I am glad we are moving to the end of this debate. I think it has been a good debate. We have strong words that have been spoken throughout it. Strong feelings, of course, exist on both sides. In fact, we are trying to pass a bill today that has a 15-year history, a noble history. We would like to see it reinstated basically as it has functioned in the past. The bill that is on the floor today would accomplish that, with some notable improvements that I think are constructive and respond to what we have learned during the operation of the statute during the last 15 years. The Hyde substitute which is before us for the next vote, in my view, would move us away from what we have learned with regard to the operation of the act, and I think take us away also from common sense. One point that has been made well here, and ought to be made again, is that if you do what is in the Hyde substitute and include mandatory coverage of Members of Congress, rather than keeping it optional, and also require Congress to vote every year on the appropriation for the independent counsel, then obviously you will be building into the law an enormous conflict of interest.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the implications of a proposed bill and its substitute regarding independent counsel.
Share
More from John Hope Bryant
The gentleman stopped reading too soon. If he kept reading he would specifically see that the statute already says that the specificity of information received and the credibility of the source are the key factors in her determination. So…
I would just like to restate what the chairman said. We would be glad to accept the first part of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], because it is simply a restatement of what is in the bill with regard to…
But it arises out of the fact that today in the United States we have a set of lobbying statutes that do not work, do not require the disclosure of necessary information so that the public can know what is going on, does not tell those who…
My question is this, does the gentleman think that the rules of this place ought to permit him to have a lobbyist, whose job it is to influence him, pay for his greens fees?





