John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I join in support of House Resolution 3494. I commend the cooperation between the staffs and the members of the committee. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. We are united in recognizing the heinous crimes that are committed against children, particularly sex crimes involving children. We also are sensitive to the new perils of the Internet and the phone lines. Modern technology is now making this a place for predators to try to get young children involved in conduct that we consider reprehensible. Mr. Chairman, we are creating new Federal offenses for using the mail or any facility or means of interstate commerce, including phone lines and the Internet, to contact anyone who is under 18 for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity, provided that the sexual activity would expose the other person to criminal prosecution. Essentially, what we are doing today is making it a Federal offense to use the phones, mail, Internet, to contact anyone for the purpose of committing rape, child sex abuse, child prostitution, or statutory rape. Now, legally it is already a Federal offense to persuade someone to cross State lines to engage in sexual activity for which someone can be prosecuted. The purpose of these provisions is to eliminate the need for prosecutors to prove that the victim was persuaded to travel. Another important feature of this bill creates a new Federal offense for using the mail or any facility or means of commerce to transfer obscene material to a minor. We consider this to be very important. Unfortunately, one of the scary prospects of high technology is the fact that there is a great deal of obscenity, sexually charged material and offensive material, that is too frequently available to young people as it is to adults. It is creating a very complicated problem. This legislation, primarily authored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, is intended to try to address that. Now, there are Federal statutes prohibiting the use of the mail or the Internet for interstate transportation of obscenity. But this provision would be to reach intra-State transactions as well. I was not successful in dissuading the distinguished gentleman from Florida from adding new mandatory minimums, but in this case it is hard to argue against life imprisonment for a three-time rapist. I am hopeful that these provisions will not just be sending a message, as is so frequently referred to, but that they actually have an effect, an impact upon those who would commit these kinds of offenses. Now, frequently in the Federal Code rape is a Federal offense if it is committed on Federal property. Otherwise, it is a State offense. But under these new proposals, anyone with prior Federal or State convictions that commits a third such offense, whether or not it would have been under Federal jurisdiction, can now be prosecuted in the Federal court and could receive a mandatory life sentence. The measure before us also establishes a 3-year penalty for using a computer to coerce a minor to cross State lines to engage in illegal sexual activity. So for all of those reasons, I commend favorably this measure to my colleagues in the House. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and I merely want to say that this is one of the most important issues that we have in dealing with children. Pornography on the Internet is a very serious problem, and I urge that the gentlewoman's motion be agreed to.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I have a statement that I would like to add in support of it. I want to commend the gentlewoman for all of the years in the Congress and before the Congress and outside of the Congress in which she has worked on this subject with such great vigor and success.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are indebted to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) for bringing us together on this resolution. I join it. I also would like to mention that, out of a discussion with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), there is an agreement that we will hold hearings very shortly on the measure, House Resolution 3081, which would make this a Federal criminal offense. Ironically, these kinds of civil rights violations are not violations unless they occurred on Federal property or unless they are connected to voter rights or civil rights activity. So it is with pleasure that, out of this tragedy, it can bring us forward and move us, move us forward, because every hate crime is an offense against the most basic values of the American system.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I commend my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, now, how outrageous can the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) get? Our friends in the record industry, and I am a friend of the record industry, they go to the gentleman to sneak in this amendment, not known to anybody until we discovered it; not a hearing, not a word. I do not know who I am more disgusted at, the gentleman or them. I guess I will just be disgusted at both of you. Now, why did the gentleman do it? For what reason? Section 707 protects everybody from phony filings. Everybody. Nobody in America has this exception but your buddies in the record industry. This is a disgrace, and I am really angry that you would try to pull this and that my friends in the entertainment industry would pull it on me. I hope everybody votes against this amendment. There is absolutely no justification for it at all. Besides, it is directed at minority artists and entertainers, who frequently get cheated out of their earnings and have to go into bankruptcy, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). So, please, have a heart.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple and straightforward motion to recommit. It acknowledges the bankruptcy rights of creditors who are drunk driving victims and victims of crimes. Mr. Speaker, the present bill does not make a single change to protect the rights of crime victims forced to compete against credit card companies in bankruptcy. This is why the Mothers Against Drunk Driving are opposed to the bill, and the National Organization for Victim Assistance are strongly opposed to the bill. My amendment would ensure that crime victims receive the same rights to preempt credit card debts that alimony creditors receive in the bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I urge Members to support the substitute and vote against this bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record the following new story from The Washington Post. [From the Washington Post, June 10, 1998] Scaife Foundation Gave $550,000 to Anti-Clinton Legal Group (By David Segal) Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh billionaire whose foundations have bankrolled an array of anti-Clinton activities, gave one of his largest grants last year to Judicial Watch, the conservative group suing the Clinton administration in 18 separate matters, newly released records show. Scaife gave Judicial Watch $550,000, according to documents disclosed by the Carthage Foundation, one of four philanthropies underwritten by Scaife. That sum is nearly nine times as large as the $60,000 in outside contributions Judicial Watch said it received in 1996. ``It's a minority of our support and we're very proud to receive it,'' Judicial Watch founder and president Larry Klayman said yesterday before refusing further comment. In a recent interview, Klayman would not confirm the Scaife grant and deflected financing questions by saying, ``Basta! . . . that means `stop it' in Italian.'' Scaife's foundations last year gave away a total of $25 million to conservative groups as well as academic institutions such as Boston University and Carnegie Mellon University. The scion of the Mellon banking family, Scaife has become a major financial resource for those eager to probe Clinton administration controversies, from the Monica S. Lewinsky case to the death of White House deputy counsel Vincent W. Foster. Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr had once planned to accept a Scaife foundation-financed deanship at Pepperdine University, leading Clinton allies to criticize the prosecutor's conservative movement ties. The recipient of the largest single Scaife grant last year--for $1.5 million--was the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation Inc., a think tank run by conservative activist Paul Weyrich. Free Congress is part owner of America's Voice, a TV network formerly known as national Empowerment Television. The American Spectator magazine took in nearly $1 million last year from two Scaife foundations--Carthage and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Part of that money paid for the so-called ``Arkansas Project,'' an investigation of alleged Clinton skulduggery in his home state. The project was criticized by several Spectator staffers and has given rise to an investigation into whether some Scaife money improperly went to pay a key Starr witness. But the financial relationship between the magazine and Scaife's foundations is over. ``Let's just say that the Spectator had Scaife foundation money in the past [but] they decided to quit contributing this year,'' said publisher Terry Eastland. The Landmark Legal Foundation, a Herndon group that has pounded Pentagon officials for allegedly leaking data from Linda R. Tripp's personnel file, took in $525,000 from Scaife. ``We have a hard and fast rule here,'' said Landmark president Mark Levin. ``We don't accept money laundered through Indian tribes or Buddhist nuns.'' The award to Judicial Watch is in some ways the most notable of the Scaife grants, representing a huge financial boon for a group that barely registered on Washington's radar screen until recently. In 1996, the group's largest benefactor was Klayman himself, a formerly obscure international trade attorney; he kicked in about $110,000 of his own money and took in just $60,000 in outside contributions. Scaife foundation officials did not return calls about why they decided to start giving to Judicial Watch. Klayman first gained notice when he took a deposition from Democratic fund-raiser John Huang in 1996, just as the controversy about Democratic campaign financing was breaking. By last year, Klayman was becoming a regular on TV chat shows such as ``Rivera Live'' as he subpoenaed a parade of Clinton allies for depositions in various lawsuits. Klayman has turned up such disclosures as a pentagon official's admission that he authorized the Tripp information leak. But Judicial Watch's advertising also has featured far-fetched theories, including that the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown might have been shot in the head by top White House officials. Klayman is deposing witnesses for three lawsuits against the Commerce Department and one against the Justice Department, among others, and he represents Republicans whose FBI files were obtained by White House officials.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the following transcript of a speech made by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to the Mecklenberg County Bar Association in Charlotte, NC on June 1, 1998. Remarks by Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr at Mecklenburg Bar Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina Mr. STARR: Thank you very much. Thank you, Bill. It is a great pleasure to be here among a number of friends and new friends, in this great and very dynamic city, building upon a rich tradition of wonderful lawyers, some of whom have graced the leading courts in the country, including the Supreme Court of the United States. So thank you for your very kind invitation. And let me also say at the outset how grateful I am to the sponsors for directing the very generous gift to the Burger Library Project at the College of William and Mary. I was privileged to serve as a law clerk to the late chief justice, and this, as you might imagine, for those who have been privileged to serve as law clerks for federal judges, is a labor of love when one is given the opportunity to be supportive in some way or another of a project that one knows that--as law clerks like to refer to their judge as either ``the judge'' or ``the boss''--that the boss would say, ``That is a good thing, and I'm very grateful.'' So I am very grateful to you. Let me also say that in light of the comment about Arthur Miller--how many wives was that?--(laughter)--thankfully, I'm about to celebrate my 28th wedding anniversary. I was thinking about the dog. (Soft laughter.) The dog bit Arthur? Ms. : Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative.) Mr. STARR: Now I have argued against Arthur and with Professor Miller, and he's a very distinguished advocate and so forth. But I have a solution. Not only do I have the same wife for the last 20--almost--8 years; we've also had a limited number of dogs. (laughter.) And I've got a dog for Professor Miller--(laughter)--who is a dropout from obedience school. (Laughter.) No Phi Beta Kappa, he. Thank you again for your hospitality. Several days ago the nation was once again shocked when a 15-year-old boy walked into a school in a little community in Oregon, of all places, Springfield by name, and opened fire-- I should quickly say ``allegedly.'' One can only wonder what lies behind this horror. The pundits are already thinking and commenting. Some may say it's easy access to guns. Some say it's the culture of violence in the mass media, on television and our movies. Others say it's parental failure, breakdown of families, parental responsibility and the like. But it seems to me that when we gather together as a legal community, we cannot lose sight of the broader cultural backdrop, and to look at these unspeakable tragedies of life against that backdrop. A very thoughtful person, Professor Steven Carter of the Yale Law School, has recently written yet another thoughtful book entitled simply, ``Civility''. And in this book--perhaps you have seen it; it's, again, as his books tend to do-- gathering a lot of attention, and rightly so, he discussed what he calls the de-civilization of American society. Professor Carter characterizes civility, a term that is very familiar to the legal profession, in a very intriguing way. He says, ``It's the sum of the sacrifices that each of us as individuals make in order to live as part of organized society.'' The sum of our individual sacrifices. Now, Professor Carter suggests, rather unhappily, that Americans are losing their sense, as a people, of civility. While individualism, and indeed, rugged individualism is a long and cherished tradition in American society, Professor Carter is seeing something different. Nothing wrong with being individualistic and asserting individual autonomy, but he says there is a cultural difference. His thesis is that, increasingly, Americans see themselves traveling through their lifetime journeys alone. Many believe that--again, Professor Carter's thesis--they should be able to act in a self-centered, egocentric, selfish way, and indeed, to act in whatever manner suits their interests, as they determine it at the time, regardless of the effect that it may have on others. This callous disregard for civility, that sum of self- sacrifice, Professor Carter argues is threatening to this society. In his view, it threatens our very safety, but even more than that it threatens our political foundations, our democratic way of life. Many observers believe that the legal profession, notwithstanding its greatness and its traditions, has likewise not been immune from this disease of selfishness. Justice O'Connor put it this way: she said, ``Many lawyers appear to have forgotten the integrity and civility--'' notice her marriage of the two, integrity and civility-- ``that once distinguished our profession.'' She used the term ``many lawyers,'' not all. Many seem to have forgotten these twin pillars of integrity and civility. A striking example of what is said all too frequently, namely the low public esteem of the profession, is the fact that notwithstanding that 25--count them--of our 42 presidents has been lawyers, and some are icons. Think of them. Mr. Jefferson; Mr. Madison; Mr. Lincoln. Lawyers, and successful lawyers; practicing lawyers, lawyers who knew courtrooms, knew how to try cases. Notwithstanding that storied past, one of the candidates in the Washington, DC, mayoral primary is campaigning on this: ``Vote for me because I am NOT a lawyer.'' Now that's in Washington, DC. Makes one wonder. Times have changed. It was 150 years ago, not too terribly far from here, that one of the great courtroom lawyers of his day, Daniel Webster, had this boast: ``Show me a man who is dishonest, and I will tell you, he is not a lawyer.'' We would say, ``He or she is not a lawyer.'' The lawyer of yesteryear was seen as a person who upheld the law and who stood steadfast against recklessness, against tyranny, and indeed against prejudice. As recently as 1960, which some of us do remember, a Southern novelist named Harper Lee wrote a little story. She expanded on what had been a short story, and you know it. She created this marvelous character, a lawyer named Atticus Finch, in ``To Kill a Mockingbird.'' Atticus Finch strove to find the truth while defending a black man who was wrongly accused of rape in a segregated community. The hatred that was directed against the innocent defendant even sparked a lynch mob, and Atticus had to stand and control that mob. And in acting in the story very bravely in the pursuit of truth, Atticus taught his children, through whose eyes we saw the story unfold; the town itself; and now countless Americans, including schoolchildren who across the country happily read this story; some have only seen the movie. But whether one has seen the movie and Gregory Peck or, hopefully, have read the book, have learned important lessons that a lawyer taught about justice, about basic human decency, about tolerance. Now in contrast to this very noble and trustworthy soul, today's popular culture portrays lawyers as greedy and unethical people who will cheerfully hawk their services--and, indeed, their very morals--to the highest bidder. Whether it is the character Bruiser in John Grisham's novel, also a movie, ``The Rainmaker'' or Al Pacino in last year's movie ``Devil's Advocate,'' popular culture now sees lawyers as anything but seekers of truth and justice. No Atticus Finches in the movies. Today's fictional lawyer will do anything for the client. No longer is he or she portrayed as being accountable to society as a whole for the authority, responsibility, and indeed power, that the lawyer is able to wield through the justice system. Now many of us, and certainly many here in this room, question profoundly whether this portrayal of modern day is fair, because each of us, I am confident, knows a great many lawyers out there who fall much more on the spectrum of Atticus Finch than they do to Bruiser. But we still have to concede that the profession has changed, and we face a host--we all know them--of both economic and structural issues quite familiar to everyone in the room. But now to speak personally, one of these issues has been as baleful to our profession as its apparent loss of respect for truth. Too many of today's lawyers take Mark Twain's old aphorism very much to heart. As Mr. Clemens said, ``Truth is the most valuable thing that we have, so let's economize with it.'' (Laughter.) Not Atticus Finch. Mr. Finch embodied two of the most important, and indeed noble, values of our system, loyalty to the client and yet respect for truth. For Atticus, these two values were not in conflict. The quest for the truth was very decidedly in his innocent client's best interest. What happens when those values do conflict? When a search for the truth is not in the client's interest, which value should guide the lawyer's conduct? Lawyers have faced this question for some time, indeed I would say for generations. But the balance that the modern- day profession strikes appears to me to have changed. As a great lawyer practicing in Boston, Justice Louis Brandeis, one of the most creative lawyers of our century, sided unapologetically with the search for the truth. Before becoming a Supreme Court justice, he consistently lifted up and sought assiduously to follow this credo: Advise a client what he should have, not what he wants. It sounds so odd to many ears, now. Now, skip ahead a generation and Charles Curtis, a lawyer, very successful, in Boston, declaring a generation after the Brandeisian credo, quote, ``One of the functions of the lawyer is to lie for his client.'' The Brandeis-Curtis debate, as it were, even though they were never on the same platform, continues to rage today among practitioners and scholars alike. But the modern day image of the lawyer is the Speilbergian image, if you will, of lawyers as hired guns, suggests that at least a good many lawyers have given the appearance, at a minimum, and perhaps have decided to pay less than scrupulous regard for the truth, the truth. Now this choice, to the extent it is being made each day, is most unfortunate. It goes to the basic moral foundation of our system. Truth indeed is intended to be the primary goal of our judicial system, because without truth as a foundation, justice cannot predictably be achieved. Our rules of evidence and of procedure demonstrate this. And after all, at a very basic level that all of us as citizens understand, witnesses are not directed, ``Tell whatever is in your interest. Be creative, be imaginative.'' Now, they are sworn to tell, in these wonderful words, ``The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.''- Countless judicial opinions have reaffirmed this, ``this'' being it is the truth and not the service of clients, is the legal system's abiding value. One of the more famous examples that I followed rather closely was a decision from just a decade ago, in a case called Mix (ph) against Whiteside. The defendant in that case was a gentleman by the name of Whiteside, and he indicated to his attorney that he intended to commit perjury on the stand, thought it might go better for him if he did. The attorney, quite properly, threatened to withdraw from the representation, and in effect, he prevented Mr. Whiteside from getting on the stand and lying. Now, Whiteside was convicted. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult standard, but the jury found it, and so he's on appeal, and he says, among other things, ``I was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment because my lawyer declined to allow me to lie on the stand.'' Speaking for the nation's highest court, and overturning the court of appeals that had accepted the argument---- Mr. STARR: Thank you--(laughter)--Chief Justice Burger, for whom again, I was privileged to clerk long before this opinion was written, very forcefully disagreed. And I know it's not polite to read from opinions whether you're arguing a case or especially subjecting you to an after-luncheon address, but these words are so powerful and simple and they are brief: ``We recognize counsel's duty of loyalty and the overarching duty to advocate the defendant's cause. But it is manifest that that duty is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct by the attorney compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for the truth.'' The chief justice continued, ``The responsibility of an ethical lawyer as an officer of the court--'' what a ring to it, an officer of the court--``dedicated to a search for the truth is essentially the same whether the client intends to commit perjury or to bribe witnesses. A lawyer simply cannot allow the client to commit a fraud on the court.'' His final words: ``The suggestion sometimes made that a lawyer must, quote, ``believe his or her client and not judge him'' in no sense means that a lawyer can honorably be a party to presenting known perjury.'' Now to many of us--(inaudible)--the Whiteside seemed like an easy case, and the result there was, you'll be pleased to know, 9-zip, against Mr. Whiteside. (Laughs.) Perhaps the more difficult question that lawyers face day in and day out is at what point does a lawyer's manipulation of the legal system become an obstruction of truth? That issue raises tricky, difficult questions, and I think that the answers are found in the position recently advocated by a professor at the Yale Law School, Akhil Reed Amar. ''Our adversary system,'' Professor Amar has very convincingly, to my mind, argued, ``is not an end, but a means to an end. Pleadings, discovery, and the examination of witnesses are not the goals, they are only tools to be employed in a moral enterprise--the search for truth.'' Anthony Kronman, who is dean of the Yale Law School, has expanded on this idea in his very troubling book about our profession called, ``The Lost Lawyer.'' As Dean Kronman observes. ``The good lawyer is not only an advocate, but he or she is also a councilor. A good lawyer, acting as advocate in court, must use arguments to convince others--juries, judges--of the strength of the client's position. And that good lawyer, or other lawyers, acting as councilor, must urge the client against steps that are likely to impede the quest for truth, steps that, as most experienced lawyers and judges will say, will be recognized by juries for what they are.'' This vision, by Dean Kronman of Yale, of the virtuous lawyer, rather than the ``lost'' lawyer, has particular resonance when we talk not about the lawyer for an individual or the lawyer for a private corporation, but when we're speaking about a lawyer for the government, a lawyer for the people, whether it's a prosecutor or some other government lawyer. That public servant lawyer owes a duty not to any individual, but to the people as a whole. Surprisingly, the basic proposition, grounded in history, tradition and common morality, is the subject to controversy as we speak. But the principle has been resoundingly reaffirmed by two federal courts in the last year. The courts have considered whether the evidentiary privileges that are available to private lawyers are also available to government lawyers paid, as Bill was emphasizing, at taxpayer expense. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, last year, flatly rejected the argument. and it did so in fairly emphatic language, which again I would like to share to you. It's very brief: ``The strong public interest in honest government and in exposing wrongdoing by public officials would be ill served by recognition of a governmental attorney-client privilege applicable in criminal proceedings inquiring into the actions of public officials.'' The court went on: ``We also believe that to allow any part of the federal government to use its in-house attorneys as a shield against the production of information relevant to a federal criminal investigation would represent a gross misuse of public assets.'' Strong words. Just a few weeks ago, these principles were emphasized and reaffirmed by the distinguished chief judge for the United States District Court in Washington. She is Judge Norma Hollaway Johnson. She wrote, ``A private organization, such as a corporation, and a government institution differ significantly especially in the criminal context.'' And she emphasized, ``Government attorneys are paid by U.S. taxpayers.'' And she quoted the 8th Circuit's very pointed observations about the duties of the public lawyer, the government lawyer. These principles aren't new, nor should they be in the slightest bit controversial. They should admit of universal approbation. As District Judge Jack Weinstein (sp) stated some 30 years ago, ``If there is wrongdoing''--if--``if there is wrongdoing in government, it must be exposed.'' The law officer has a special obligation. His or her duty is an obligation to the people and to the law, and his (own?) conscience requires disclosure; not hiding, disclosure. Then in fulfilling their duty to the people, government lawyers traditionally have urged upon courts not to create new testimonial privileges to keep evidence out, to keep evidence away, from fact-finders. And in the same vein, government lawyers have historically said: ``Courts, don't expand the old and ancient privileges. Keep them, but don't expand them because they're obstacles to the search for truth.'' Now litigants often try, as they're, entitled to do, to concoct new privileges by contending that their relationship is just as important as the attorney-client relationship, on the spousal relationship or the priest-penitent relationship. But the problem is, the're arguing in the wrong forum. This is, in very broad compass, a legislative task. Congress is the proper forum for new federal privileges to be recognized in federal grand jury proceedings. An example from another field makes the point--and you will be pleased to know I am drawing to the end. I saw that look: ``Is he going to keep going? Are we now going to have a law''--no, we're nearly through. For many years the accounting industry, our brothers and sisters in the CPA community, have urged and indeed have pleaded for the creation--and many of you are familiar with this--of an accountant-client privilege. The argument is that accountants deserve the same protection as attorneys, and some very interesting policy arguments have been advanced to further that argument. But this effort has been resoundingly rebuffed by the courts. I'm not saying attorneys aren't--that accountants aren't important and the like, but rather saying no, you can't have a privilege. And indeed, the effort was finally resoundingly defeated by a once again unanimous Supreme Court. No such privilege, the court said, is going to be created. And accordingly, the accounting industry has quite appropriately and properly turned to the Congress of the United States. And indeed, as we speak, on Capitol Hill right now there's a pending bill which, if enacted, would give accountants a narrow privilege in certain civil proceedings. The point is this: If you want to expand an existing privilege to apply it in a new or unusual area, the place to go is Congress, not federal courts. The courts should not and cannot be in the business of creating new legal privileges from whole cloth, and lawyers ought to tell their clients that. The search for truth and the proper counseling of clients is equally appropriate outside litigation. I know that there are people in this room who try to avoid courtrooms, so let me say just a brief word in that respect. What third party will intelligently agree to a one-sided transaction? What court will allow a transaction then to stand if it's based on deception, the hiding of facts, or affirmative misleading and misstatements? Perhaps Elihu Root, a former secretary of state, a United States senator, and a renowned lawyer in his own right earlier in this century, put it most succinctly: ``About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and they should stop what they're doing.'' (Laughter.) Lawyers have great influence in our society. (Chuckles.) I heard a hearty ``amen'' down there--we have an ``amen'' bench here. (Laughter.) And as Justice O'Connor has recognized--let me turn to her very modern voice--``Ethical''--what a wonderful word--``Ethical standards for lawyers are properly understood as a means of restraining lawyers in the exercise of the unique power that they inevitably wield in a system like ours.'' Dean Kronman of Yale describes the lawyer of yesteryear, the great lawyer of the past, as a lawyer statesman; a person who not only uses the law to benefit society, but helps to develop and refine the law so that it can effectively serve our highest and noblest goals. To that end. Sol Linowitz, the distinguished lawyer, business person, ambassador, points out in his also troubling book, ``The Betrayed Profession'' that lawyers of the past played a pivotal role in developing and securing the liberties that Americans today take for granted. In fact, Ambassador Linowitz observes other countries have similar constitutions and similar Bills of Rights, but they don't enjoy our liberties, and largely because those countries, in his words, ``Lack a bar, a legal community with sufficient courage and independence to establish those rights.'' According to Dean Kronman, the lawyer statesman has virtually disappeared from our lives. And the lawyer statesman in the last generation has turned instead into a lawyer technician--Dean Kronman's haunting description. And more broadly, that the legal profession itself has become a business. But, you know, even if this rather gloomy diagnosis is accurate--and I like to resist it, I truly do--but it hardly excuses lawyers from doing their duties. As a distinguished professor at the Harvard Law School, Mary Ann Glendon very aptly states, ``Any business, including law, thrives best on cooperation and honesty.'' In short, even as technicians, if that is what we have become on a specialized world, lawyers have a duty not to use their skills to impede the search for truth. Imagine the disaster that would consume our profession and indeed our society if lawyers let down their moral guard and simply shrugged when clients declare explicitly or implicitly to commit perjury. No longer in such a world would decisions by our courts be based on a balanced assessment of truth, fairness and justice, and no longer would our society (face/ faith?), as it continues to do, in our legal system. This search for truth, closing on a more cheerful note, advances our profession. I believe that lawyers have a very well-deserved sense of professional pride and a belief that what they do day in and day out has a potential to be worthwhile, rewarding, socially constructive and personally fulfilling. Lawyers serve clients, but they also serve the broader interests of our legal system and society. And in that process, it is important for us as lawyers to maintain a certain degree of independence and detachment. otherwise, we are in danger of becoming that which our ancestors vigorously resisted, the concept of the indentured servant rather than professionals. As the educator and lawyers Robert Maynard Hutchins once put is very well, ``There are some things that a professional will not do for money.'' The result is this: We cannot, whether in public life or in private practice, look solely to our clients for leadership. Lawyers too have a right, but they also have a responsibility, to exercise independent judgment. And at times, that means saying no to the client. You can't do it. We can't argue it. It means sticking up for the right thing, as our (lights?) lead us to believe what is right. And in that process, we are, when we are at our best, guided not simply by the client's interest, but by that other pillar, the search for the truth. And that, it seems to me, is the path away from the seedy underworld of Grisham's loser and a rediscovery of the inspiring path that Atticus Finch urged us and urges us today, to walk upon. Thank you very much.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the gentleman from Ohio in his constitutional wisdom, and I am glad he is staying here for it. First of all, to my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), I would like to point out to him that no Supreme Court decision ever has prevented students from praying on their own. Not a single decision of any court can be cited for the contrary proposition. Number two, in the 1962 Supreme Court case of Engel v. Vitale, which I am sure the gentleman has reviewed, it struck down only the practice of having government compose school prayer. In the Wallace case, which the gentleman may or may not be familiar with, it held, ``The government may give objective instruction about religion in public schools and provide for religiously neutral moments of silence, permit students to engage in private, non-disruptive prayer during the school day, and pose no barrier to organized student-initiated religious clubs under the Equal Access act.'' We are not hypocrites.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just wanted my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who has left the floor, to understand that nothing prohibits voluntary prayers, from school boards, courts, or anything else. I am doing this in a friendly way. I am not emotional about it. But it is about time that we learn what the law is that we want to change. I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My thanks to the Majority Leader for his fond recollections of the television production ``All In The Family.'' It was produced by none other than Norman Lear, with whom I am sure the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) shares many common interests and beliefs. The President is now being asked in this resolution that everyone who may have invoked the fifth amendment consider abandoning it. Well, why? Well, because, as the Chairman of the Committee on Rules said, why are they hiding behind the fifth amendment? This is technical constitutional lawyer stuff, but the fifth amendment is for all people. The fifth amendment is not used for people to necessarily hide behind it and then have to explain why they invoke the fifth amendment. I do not think we did that when Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, during his crisis, invoked the fifth amendment. People use the fifth amendment who are totally innocent and have reasons for not wanting to bring forward information. So I do not think that the test of whether someone is telling the truth or not or is guilty or innocent can be arrived at by whether or not they invoke the fifth amendment. I hope everybody in the Congress will agree on this elementary point of constitutional understanding. Now, there have been a lot of names of people who are involved, and we said over 90 in the resolution. But may I remind my colleagues that the Senate Banking Committee held exhaustive hearings on some of these subjects, the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services held exhaustive hearings on other parts of the people referred to and the incidents referred to, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held incredibly lengthy hearings. And the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight not only has held lengthy committee hearings but are continuing to hold committee hearings. So what are we asking the President to do? We are asking him to state that he hopes everyone will cooperate with the investigators and tell the truth. Does anybody on the other side recognize that the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, has already publicly stated that he hopes everyone will cooperate with investigators and tell the truth? Now, it is both bizarre and unprecedented for us to request one party in an investigation to advise the other party as to how they should conduct themselves and whether they should, in effect, ignore the advice of their lawyers. Again, as raised in the other resolution, do my colleagues on the other side really mean that that is what they want the President to tell other people that are being investigated? Again, on their behalf, I do not think so. So I will ask the Members considering this resolution, for what it is worth, I can tell them that I am not favorably disposed toward it and I feel that it is a totally frivolous amendment that is consuming a lot of important time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do have more speakers, so if the gentleman does not mind, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.