[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 75 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H4539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      INDEPENDENT COUNSEL'S ``INTERIM'' REPORT WOULD BE A MISTAKE

  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, I take the floor today to join many of my 
Democratic and Republican colleagues in voicing concerns about reports 
that the Office of the Independent Counsel, headed by Mr. Starr, is 
considering sending an interim report to the House concerning his 
investigation.

                              {time}  1745

  Just this week, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as several other 
Republican Members, including the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) and the distinguished Senator of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Orrin Hatch, have addressed themselves to this topic and 
have expressed serious reservations about the wisdom and propriety of 
any referral to Congress that is incomplete or unfinished.
  I agree with these Members of the majority as well as several of my 
Democratic colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, including the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
that if such a partial report were actually to be delivered prior to 
Mr. Starr's having completed his investigation, it could only be viewed 
as a partisan act intended to influence this fall's election. How else 
could it be viewed?
  The independent counsel has already sacrificed some of his 
credibility through his insensitivity to the many conflicts of 
interest, some real, some apparent, under which he has labored. The 
referral to Congress of an incomplete report would likely exhaust 
whatever remaining patience the public has for Mr. Starr's activities.
  Mr. Starr has previously acknowledged in one of his many interviews 
with the press that his duty is to uncover all the evidence, both the 
evidence that may tend to establish that crimes may have occurred and 
the evidence that would tend to suggest that allegations of wrongdoing 
are unfounded.
  It is quite obvious that Mr. Starr has not yet completed his 
investigation. Until he does so, simple fairness dictates that any 
report to the House must not precede the long-awaited conclusion of the 
investigation.
  When we passed the Independent Counsel Act, we gave the independent 
counsel a great deal of power to conduct investigations as he sees fit. 
Some think too much power. The very breadth of the investigative powers 
granted to Mr. Starr at the very least entitle a Congress to the fruits 
of a complete investigation. The statements issuing from the Office of 
Independent Counsel about the possibility of an interim report are 
simply irresponsible. After 4 years and $40 million, we are entitled to 
a complete report on the findings of Mr. Starr's investigation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly thank the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his statement but as well he 
has raised some very important issues. I join with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the leaders of the Republican Party to 
acknowledge that an interim report would not do us justice in this 
House. We want to make sure that we have a full report.
  With respect to the independent counsel statute, I think that we are 
now seeing how many issues it raises, how many questions the American 
people are even raising as I travel about who have asked me, ``Why is 
Mr. Starr continuing this type of investigation?'' I think it draws 
question to what we do in 1999 on the assessment of the independent 
counsel statute.
  We want full and open investigations, we want a better government, a 
proper government, an appropriate government. But I think even a 
suggestion of an interim report will not do justice to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary in the need for a full review of any report 
that Mr. Starr may have. I hope he listens to our calling for a full 
report so that we can do the business of this House in the right and 
proper manner.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

                          ____________________