[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 80 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AGREES TO REVIEW ACCUSATIONS AGAINST INDEPENDENT 
                             COUNSEL STARR

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 18, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Attorney General Janet Reno's announcement 
today that allegations of improper conduct by Independent Counsel Ken 
Starr have been referred to the Justice Department's Office of 
Professional Responsibility is an appropriate first step. Over the past 
few days, serious questions concerning the behavior of Mr. Starr and 
his staff have been raised. On the one hand, a respected journalist, 
Steven Brill, says that Mr. Starr admitted leaking grand jury 
information. For his part, Mr. Starr does not deny meeting with 
reporters on an ``off the record basis.'' Instead, he says that the 
information he provided during those meetings was not covered by Rule 
6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  To resolve this dispute, any investigation must determine two 
important things. First, exactly what information did Mr. Starr give to 
reporters during his ``off the record'' meetings? Second, what are the 
legal rules that govern what an Independent Counsel can say to a 
reporter? In his recent letter of complaint to Mr. Brill, the 
Independent Counsel seems to take the position that Rule 6(e) should be 
interpreted very narrowly to apply only to disclosures of events or 
testimony that actually occur in the grand jury room. The law in the 
District of Columbia Circuit does not support that view.
  In its opinion in the Dow Jones case, which was decided in May of 
this year, the D.C. Circuit wrote that Rule 6(e) reaches ``not only 
what has occurred and what is occurring, but also what is likely to 
occur. Encompassed within the rule of secrecy are the identities of 
witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony as well as actual 
transcripts, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the 
deliberations of questions of jurors, and the like.''
  The Dow Jones case makes clear that Rule 6(e) applies much more 
broadly than the Independent Counsel has argued in his public 
statements over the past few days. A review by the Justice Department's 
Office of Professional Responsibility is a good first step toward 
resolving the important factual and legal issues that are disputed in 
this case.

                          ____________________