[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H1411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFUSION SURROUNDING REQUEST OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the point is that the 
justification that the chairman mentioned, the consultations that have 
been held with staff of the minority and the majority, apparently are 
irrelevant to the request tomorrow.
  So I would hope, and I would think the ranking minority member would 
agree with me, that we could get the Committee on House Oversight to 
hold off voting this kind of money until there could be a public 
hearing.
  There appears to be a fundamental confusion, at best, about $1.3 
million. Is it money that is to redo the investigation of the 
independent counsel? Is it money to check up on whether the Attorney 
General has appropriately dealt with the independent counsel? Or is it 
for the reauthorization of the Justice Department?
  What the chairman told us today was one justification, but the letter 
that he and the gentleman from Georgia (Speaker Gingrich) sent to the 
chairman of the committee is entirely about something else. We ought 
not to have $1,300,000 so casually used.
  We also ought to stop what appears to be a two-track operation in 
which the ranking minority member is told one thing about the operation 
of the Committee on the Judiciary when other conversations are going 
on. There is a partisan tinge to this which is inappropriate when 
dealing with the most significant things we can deal with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, here is what the justification submitted to 
the Committee on House Oversight said: ``The Committee on the Judiciary 
contemplates an investigation of the Department of Justice's 
investigation, with an emphasis on the need for an independent 
counsel.''
  They go on to point out that the 17 Republican members have written a 
letter to the Attorney General and that their plans include the 
following: The Department of Justice Public Integrity Section and 
Campaign Fundraising Task Force has been plagued with conflicts of 
interest, et cetera. In the Chippewa casino matter the Department of 
Justice is acting as the criminal prosecutor.
  Further on, the fundraising investigations, the last time the 
Committee on the Judiciary sought an appointment of an independent 
counsel was on the Health Care Task Force.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would allow 
me, as he is making clear from reading this, nothing in here deals with 
the ongoing responsibilities of the Department of Justice, which was 
the stated purpose for this funding from the chairman. Maybe the 
chairman thinks it is for one thing and the Speaker is, to use his 
phrase, saddling him with another purpose.
  There ought to be a public hearing. I would think the ranking 
minority member ought to have a chance to go before the committee and 
talk about that money, whether it is needed, what it ought to be used 
for.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, if anybody in this House thinks that any serious 
investigation of the White House or this administration can begin on a 
partisan basis, as this is appearing to be, I think they are dooming it 
to a total failure. The notion that anything remotely resembling 
impeachment activity be sent to any committee other than the Committee 
on the Judiciary is a clear signal that something is wrong.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask the ranking minority member, 
has there been any conversation on the part of any member of the 
majority, from the Committee on the Judiciary or elsewhere, with the 
gentleman dealing with how we might respond to Independent Counsel 
Starr?
  Mr. CONYERS. No. Not only has that not happened, but I have been 
assured repeatedly, and I am sorry to have to put this into the Record 
now, that I would be kept abreast of all developments connected with 
this, because I have repeatedly been hearing in the media what they 
were trying to do. As a matter of fact, a January letter requesting 
this money was brought to me by a member of the press when I told them 
I had never seen it before. This document I did not see until after the 
hearing of the full Committee on the Judiciary late this afternoon.
  So it is with some sadness that I make public that the agreement that 
I thought that I was entering into has been shattered. Perhaps it can 
be replaced. But I want the entire Congress to know that these 
unilateral Republican shenanigans, whether they come from the Speaker 
or from the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, work an extreme 
disservice on the processes that are within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on the Judiciary in the House.

                          ____________________