Chris Smith: “Mr. Chairman, I do sympathize with the point raised by my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. But we…”

“Mr. Chairman, I do sympathize with the point raised by my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. But we looked very carefully at those points, the points that he has raised in debate today, in the committee; and the gentleman from Indiana compromised, I think rather extensively, to meet many of the objections that were being raised. I would submit, and I think we all will agree with this, that nobody wants to hobble law enforcement. But all the bill does, and I hope Members will take the time to read the section, all the bill does is to ensure basic due process in IG investigations. Specifically, this provision as it now reads in the current bill erects a firewall between routine IG administrative investigations and criminal investigations. I really do believe, and I believe it very strongly, that a person is entitled to know whether or not he or she is the target of a criminal investigation. This provision does not guarantee that they will know, but as the language in the bill says it, to make all best efforts to provide employees with notice of the full range of his or her rights and then it goes on from there. I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment, and I do ask that Members vote to retain this language that was a carefully crafted compromise during markup in the committee.”