[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 101 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MR. STARR: WAIVE REPORTERS' PRIVILEGE OF SILENCE AND ALLOW THEM TO TELL 
                             WHAT THEY KNOW

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 24, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is now 
the subject of multiple investigations of whether he and his staff 
illegally leaked confidential information to the media. Those 
investigations include a contempt hearing to be held by Chief Judge 
Norma Holloway Johnson of the federal court in Washington, and 
inquiries by the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Justice 
Department, and the D.C. Bar Counsel. In addition, the Independent 
Counsel is supposed to be investigating himself.
  Mr. Starr has already admitted that he and his chief deputy, Mr. 
Jackie Bennett, routinely talk to the media on an off-the-record basis 
regarding their investigation of the President. The Independent Counsel 
claims, however, that his discussions were legal because the rule of 
grand jury secrecy does not reach information until it is presented to 
a grand jury. That argument, in my view, is incorrect.
  An important question in these leak investigations will be exactly 
what was said during meetings between the prosecutors and reporters. In 
order to have a full and complete record of what went on during those 
sessions, the Independent Counsel should publicly release the reporters 
from their vows of silence. After all, is it fair for the Independent 
Counsel to share confidential information with reporters, and then 
force them to cover-up possible misdeeds?
  I fully respect a reporter's First Amendment right not to reveal a 
source. But the Independent Counsel can relieve the reporters from 
having to make a difficult decision to stand mute. Given the 
significance of issues involving the investigation of the President, 
Mr. Starr should allow the court and public to know what his media 
contacts have to say on this subject.
  On more than one occasion, the Independent Counsel has called on the 
President to urge others to waive privileges and testify. The first was 
when he wrote to the White House Counsel, Mr. Ruff, asking that the 
President tell Susan McDougal to waive her Fifth Amendment rights and 
testify before the White water grand jury. Mr. Starr did that even 
though Ms. McDougal had her own lawyer to advise her, and publicly said 
that she would not listen to what the President said. In addition, the 
spokesman for the Independent Counsel, Mr. Bakaly, criticized the 
President for refusing to urge Ms. McDougal to give up her rights.
  A second instance involved the Secret Service. In April of this year, 
after the Secret Service argued that its agents could not be compelled 
to testify about the President, Mr. Starr requested that the President 
waive any Secret Service privilege and order the agents to appear 
before the grand jury. Mr. Starr made that request even though the 
privilege was asserted by the Secret Service and not the President, and 
the Secret Service's director, Mr. Merletti, considered the matter to 
be one of great national significance.
  The President was right when he refused the Independent Counsel's 
ill-considered requests. But I cannot see any public interest in Mr. 
Starr's refusal to waive the privilege that requires his media contacts 
to remain silent in the face of these leak investigations. The 
Independent Counsel has made clear that he views the invocation of 
privileges as a roadblock to the truth. How, in good conscience, can he 
take a different position simply because he has now become the focus of 
the investigation?

                          ____________________