Improving Government Accountability Act

Floor Speech

IMPROVING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT -- (House of Representatives - October 03, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I want to thank the Chair of the committee and Congressman Cooper and Congressman Towns for all their work and our ranking member of the committee on the bill. But, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is unfortunate in a bill that has been worked on by both sides so well that we have an amendment now that I think is going to be somewhat divisive. But I believe the amendment may arise from the U.S. Attorney's investigation that consumed so much of our time earlier in this session, particularly the time on the Judiciary Committee. That investigation showed no wrongdoing in the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys and no undermining of the institutions of the Department of Justice.

As time drags on, though, people wonder, why did we spend so much time on this issue? Maybe the majority feels the need to show some results. Perhaps that is why we have this amendment before us today. But the U.S. Attorney's investigation did not show any need to realign the responsibilities of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General. It certainly did not show that OIG should swallow up OPR, which would be the effective result of the amendment before us this afternoon. On the contrary, these offices have quietly gone about their investigative activities and we have seen no great difficulties arise from the exercise of their duties.

But apart from the U.S. Attorney's investigation, the amendment clearly is unwise for other reasons. Both OPR and OIG are needed in their current structure. OPR was established to ensure that the Department of Justice's thousands of attorneys follow all applicable professional rules of conduct. OIG performs an equally critical but very different function of pursuing investigations into general criminal wrongdoing and general administrative misconduct by the Department.

This important distinction calls for two different offices to work on these two issues. As conferees underscored when Congress created the Office of Inspector General in the 1980s: ``The conferees do not intend that the IG should render judgments on the exercise of prosecutorial or litigative discretion in a particular case or controversy. Unless a unique set of circumstances dictate otherwise, the conferees intend that reviews of such prosecutorial or other litigative discretion in a particular case or controversy is an appropriate role for, and may be delegated by, the Attorney General.''

The Attorney General has delegated that authority to OPR. No basis exists to question this policy today. Unlike OIG, OPR is staffed and led entirely by career lawyers. Political background cannot be considered when appointing anyone to a position in the Office of Professional Responsibility. Thousands of current and former Department lawyers can attest that OPR's independence is undisputed and that the Office of Professional Responsibility has never allowed the manner in which it investigates or the results it reaches to be influenced by any political appointee in the Department. Any Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General being investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility is automatically recused from participating in the matter. The most recent example of this is the U.S. Attorney's investigation itself.

I only scratch the surface of the reasons to preserve OPR as it is. As anyone with substantial experience knows, this office can be relied upon to make the hard calls and find attorney misconduct when it has occurred, enabling the Department of Justice to take the proper disciplinary action.

I would call the House's attention again to the need for legislation to address serious crime issues. Republicans have introduced those bills but they continue to languish. Responsible citizens don't want to hear that their loved ones or their neighbors were hurt or killed because the majority in Congress could not bear to solve the Nation's problems with the opposing party's solutions or to turn away from the hunt for political victims.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source