I wonder if I might ask the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] a question or two. It is my belief that the gentleman's amendment on coverage, optional coverage of Congress, eliminates, of course, the mandatory coverage but also provides a weaker standard. Under the existing law or, rather, the law that we seek to reincarnate, it says, ``Preliminary investigation with respect to persons not listed.'' Then, of course, that would be Congressmen. The Attorney General determines that an investigation or prosecution of the person with respect to the information received by the Attorney General or other officer of the Department of Justice may result in a ``personal, financial or political conflict of interest.'' When that happens, then the independent counsel is triggered. Under the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], he eliminates ``financial, personal or political conflict of interest,'' and he puts in ``in the public interest.'' It seems to me there could be a financial conflict of interest. There could be a political conflict of interest. There could be a personal conflict of interest, but the AG will not find it in the public interest to appoint an independent counsel. Why did the gentleman change the standard? Why did he not go with the tried and true, proven phrase, ``personal, financial, or political conflict of interest''?
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is questioning an amendment regarding the coverage and standards for independent counsel investigations.
Share
More from Henry Hyde
I have enclosed a series of letters concerning committee jurisdiction on the bill, H.R. 2601, ``To authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and for other purposes.'' Committee on International…
pursuant to the rule, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 571) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately, and ask for its immediate consideration in the…
the following provides a summary and the legislative intent of the provisions included in the conference report on S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, that are within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on…
the question was asked, whose side are we on? I am on the side of the family. It seems to me the practice of ferreting some pregnant girl who is a minor out across the State line so that parents will not know about it is an assault on the…





