PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 7, 1997
Independent Counsel Accountability and Reform Act of 1997 - Amends the Federal judicial code to require specific information from a credible source sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate whether a person covered by the independent counsel statute (the Act) has violated specified criminal laws. Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to issue subpoenas duces tecum in conducting preliminary investigations. Repeals provisions authorizing the AG to make certain determinations during such preliminary investigations. Requires the division of the court that appoints an independent counsel (IC) to: (1) define with specificity the IC's prosecutorial jurisdiction; and (2) assure that the IC has adequate authority to fully investigate and prosecute the alleged violations of criminal law with respect to which the AG has requested the appointment as well as matters directly related to such criminal violations. Requires such court division to award attorney's fees when an individual is acquitted of all charges or no conviction is obtained against such individual, or when a conviction at a trial is overturned on appeal. Requires the Administrator of General Services (currently, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts) to provide appropriate administrative support to ICs under the Act, including the provision of adequate office space. Requires an IC to: (1) comply with Department of Justice policies concerning the release of information relating to criminal proceedings; (2) limit office expenditures to a two-year period, unless an appropriations Act specifically makes funds available for such expenditures after the end of such period; (3) follow U.S. Government procedures regarding the treatment of classified information; and (4) refrain from engaging in outside legal work during the period of appointment as an IC. Eliminates certain IC reporting requirements. Revises provisions concerning the removal, termination, and periodic reappointment of an IC. Requires quarterly reports to specified congressional committees on aggregate amounts expended by an IC in the previous quarter.
People & committees
Rep. Dickey, Jay [R-AR-4] · R–AR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.139 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.139 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.139 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.139 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.