Court's decision 
in Poindexter and clarifies that a person acting alone may obstruct a 
congressional inquiry. Section 4 clarifies that resistance to a Senate 
subpoena by a Federal employee claiming a governmental privilege must 
be authorized by the executive branch. And section 5 allows Congress to 
compel an immunized witness to testify at depositions as well as 
hearings.
  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. Mr. Martini--I want to congratulate you 
and your staff on a job well done.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill overturns the 1995 Supreme Court case of 
United States versus Hubbard in which the Supreme Court overturned 40 
years of case law to hold that section 1001 of title 18 of the United 
States Code does not allow prosecution for false statements made to the 
judiciary or to Congress. In essence, the Court's holding allows 
individuals to make false statements to Congress with impunity.
  When this bill was originally marked up in subcommittee, I was 
concerned that legislative advocacy not be

[[Page H11139]]

criminalized. At full committee, however, an amendment providing an 
exception for legislative advocacy was passed unanimously.
  In a conference with the Senate, this exception has been further 
refined. As a result, statements made to Congress for the purpose of 
legislative advocacy will not be prosecutable. Not only Members of 
Congress but lobbyists and members of the public will be protected by 
this provision.
  I believe that a legislative advocacy exception is necessary, because 
in the heat of intense arguments over legislation, positions may be 
exaggerated or overemphasized. Such statements should not be subject to 
potential prosecution.
  This amendment will ensure that Members of Congress and members of 
the public will continue to engage in full uncensored debate over 
legislation. At the same time, this bill does not protect those who 
make false statements to Congress in other contexts. Lies about 
financial statements or other administrative matters should be subject 
to prosecution.
  In addition, false statements made to Members of Congress or 
congressional staff pursuant to authorized investigations would also be 
subject to criminal prosecution.
  In short, this bill overturns the recent Supreme Court case and, once 
again, makes lying to Congress a Federal crime. But it also includes an 
important but narrow exception designed to ensure uninhibited debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini], the author of this bill.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased after months of negotiations and 
discussions within our own House and with the other body that we are 
finally able to complete the action on this important legislation.
  I would like to take this moment to thank the gentleman from Florida, 
Chairman McCollum, and the capable Crime Subcommittee counsel Paul 
McNulty and Dan Bryant, and Dan Gans of my own staff, for their hard 
work and commitment to bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, today, upon enactment of this legislation, we will 
finally know with certainty that individuals who knowingly and 
intentionally issue a materially fraudulent or false statement to the 
legislative or judicial branch of the Federal Government will be 
subject to criminal prosecution under title 18, section 1001, of the 
United States Code.
  As I stated previously, I believe that the public has a right to know 
that congressional financial disclosure forms and other required 
congressional filings are filled out truthfully and accurately. Our 
service in the Congress is based upon mutual trust with the American 
people.
  Citizens should know that Members of Congress and candidates seeking 
office have provided honest, complete responses on their congressional 
financial disclosure forms. Only an enforceable Federal false statement 
statute will protect that valuable trust.
  In addition, when Congress receives testimony before the various 
committees of the House of Representatives, it is only right to expect 
that the information and statements provided to us by those witnesses 
is truthful and factual, especially in an investigative setting.
  I serve as a member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, which is the primary committee charged with oversight of the 
entire Federal Government. This past year I have sat through a number 
of investigative hearings without having the benefit of a viable 
Federal false statement statute. Having done so, I am convinced, now 
more than ever, of the necessity for enacting the False Statements 
Accountability Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I have stated time and time again as we debated this 
issue that this is simply an issue of parity. There is no reason why we 
would hold false statements issued to Congress or the judiciary with 
any less severity than those issued to the executive branch.

  Before I conclude, some of my colleagues in the House and in the 
other body had expressed concern that the False Statements 
Accountability Act needed to include a congressional advocacy exception 
that would exempt certain types of legislative advocacy from the scope 
of section 1001. These individuals should be assured that the current 
compromise version of H.R. 3166 adequately addresses their concerns 
while simultaneously protecting the veracity and legitimacy of the 
investigative activities of the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, last week I was concerned that, had we gone home next 
week without passing H.R. 3166, it would have given the perception that 
Congress was attempting to avoid consideration of this type of 
legislation.
  Well, I am proud to say that this evening I am part of a Congress 
that does not tolerate the self-serving interest that too often went 
unnoticed in the past. For over a year, Congress has not enjoyed the 
protection of the Federal false statement statute. Enactment of this 
legislation will clear up any existing ambiguity in the law so that 
lying to Congress will once again have serious consequences.
  In closing, I want to again thank Chairman McCollum and his staff, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan reform bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, above the door to the Supreme Court Building 
are the words ``Equal Justice Under the Law.'' These words apply to all 
citizens including Members of Congress--but, the Supreme Court decision 
last spring placed 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. This means that individuals--including Members 
of Congress--who intentionally lie to this institution can no longer be 
prosecuted under this statute. Following the Supreme Court's decision 
we witnessed numerous legal briefs filed to dismiss or lessen charges 
against former Members of Congress. We all know of one former Member 
that may have received a longer prison sentence for the criminal acts 
against the American people if Congress was under section 1001. This is 
not equal justice under the law. We cannot allow criminal activity to 
go unpunished. H.R. 3166 extends the false statement statute to all 
three branches of the Government.
  It is very clear that individuals doing business with the Government 
or appearing before a committee are under this statute. H.R. 3166 makes 
Members of Congress legally accountable to the American people. I 
support this measure and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 535.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________