[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S12342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          THE REPEAL OF CONTROLS ON INDEPENDENT COUNSEL COSTS

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the appropriations bill we passed on 
Monday contained pleasant surprises, such as reasonable funding for 
education and research programs. But there have also been some 
troubling provisions. One was so troubling that I could not allow it to 
pass without some expression of my dismay. This provision, section 118, 
overturns one of the reforms Congress made in 1994 to independent 
counsel law to hold down costs.
  The provision in the bill was never approved by any committee. It was 
never voted on by either House. It was never included in a bill that 
either body approved. This provision appeared for the first time in the 
omnibus appropriations bill on Monday and was presented to the Senate 
under rules that didn't permit a single amendment to the bill.
  I first heard of this provision last week, when I was told that some 
House Republicans had added it to their wish list for the bill. Senator 
Bill Cohen and I, as chairman and senior Democrat respectively of the 
Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over the independent counsel law, 
immediately expressed our joint opposition to the provision. We thought 
that bipartisan opposition from the authorizing committee would be 
enough to prevent such a last-minute circumvention of the committee 
system. But we were wrong. The provision somehow got included in the 
bill and is now law.
  It is a mistake in process and substance.
  In simplest terms, the issue relates to holding down the cost of 
independent counsel investigations. In particular, it has to do with 
commuting costs--whether and how long independent counsels and their 
staff can use taxpayer dollars to pay for transportation and living 
expenses when they reside in one city and agree to prosecute one or 
more cases in another city.
  The issue arose in the context of the Iran-Contra case. In that case, 
the independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, chose to continue living in 
his hometown of Oklahoma City, while prosecuting cases based in 
Washington, DC. There was no law against it, but when the bills came in 
for his hotel, airfare, and other living expenses, plenty of loud 
complaints followed. Some pointed out that any other Federal prosecutor 
who agreed to prosecute a case in another State would have to move 
there--taxpayers would not be required to pick up their hotel and 
transportation expenses. Then Senator Dole was in the forefront of the 
critics calling for reform, criticizing Mr. Walsh for ``spend[ing] most 
of his time in Oklahoma.'' These commuting expenses were a prominent 
part of calls for legislation to tighten controls and reduce the cost 
of independent counsel investigations.
  In 1994, the Congress responded to these criticisms by enacting 
legislation which tightened controls over independent counsel expenses 
in a whole host of ways. One of the reforms we enacted was to limit 
commuting expenses. We revised the law to allow independent counsels 
and their staffs a maximum of 18 months of commuting expenses. After 18 
months, independent counsels and their staffs were expected either to 
move to the city where the prosecutions were based or start picking up 
their own commuting expenses.
  Section 118 of the omnibus appropriations bill effectively repeals 
that limit on expenses. If effectively permits independent counsels and 
their staffs to charge taxpayers for unlimited commuting expenses. 
Lawyers can live in one city, like New York or Los Angeles, prosecute 
cases in another city, and charge literally years of airfare, hotel 
meals and other living expenses to the taxpayer. That's an expensive 
proposition. It's why we created the limit in 1994. It's why the 
omnibus appropriations bill was wrong to change it. It is wrong to 
change it without any hearings, a consideration much less approval by 
an authorizing committee.
  Limits on independent counsel expenses were enacted in the last 
Congress with bipartisan support. No case has been made for repealing 
these limits. Many would say that limits on expenses are needed more 
than ever. This issue needs to be revisited.

                          ____________________