[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H6688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, earlier this week the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], a good friend and distinguished 
Member of the Congress, on the floor of this body, charged that the 
ongoing Federal grand jury investigation of the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton], chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, was a political prosecution and was brought because the 
chairman was trying to do his job. My colleague from Tennessee further 
accused the Attorney General of politicizing our system of justice.
  I would like to examine those remarks for a few minutes to determine 
whether there is any foundation in these remarks. As the senior member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have tried to follow the 
activities of the Department of Justice as carefully as I can, and I am 
trying to find where the Justice Department is politicized or whether 
it prefers, as has been alleged, to investigate and prosecute 
Republicans or in particular the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from Indiana Mr. Burton.
  The first thing I would bring to the attention of Members of the 
House of Representatives is that this Justice Department has prosecuted 
numerous Democratic Members, including Messrs. Rostenkowski, Reynolds, 
Bustamante, and Fauntroy.
  And so, I am not sure whether it is fair or not to characterize the 
Department of Justice's conduct as politicized in the sense that the 
administration has acted in disregard of its legal obligation when the 
record to date is that the Attorney General has repeatedly exercised 
her discretion with very due diligence and has appointed repeatedly 
independent counsels to investigate prima facie allegations against 
this administration, its Cabinet officials, and others.
  Now what kind of job the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight is doing is not in my province this evening. But 
we are well aware of the objections that the campaign finances and 
investigation, that the chairman of that committee is conducting has 
had some problems. I refer particularly to the fact that the general 
counsel of the committee, who submitted his resignation earlier this 
month, has indicated that his resignation was based on the fact that he 
was unable to implement the standards of professional conduct he was 
accustomed to at the U.S. attorney's office.
  In any case, it is not important how well or poorly the chairman may 
be doing his job. Right now I am concerned about the allegations being 
raised in his defense, which challenge the integrity of the Department 
of Justice in this instance. And I would suggest that it is a leap of 
faith to believe that the coincidence of the chairman's investigation 
followed by a subpoena of his records mean that the subpoena is a 
consequence of his investigation.
  I do not know the scope of the grand jury that it is alleged concerns 
itself with his conduct, nor may I be privileged to know the scope. And 
I would refer the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from 
Tennessee to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 6(e), which 
quite carefully says no attorney for the Government can disclose what 
the grand jury is doing. It is at page 36 of the 1997 edition of the 
Federal criminal code and rules.
  For the same reason, I do not know what evidence, if any, prompted 
any subpoena the grand jury may issue of the grand jury matters are 
secret in order to protect the person under investigation. For that 
reason, the Department of Justice may not comment on the scope of its 
investigation, nor may it publicly justify the legitimacy of the 
subpoena or its scope.
  But the chairman has a remedy, or his counsel. They may challenge the 
scope and appropriateness of the subpoena.
  I would close by pointing out that the gentleman can file a motion to 
quash or modify the subpoena and indeed he can challenge the entire 
grand jury proceeding in the Federal district court in which these 
grand jury proceedings is brought.

                          ____________________