John Hope Bryant

I say to the gentleman, Mr. Mfume, let me answer you in the quickest way possible. The answer to that question is simply this: They do not want to have to reveal their lobbying contacts with the executive branch, and they have cloaked that…

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has the moral and professional obligation to read this bill before he comes to the floor. This bill applies all the same rules of lobbying the executive branch that it applies to…

This bill was handled just like the 1989 revision of the gift laws in a task force. It went through the subcommittee, was voted out unanimously. It was the subject of intense scrutiny----

But we have crafted a bill here which met the objections of all parties in this House, which was participated in by the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership, and we are on the floor with it today because those guys decided…

If this bill doesn't pass today, that's exactly what's going to happen. We're going to be back out here voting----

there was a statement made by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] that he interpreted that there was a reference to the House rules in here. At the request of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], who is the leader-elect on your…

Of course. Everything that applies to a lobbyist with regard to lobbying the House applies to lobbying the executive branch.

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…

I really wonder if the gentleman understands what we are saying is what the gentleman has done is provide that the Attorney General under his provision has 15 days in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of a violation…

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…

Mr. Chairman, I just cannot resist observing that as the gentleman continues to characterize our efforts here in opposing the Gekas amendment in favor of the Bryant amendment as some type of a conspiracy, that I have to repeat what I said…

I would say to the gentleman, because ``personal, financial, or political conflict of interest,'' all of those would be good grounds for going forward, but we have broadened it even further to say if it is in the public interest for any…

I just have to observe that whenever a human being, in the face of the language of the law when it is laid before them and repeated over and over in terms that anyone could understand, continues to deny what is before their very eyes…

I do not know where the folks who have been talking on the Republican side have been the last 10 years. They are as capable of reading the law as we are. It is available to them. I guess they do not want to read it. The law as of 10 years…

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…

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute amendment to which I referred a moment ago. We bring this amendment to the floor in order that every Member of the House might have an opportunity to vote as we voted in the Judiciary…

Are you not reading the papers? Are you not aware that high-ranking Members of Congress of both parties are presently under investigation? Is there some indication otherwise? Have you not read the law? I will not yield again. Have you not…

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…

we have before us today a historic statute, a unique statute in our jurisprudence that grew out of a unique event in American history. That is the Watergate event of some 20 years ago. It resulted in the passage, in 1978, of a special…

Again, I would emphasize removal is possible for an independent counsel for cause, and a serious violation of any of these standards would satisfy that requirement.

I just want to continue saying I think that the objection of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] goes to his view that the Attorney General did not act appropriately at that time. But that is a fact question. The fact of the matter is…

first I would like to respond by saying that the gentleman's very strong remarks about the intent of the Rules Committee, or our intent in carrying this bill, I think, are perhaps a little bit stronger than they should be, to say the…

that is a fair question and there is a good answer for it. First of all, every American, no matter whether they are an independent counsel or not, is subject to title 18, United States Code, section 798, which provides criminal penalties…

I would like to say that I regret very much the remarks I heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], make a moment ago... This rule makes in order 10 amendments. Six of them are Republican…

I would first like to thank Chairman Moakley for reserving this time so that we may honor Speaker O'Neill's memory. When I was elected to serve in the 98th Congress in 1982, I found I was privileged to serve under Speaker O'Neill for 4…