[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H9165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




REGARDING STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN HYDE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary held a press conference in which he made 
announcements which I had, until I read the report, known nothing 
about. There are comments here that I think require us to examine this 
quite carefully.
  First of all, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has 
indicated his intention to vote for an inquiry of impeachment of the 
President of the United States, quite within his scope of his duties, 
or any other Member, for that matter. But to suggest that Democrats 
ought to vote in the committee along with him to show bipartisanship I 
think stretches the bounds of reasonableness to a breaking point.
  Every Member in this body has their own responsibility and inquiry 
within themselves to determine, especially on the Committee on the 
Judiciary, whether or not there should be an inquiry.

                              {time}  1930

  The fact that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has decided that 
there should be, should not influence anybody else in this body. For 
him to suggest that Democrats should show bipartisanship by voting with 
him is, indeed, an incorrect position which I hope he will repair 
immediately tomorrow.
  I just left his office, and he was not there. The office was closed. 
But one of his staffers was nice enough to inform me that I am on his 
schedule to meet with him tomorrow.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) cannot dictate what the 
Committee on the Judiciary's Members, 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats, 
are going to vote a week from now. He cannot do it. Neither can I. 
Neither can the Speaker.
  To announce to the press unilaterally that that vote will take place 
a week from today begs common sense. We are out until Thursday. There 
is a weekend of 2 days. We are supposed to come back on Monday, and the 
most important vote of the Committee on the Judiciary in its recent 
history is supposed to happen between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. a week from 
today. I suggest that is an incorrect way to proceed. It is unilateral. 
I am reading about it.
  When by chance does the committee get a chance to examine the 
materials for something other than looking for redactions to send out 
to the American people? We still have not finished. Because we sent 
over staffers to find out that there are even more boxes in the 
independent counsel's office in which he said he deemed them irrelevant 
and of no consequence to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Well, thank you, Mr. Starr. But I think that is within our 
jurisdiction to make the determination whether anything is irrelevant 
or not. He sent us 37 boxes. Send it all and let us examine it all.
  But let us not be deceived. Going through materials for redactions 
that may contain 6(e) materials, that is Grand Jury materials that are 
accorded privacy, or that there may be defamatory materials that will 
harm innocent Americans, or that women's phone numbers and addresses 
should be redacted is a completely different matter from examining the 
materials with an eye to whether or not we should have an inquiry of 
impeachment.

                          ____________________