Jack Brooks: “I must rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment, has two different parts--which, for some reason…”

“I must rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment, has two different parts--which, for some reason, seems to be obscured by the sponsors in describing the amendment. Now that the moment of truth has arrived it is essential that all Members understand what both parts would do to the structure of the Independent Counsel process. It is understandable why the sponsors of the amendment emphasized only the first part of the amendment: For that part is nothing more than a restatement of the existing standard found in the Independent Counsel statute that guides the Attorney General in conducting a preliminary investigation. It was in the bill in 1978. Thus, part 1 of the Hyde amendment requires that the Attorney General--in determining whether there are grounds to conduct a preliminary investigation--find that the information submitted to her is 'specific' and from a 'credible source.' It sounds good. Guess what? The existing independent counsel statute (28 U.S.C. 591(D)(1)) states the following: 'In determining * * * whether grounds to investigate exist, the Attorney General shall consider only (a) the specificity of the information received; and (b) the credibility of the source of the information.' In other words, it is the same.”