as I said earlier, the independent counsel statute is an important law and it should be reauthorized. However, the law which expired has not fulfilled its purpose due to shortcomings in the former statute. We need to reform this law if we are to reauthorize it here today. The Hyde substitute embraces virtually every issue debated and voted on in the Judiciary Committee. It represents a responsible and comprehensive reform package that will improve this law and make it a better law than the one that expired in 1992. Colleagues, this substitute is the only comprehensive reform measure that we will be voting on today. Accountability and cost control, as I stated in opening the debate on this bill, are central to improving the independent counsel function. Madam Chairman, these are they key concepts of the Hyde substitute. For example, the substitute provides that after 2 years each independent counsel shall become subject to the annual appropriations process. This is a responsible cost control intended to avoid runway investigations such as Iran-Contra, which spent over $39 million. If the substitute passes, the independent counsel will be subject to congressional oversight and the appropriations process. Additionally, under the Hyde substitute, every 2 years the independent counsel would have to apply to the court for reappointment.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is discussing the need to reform and reauthorize the independent counsel statute.
Share
More from Jack Brooks
Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman's effort to provide a comprehensive solution to the problems of private security guards whose qualifications may be suspect, I have a number of concerns which lead me to oppose the amendment…
in the final analysis, this amendment does not change the status quo. Leaving the status quo in place would allow a steady stream of postconviction habeas appeals to any number of courts. It also leaves intact perhaps the greatest problem…
we have now reached the end of the day on the issue before us. The general debate time has allowed every possible argument to be aired by the proponents who seem to have no qualms whatsoever about taking a simplistic approach to a very…
We do not need any more amendments, Mr. Chairman. There are enough amendments now available on this bill, and I am trying to edit this to where it makes sense, to where it would be unbelievable that they would want to have any more.





