[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5553-H5556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       PRESERVING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 2007

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 214) to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States 
Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                 S. 214

       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 ``Preserving United States 
     Attorney Independence Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. VACANCIES.

        Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under 
     this section may serve until the earlier of--
       ``(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for 
     such district appointed by the President under section 541 of 
     this title; or
       ``(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the 
     Attorney General under this section.
       ``(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), 
     the district court for such district may appoint a United 
     States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The 
     order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the 
     clerk of the court.''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Any person serving as a United States 
     attorney on the day before the date of enactment of this Act 
     who was appointed under section 546 of title 28, United 
     States Code, may serve until the earlier of--
       (A) the qualification of a United States attorney for such 
     district appointed by the President under section 541 of that 
     title; or
       (B) 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Expired appointments.--If an appointment expires under 
     paragraph (1), the district court for that district may 
     appoint a United States attorney for that district under 
     section 546(d) of title 28, United States Code, as added by 
     this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks and to give all Members 5 legislative days to include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to describe this measure, Senate bill 214, 
as an important one that will restore historical checks and balances to 
the process by which interim U.S. attorneys are appointed. It will 
repair a breach in the law that has been a major contributing factor to 
the recent termination of at least nine talented and experienced United 
States attorneys and their replacement with interim appointments.
  The full circumstances surrounding these terminations are still 
coming to light. It is a process being given much attention by the 
Committee on the Judiciary. But much of the information is well known, 
and is also considerably troubling. One U.S. attorney was fired to make 
way for a political operative who endeared himself to Mr. Karl Rove 
doing opposition research in the Republican National Committee. Others 
were apparently fired because they were not sufficiently partisan in 
the way they used these powers to investigate and prosecute alleged 
voting fraud. Now, I don't need to tell anybody in this body how 
important voting is to the democratic process.
  These reports are particularly troubling because of the awesome power 
the United States attorneys, 93 of them in total, are entrusted with. 
They seek convictions. They negotiate plea agreements. They can send 
citizens to prison for years. They can tarnish reputations. They can 
destroy careers with the mere disclosure that a person is under 
criminal investigation. We, in this country, must have full confidence 
that these powers are exercised with complete integrity and free from 
improper political influence. Unfortunately, sometimes this is not the 
case.
  These troubling circumstances that have been revealed were made 
possible by an obscure provision, quietly and secretly slipped into the 
PATRIOT reauthorization conference report in March of last year at the 
behest of the Justice Department's top political appointments, to 
enable them to appoint interim temporary U.S. attorneys without the 
customary safeguard of Senate confirmation.
  Mr. Speaker, what this measure does is restore the checks and 
balances that have historically provided a critical safeguard against 
politicization of the Department of Justice and the United States 
attorneys, limiting the Attorney General's interim appointments to 120 
days only, then allowing the district court for that district to 
appoint a U.S. attorney until the vacancy is filled, with Senate 
confirmation required, as historically has been the case.
  Now, Members of the House, we have already passed similar 
legislation. While I would prefer to see our version enacted into law, 
we are taking up the Senate-passed version in order to expedite the 
enactment of this important step in restoring legal safeguards against 
the abuse of executive power to politicize the Federal prosecutorial 
function in the Department of Justice.
  I wanted to single out my colleague from California, Howard Berman, a 
senior member of the committee, for his role in fashioning not only the 
original version, but the one that we have before you to agree upon.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to 1986, the district court appointed interim U.S. 
attorneys to fill vacancies until a replacement could be nominated by 
the President and confirmed by the Senate. In 1986, the process was 
changed to authorize the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. 
attorney for 120

[[Page H5554]]

days. After 120 days, the district court would appoint an interim to 
serve until the Senate confirmed a permanent replacement.
  Last year, Congress addressed concerns that allowing the judiciary to 
appoint the prosecutors before their court created a conflict of 
interest. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization eliminated the 120-day time 
limit for an executive-appointed interim to serve, and eliminated the 
authority for the district court to appoint an interim. S. 214 returns 
the authority of the judiciary to appoint interim U.S. attorneys if a 
permanent replacement is not confirmed within 120 days.
  Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that the motivation behind this 
legislation was the dismissal of several U.S. attorneys earlier this 
year. Congress has been investigating the circumstances surrounding 
those dismissals for several months now. Notwithstanding the heated 
political rhetoric from some of my colleagues, this investigation has 
turned up no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or obstruction of justice.
  Let me just try to lay this issue out as fairly as I can. Some of my 
colleagues still have concerns about allowing a judge to appoint the 
prosecutors before their court because they feel that is a conflict of 
interest. On the other hand, some of my equally smart colleagues have 
suggested that we should return to the way interim U.S. attorneys were 
appointed for 20 years, from 1986 to 2006, before the recent PATRIOT 
Act changes, to ensure that the process is not used to circumvent the 
Senate confirmation process.
  The House Judiciary Committee has held hearings on this matter. We 
held a markup on the companion legislation, H.R. 580. The Justice 
Department does not object to this legislation, and I will be 
supporting it myself personally.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce and give as much 
time as he may consume to the chairman of the Intellectual Property 
Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Howard Berman.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank my chairman for helping to bring this bill and 
this issue to the floor twice now, and for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, last month, the House passed H.R. 580 to restore the 
checks and balances to the U.S. attorney appointment process. The bill 
we are considering today takes a slightly different path to nearly the 
same end.
  Last year, during the conference process on reauthorization of the 
PATRIOT Act, a provision was added to the report authorizing the 
Attorney General to unilaterally appoint interim U.S. attorneys for 
indefinite periods of time, making it possible for the administration 
to circumvent the Senate confirmation process.
  The only disagreement I would have with my friend from Florida's 
comments was the notion that the Congress considered that change. This 
was put in in a conference committee, unbeknownst to, I think, just 
about every Senator on that conference committee, certainly all House 
Members, other than perhaps the chairman of the committee; and the 
Congress didn't consider that change.
  When the Judiciary Committee began its investigation into the U.S. 
attorney firings early this year, DOJ representatives were quick to 
assure members of the committee that getting around the confirmation 
process was never their intent in pushing for this proposal.
  As the Department began producing e-mails and other materials in 
response to the Judiciary Committee's inquiry, it became clear that 
whether or not it was the original intent of the administration, DOJ 
and White House employees quickly figured out that the provision 
created the possibility of circumventing the Senate and decided to 
exploit that authority.
  As I said when we passed H.R. 580 last month, the ongoing 
investigation may uncover many issues within the Department that we 
want to examine. In the meantime, we should quickly address the problem 
we know about.

                              {time}  1215

  The bill we are considering today would reinstate a system that 
encourages politics to be left at the door during the appointment 
process and creates a check on the system if the executive branch 
cannot bring itself to do that.
  The reason we are considering a second bill on this topic is that 
Republicans in the other body have blocked the House-passed bill from 
progressing. The only difference between these two bills is that the 
House bill specifically precluded the administration from using the 
Vacancy Reform Act to extend interim appointments for another 210 days. 
This is a provision that the Bush administration used nearly 30 times 
in its first 5 years to replace U.S. attorneys. If this avenue remains 
open, we are permitting the practice of circumventing Senate 
confirmation to continue. A temporary appointee could serve for nearly 
a year without a Presidential nomination or going through the 
confirmation process.
  It's ironic, isn't it? We hear the arguments all the time about the 
Senate not acting fast enough to confirm judicial appointments. There 
is rarely an emergency to get a district judge confirmed. U.S. 
attorneys are different. In any given district, there is only one U.S. 
attorney. If the administration can simply use extended temporary 
appointments, the problem will continue.
  This bill shouldn't be our last word on the matter. In the progress 
of the investigation in the Judiciary Committee, we have learned that a 
second provision removing residency requirements for U.S. attorneys was 
likely put into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to make way for certain 
particular interim appointees. We should repeal that provision, and I 
intend to introduce legislation to do so.
  Communities in this country should feel assured that their U.S. 
attorney wasn't put in for purely political purposes. These positions 
shouldn't be used to ``develop the bench'' or to send in someone who 
had no connection to the community whatsoever just because he needed a 
job.
  We should fix the system completely, and we will, but because of 
threatened holds in the other body, we are only doing a partial fix 
today.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) a 
subcommittee chair of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, during the conference process on 
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, a check on executive power simply 
disappeared. In its place, the Republican majority overseeing the 
conference put in a provision removing the court from the process of 
appointment and authorizing the Attorney General to appoint interim 
U.S. attorneys indefinitely.
  The Senator who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time 
said recently that he did not realize the provision was in the bill 
passed last year until a colleague alerted him to it last month. I 
don't think anyone was surprised to learn that after the investigation, 
the former chairman learned that the language had been requested by the 
Department of Justice. The language was apparently presented by a DOJ 
employee who is now the U.S. attorney in Utah. Before Senator Specter 
made these comments, the only legislative history of this amendment was 
one sentence in the conference report that said the new section 
``addresses an inconsistency in the appointment process of U.S. 
attorneys.''
  As we receive more information about the Department of Justice and 
White House interaction leading up to the dismissal of eight, now nine, 
U.S. attorneys, the appearance of a political basis for the removals 
becomes more clear. U.S. attorneys are the chief Federal law 
enforcement officers in their districts. We rely on them to enforce the 
law without political prejudice.
  One of the former U.S. attorneys who testified before our Judiciary 
subcommittee recently said that former Attorney General Ashcroft made a 
point in their first conversation to say that U.S. attorneys have to 
leave politics at the door. This bill that is before the House today 
would reinstate a system that encourages politics to be left at the 
door during the appointment process and creates a check on the system 
if the executive branch cannot bring itself to do that.

[[Page H5555]]

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to add that I have been dismayed in 
reviewing some of the terms provided to the Judiciary Committee 
relative to communications between the DOJ. Historically the American 
people have been able to rely on the Department of Justice to stay 
above the political fray, especially when it comes to prosecutors. 
Watergate should have indelibly impressed this lesson upon future 
administrations, but clearly in this case it did not.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and to refute Kyle 
Sampson's statement when he said, ``The only thing at risk here is a 
repeal of the AG's appointment authority. House Members won't care 
about this at all. All we need is for one Senator to object to the 
language.''
  The House of Representatives does care about political independence. 
We do believe that the executive branch should not ignore legislative 
branch authority. We should refute the Department's slow march to 
cooperating with our oversight efforts, and we need to reinstate this 
important check on the executive branch authority to appoint U.S. 
attorneys.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that our colleague from the 
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis, would 
be able to join us in this debate because he worked very diligently 
with Mr. Berman and Ms. Lofgren.
  Mr. Speaker, while United States attorneys owe their appointments to 
the President, once they are appointed, their enforcement decisions 
must be unquestionably above politics. This is an irony that exists, 
but it is something that must be zealously complied with if we are to 
have a law enforcement system that can be regarded as faithful to the 
Constitution and to the laws of the land and to protect the American 
people.
  The Senate confirmation in an open and public process is one way we 
safeguard against politicizing the prosecutors in the Department of 
Justice. That safeguard was severely compromised by the secret change 
in section 546. What we will do now is restore that safeguard and honor 
the system of checks and balances.
  Mr. Speaker, I am confident that my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will support this important consideration.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
S. 214, a bill that will revoke the Attorney General's unfettered 
authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys indefinitely.
  During the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization conference, Republicans 
slipped a small provision into the conference report with enormous 
repercussions. That provision removed the 120-day limit for interim 
appointments of U.S. Attorneys, thereby allowing interim appointees to 
serve indefinitely and without confirmation.
  After months of investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, we 
have learned that the Bush administration exploited this newly created 
loophole to purge high-performing Federal prosecutors while they were 
in the midst of high-profile public corruption investigations involving 
Republican officials. And while the administration has insisted it 
never intended to use this loophole to bypass Senate confirmation for 
appointing U.S. Attorneys, our investigation has uncovered 
communications and testimony that suggest otherwise.
  We also learned, for example, that in an e-mail to former White House 
Counsel, Harriet Miers, former Attorney General Chief of Staff, Kyle 
Sampson wrote: ``I strongly recommend that, as a matter of 
administration policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that 
authorize the Attorney General to make U.S. Attorney appointments.'' 
Mr. Sampson further said that by using the new provision, the Justice 
Department could ``give far less deference to home-State Senators and 
thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster 
and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.''
  Referring to the new authority to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys 
indefinitely, Mr. Sampson also said, ``If we don't ever exercise it 
then what's the point of having it?''
  The Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007 
provides the necessary legislative response to restore checks and 
balances in the U.S. Attorney appointment process by reinstating the 
120-day limit on the interim appointment. Additionally, the bill would 
apply retroactively to all U.S. Attorneys currently serving in an 
interim capacity. This would ensure that interim U.S. Attorneys 
appointed since the purge scheme was hatched are not permitted to serve 
indefinitely and without Senate confirmation.
  This is a common sense solution that has received strong support from 
the President of the National Association of Former U.S. Attorneys as 
well as from a former Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney who testified 
before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. It is 
also important to note that the Attorney General himself has expressed 
that he is not opposed to rolling back this provision of the USA 
PATRIOT Act.
  I want to be clear that the consideration of S. 214 will not stop the 
Judiciary Committee's ongoing investigation of the U.S. Attorney purge 
scheme and the politicization of the Justice Department. After months 
of investigations, it is clear that the answers can only be found in 
the White House. We have spoken to every senior Justice Department 
official involved in the firing process and we still have not gotten 
the answers to two critical questions: Who made the decision to mass 
fire U.S. Attorneys, and why were these particular U.S. Attorneys 
targeted?
  Mr. Speaker, the American people need to be assured that political 
calculations do not determine whether an individual is arrested or 
prosecuted. We must ensure that the integrity and honor of the Justice 
Department will be reinstated. I hope my colleagues will join me in the 
first critical step in this process by closing the loophole in the USA 
PATRIOT Act that this administration has improperly exploited for 
political purposes and supporting S. 214.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 214, 
which is the Senate version of H.R. 580, which the Judiciary Committee 
favorably reported on March 15, 2007. This much needed and timely 
legislation amends chapter 35 of title 28 of the United States Code to 
restore the 120-day limit on the term of a United States Attorney 
appointed on an interim basis by the Attorney General. The shocking 
revelations regarding the unprecedented firings of several United 
States Attorneys provide all the justification needed to adopt this 
salutary measure promptly and by an overwhelming margin.
  United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the 
advice and consent of the Senate. Each United States Attorney so 
appointed is authorized to serve a 4-year term but is subject to 
removal by the President without cause. The Senate's advise and consent 
process formally checks the power of the President by requiring the 
United States Attorney nominee to go through a confirmation process.
  In addition, Senators also play a particularly influential informal 
role in the nomination of United States Attorneys. Typically, a 
President, prior to appointing a new United States Attorney, consults 
with the Senators from the State where the vacancy exists if they are 
members of the President's political party. The President usually 
accepts the nominee recommended by the Senator or other official. This 
tradition, called ``Senatorial courtesy,'' serves as an informal check 
on the President's appointment power.
  Since the Civil War, the judiciary has been empowered to fill 
vacancies in the office of the United States Attorney. In 1966, that 
authority was codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 546. When a United States 
Attorney position became vacant, the district court in the district 
where the vacancy occurred named a temporary replacement to serve until 
the vacancy was filled. In 1986, in response to a request by the 
Attorney General that its office be vested with authority to appoint 
interim United States Attorneys, Congress amended the statute to add 
former section 546(d).
  Pursuant to this authority, the Attorney General was authorized to 
appoint an interim United States Attorney for 120 days and, if the 
Senate did not confirm a new United States Attorney within such period, 
the district court was then authorized to appoint an interim United 
States Attorney to serve until a permanent replacement was confirmed. 
By having the district court play a role in the selection of an interim 
United States Attorney, former section 546(d) allowed the judicial 
branch to act as a check on executive power. In practice, if a vacancy 
was expected, the Attorney General would solicit the opinion of the 
chief judge of the relevant district regarding possible temporary 
appointments.
  Twenty years later, section 546 was amended again in the USA PATRIOT 
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. This legislation amended 
section 546(c) to provide that ``[a] person appointed as United States 
attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a 
United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President'' 
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. The extent of the legislative history of this 
provision is one sentence appearing in the conference report 
accompanying the Act: ``Section 502 [effecting the amendments to 
section 546] is a new section and addresses an inconsistency in the 
appointment process of United States Attorneys.''

  Although the legislative purpose is unclear, the practical effect is 
not. The Act amended

[[Page H5556]]

section 546 in two critical respects. First, it effectively removed 
district court judges from the interim appointment process and vested 
the Attorney General with the sole power to appoint interim United 
States Attorneys. Second, the Act eliminated the 120-day limit on the 
term of an interim United States Attorney appointed by the Attorney 
General. As a result, judicial input in the interim appointment process 
was eliminated. Even more problematic, it created a possible loophole 
that permit United States Attorneys appointed on an interim basis to 
serve indefinitely without ever being subjected to Senate confirmation 
process, which is plainly a result not contemplated by the Framers.
  Mr. Speaker, excluding changes in administration, it is rare for a 
United States Attorney to not complete his or her 4-year term of 
appointment. According to the Congressional Research Service, only 54 
United States Attorneys between 1981 and 2006 did not complete their 4-
year terms. Of these, 30 obtained other public sector positions or 
sought elective office, 15 entered or returned to private practice, and 
one died. Of the remaining eight United States Attorneys, two were 
apparently dismissed by the President, and three apparently resigned 
after news reports indicated they had engaged in questionable personal 
actions.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past few months disturbing stories appeared in 
the news media reporting that several United States Attorneys had been 
asked to resign by the Justice Department. It has now been confirmed 
that at least seven United States Attorneys were asked to resign on 
December 7, 2006. An eighth United States Attorney was subsequently 
asked to resign. And we learned on May 10, the day the Attorney General 
testified before the House Judiciary Committee, we learned that a ninth 
United States Attorney had been asked to resign as part of the purge. 
The names of the fired United States Attorneys are as follows:
  H.E. (``Bud'') Cummins, III, U.S. Attorney (E.D. Ark.); John McKay, 
U.S. Attorney (W.D. Wash.); David Iglesias, U.S. Attorney (D. N.M.); 
Paul K. Charlton, U.S. Attorney (D. Ariz.); Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney 
(S.D. Calif.); Daniel Bogden, U.S. Attorney (D. Nev.); Kevin Ryan, U.S. 
Attorney (N.D. Calif.); Margaret Chiara, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Mich.); 
and Todd P. Graves, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Mo.).
  Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2007, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee 
on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing entitled, 
``Restoring Checks and Balances in the Confirmation Process of United 
States Attorneys.'' Witnesses at the hearing included six of the eight 
former United States Attorneys and William Moschella, Principal 
Associate Deputy Attorney General, among other witnesses.
  Six of the eight former United States Attorneys testified at the 
hearing and each testified that he or she was not told in advance why 
he or she was being asked to resign. Upon further inquiry, however, 
Messrs. Charlton and Bogden were advised by the then Acting Assistant 
Attorney General William Mercer that they were terminated essentially 
to make way for other Republicans to enhance their credential and pad 
their resumes. In addition, Messrs. Iglesias and McKay testified about 
inappropriate inquiries they received from Members of Congress 
concerning pending investigation, which they surmised may have led to 
their forced resignations.
  Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization provision on interim 
United States Attorneys should be repealed for two reasons. First, 
Members of Congress did not get an opportunity to vet or debate the 
provision that is current law. Rather, the Republican leadership of the 
109th Congress slipped the provision into the Conference Report at the 
request of the Department of Justice. Not even Senate Judiciary 
Chairman Arlen Specter, whose chief of staff was responsible for 
inserting the provision, knew about its existence.

  Second, it is now clear that the manifest intention of the provision 
was to allow interim appointees to serve indefinitely and to circumvent 
Senate confirmation. We know now, for example, that in a September 13, 
2006 e-mail to former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, Attorney 
General Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson wrote:

       I strongly recommend that, as a matter of Administration 
     policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that 
     authorize the Attorney General to make U.S. Attorney 
     appointments.

  Mr. Sampson further said that by using the new provision, DOJ could 
``give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) 
our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more 
efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.''
  Regarding the interim appointment of Tim Griffin at the request of 
Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, Mr. Sampson wrote to Monica Goodling, 
Senior Counsel to the White House and Liaison to the White House on 
December 19, 2006 the following:

       I think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators to 
     give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in 
     office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say, 
     `no never' (and the longer we can forestall that, the 
     better), then we can tell them we'll look for other 
     candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this 
     should be done in `good faith,' of course.

  Finally, we now know that after gaining this increased authority to 
appoint interim United States Attorneys indefinitely, the 
administration has exploited the provision to fire United States 
Attorneys for political reasons. A mass purge of this sort is 
unprecedented in recent history. The Department of Justice and the 
White House coordinated this purge. According to an administration 
``hit list'' released in March of this year, United States Attorneys 
were targets for the purge based on their rankings. The ranking relied 
in large part on whether the United States Attorneys ``exhibit[ed] 
loyalty to the President and Attorney General.''
  Mr. Speaker, until exposed by this unfortunate episode, United States 
Attorneys were expected to, and in fact did exercise, wide discretion 
in the use of resources to further the priorities of their districts. 
Largely a result of its origins as a distinct prosecutorial branch of 
the Federal Government, the office of the United States Attorney 
traditionally operated with an unusual level of independence from the 
Justice Department in a broad range of daily activities. That practice 
served the Nation well for more than 200 years. The practice that has 
been in place for less than 2 years has served the Nation poorly. It 
needs to end. That is why I vote to report H.R. 580 favorably to the 
House. That is why I will vote for S. 214. I urge all Members to do 
likewise.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 214.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________