[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 106 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1493]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONGRATULATING MR. STARR ON AVOIDING A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS CONCERNING 
                       THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 30, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, after unprecedented requests for testimony 
from Secret Service agents and lawyers and mothers, we recently had 
another request for testimony from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, 
this time of the President himself. There were several reasons why the 
President would have been justified in viewing this request as another 
unfair abuse of Mr. Starr's powers. It is highly unusual for the target 
of a grand jury investigation to be subpoenaed to appear before a grand 
jury. It almost never happens and Department of Justice guidelines 
strongly discourage such a practice.
  Never in the history of presidential investigations, from Teapot Dome 
to Watergate to Iran-Contra, has a prosecutor gone to such lengths to 
secure testimony from every conceivable quarter on a matter which 
appears to take on less and less significance as we learn more and more 
about it.
  In addition, Mr. Starr, who is still under investigation for possible 
grand jury leaks by Judge Johnson, the D.C. Bar Association and, 
potentially, the Department of Justice, is seeking President Clinton's 
testimony even before other investigations have reached their 
conclusion. Notwithstanding grave doubts about the fairness of Mr. 
Starr's investigation, the President has agreed to appear for 
questioning on August 17, 1998. Apparently, Mr. Starr has offered some 
guarantee that the questioning will not become an unlimited `fishing 
expedition,'' as some of Mr. Starr's other activities have been 
previously described by a federal judge.
  It was very important that Mr. Starr offer some assurance that he was 
engaged in legitimate fact-finding and not a partisan attempt to 
embarrass this President. After all, this is the same independent 
counsel who forced First Lady Clinton to personally appear before a 
D.C. grand jury in the federal courthouse here over two years ago to 
testify about her work as an attorney while still in private practice 
in Arkansas. That was also unprecedented and apparently designed to 
embarrass the Clintons. Since then, of course, nothing appears to have 
come of the whole Whitewater investigation.
  Mr. Starr's recent agreement to limit conditions of the President's 
testimony was entirely appropriate because to do otherwise would have 
been a transparent attempt to embarrass the President. If these 
negotiations had broken down in a legal dispute over the power of this 
particular independent counsel to call a President before a grand jury 
under conditions dictated by the independent counsel, then Mr. Starr 
would have been responsible for creating a wholly unnecessary 
constitutional crisis.
  I commend the Independent Counsel for the flexibility he displayed in 
reaching an agreement with the President's counsel. We will also be 
watching closely to ensure that details about the President's 
deposition are not mysteriously leaked to the news media.

                          ____________________