[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 9, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1677-E1678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BIPARTISAN EFFORT ON ISSUES RELATING TO THE STARR REPORT EMERGES

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, September 9, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I met with Speaker Gingrich, 
Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Armey, and Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Hyde to talk about issues relating to the report 
from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
  In the past, I have had concerns about the partisan approach taken by 
the majority on procedural issues relating to how the Judiciary 
Committee will handle the Starr report. In particular, I was concerned 
about the prominent role played by the House Rules Committee in 
drafting the procedures we will use, and about why Democrats were 
excluded from the process of drafting those procedures.
  While I have learned over the years to be cautious about promises 
made to me, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by our meeting. 
Of course, we did not have time during our meeting to get into the 
specifics of the procedures that will govern our work, but we were able 
to agree that our approach must be bipartisan, and that these issues 
are so serious to the Congress, the President, and the citizens of our 
country that each of us has a duty to rise above party politics and do 
what is best for our nation.
  During our meeting today, we agreed on a number of things. First, the 
majority agreed to increase the minority's staffing allowance from 4 
investigative slots to 6 investigative slots. This increase means that 
there will be 12 majority investigators and 6 minority investigators. 
This increase in the minority staff will allow both parties to consider 
and analyze the report and its accompanying materials more carefully 
than would have been possible under the prior allocation.
  Second, the report, at some point, is likely to be made available to 
the public. We still hope that the President's counsel will have an 
opportunity to review the report before it is made public and submit 
any additional views that he feels are necessary to a complete 
understanding of the events. Such a submission is extremely important 
because, as you already know, the grand jury witnesses were not subject 
to cross examination and did not have their attorneys present while 
testifying. As such, the witnesses' testimony was not subject to the 
rigorous, adversarial process that our legal system mandates for the 
purpose of eliciting the truth. If the President's counsel were given 
the chance to review the report and submit his views on the evidence 
before the report is made public, Congress would have the advantage of 
hearing both sides of the story and determining the facts based upon 
all of the evidence.
  Third, during our meeting this morning, we decided that the grand 
jury materials accompanying the report, including all testimony and any 
physical evidence would, for the foreseeable future, remain sealed and 
available only to Congress. We agreed that this would be the

[[Page E1678]]

best course of action because the materials may include information 
revealing the private lives of private citizens, people who are 
involved in this matter only as innocent bystanders.
  A number of areas of disagreement remain, but I am pleased that we 
were able to talk this morning in a bipartisan manner. We look forward 
to working with our colleagues across the aisle, and I fully intend to 
hold them to the promises that they have made to us.

                          ____________________