[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESS SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
                    PRESIDENT AND THE SECRET SERVICE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 14, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am told that the Majority Whip, Mr. 
DeLay, will soon offer an extraordinary and unprecedented amendment to 
the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill which seeks to involve Congress 
in pending litigation between the Secret Service and the Independent 
Counsel, Kenneth Starr.
  That litigation, which is before the federal appeals court in the 
District of Columbia, concerns whether Secret Service agents can be 
required to testify about private activities of the President. Under 
this Republican amendment, Congress would direct the Attorney General 
to withdraw the Secret Service's appeal from an order that affects 
them, and every future President, profoundly.
  What the gentleman from Texas and the Republican leadership want is 
for Congress to weigh in on an important and difficult legal issue and 
give free and unsolicited legal advice to the Attorney General. The 
amendment is bad policy and, I am quite sure, unprecedented. Never, in 
my memory, has the Congress tried to involve itself in such sensitive 
litigation, and certainly not in the context of an Independent 
Counsel's investigation of the President.
  Former President George Bush, in a recent letter to Secret Service 
Director Lewis Merletti, wrote, based on his experience, that he hoped 
that Secret Service agents ``will be exempted from testifying before 
the Grand Jury.'' President Bush went on to say that ``[w]hat's at 
stake here is the protection of the life of the President and his 
family, and the confidence and trust that a President must have'' in 
the Secret Service. Even the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals that originally heard the case itself said that 
``ensuring the physical safety of the President is a public good of the 
utmost importance.''
  Just this past Sunday, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Orrin Hatch, said that his committee would hold hearings 
to consider legislation in this area, a proposal that I think is quite 
reasonable. But until Congress considers this complex area, I don't 
believe that we have any business trying to dictate to the Attorney 
General what position she should take in this litigation.
  The Secret Service has a unique relationship with every President of 
the United States. Secret Service agents necessarily are within earshot 
of every confidential communication that a President has. Are we ready 
to require these agents to repeat everything that they overhear the 
President or the head of a foreign country say? The gentleman's 
amendment threatens the open and close relationship between the Secret 
Service and the President, a relationship that must provide the 
President with maximum security and protection.
  As a matter of principle, the Secret Service has independently 
decided that the issue is important enough to seek rehearing before the 
entire District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the Secret 
Service's strongly held views, isn't it a bit presumptuous of us to 
consider the invitation of the gentleman from Texas to take a position 
on this issue?

                          ____________________