John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), whom I plan to work as closely with for the next several months as I can, more closely than we have worked throughout our careers, you have stated twice, sir, that the President of the United States already knows what is in the report. I reject that. And I am trying not to resent it. Because, if he does, he has violated the law in that respect. You have also said that fundamental fairness should be distinguished from public relations spin. Well, we were not spinning anything when the ethics rule got a week for the Speaker of the House to respond. We were not spinning anything on the committee that I recall you being a member of, when President Reagan got ample time to respond. So I do not think we should confuse fundamental fairness and public relations spin when this President is requesting the very same thing.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the intention of this Member was to come here this morning, point out my reservations about this rule, this proceeding, and vote for it. But I have been exposed to the debate now, and I will not be able to justify my support. I am announcing to those Members on my side that I have told I was going to support the report, I am not going to vote in the affirmative. And I regret it very much because it was important to me that we continue the comity that we have worked so hard on. Here is why. The independent counsel whom I have lectured to almost daily from this well and for whom I have had certain reservations about his overzealousness has done the Congress one important service. In his only communication that I know of to the Speaker and to the minority leader, he said in two sentences something that I think we are not following, and I commend it to your attention. It is this: ``This referral,'' not report, ``This Referral contains confidential material and material protected from disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.'' That is Starr talking to the Congress. Then he went on to say, ``Many of the supporting materials contain information of a personal nature that I respectfully urge the House to treat as confidential.'' It was with that understanding that, in the Office of the Speaker and with the leaders of this body we entered into an agreement that I regretfully have to tell you has been broken. It has been broken. My heart has been broken before. Agreements have been broken before. But in this instance, we are violating the directions of the independent counsel who now, in his fifth year, and I love these reports about how the American people are waiting for this. The majority of the American people would accept a resolution saying we shall never mention this matter again for the rest of all of our honorable and distinguished careers. That is what the majority of the American people want. Twenty-five thousand people would like to see it if it is there. But since we are worried about the contents: ``Impeachment Report Contends Clinton Lied, Obstructed Justice; Alleged Deceit Is Outlined.'' ``Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's report to the House contends there are 11 possible grounds for impeachment of President Clinton, including allegations that he lied under oath, tampered with witnesses, obstructed justice, and abused power to hide his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, according to sources informed about some of its contents.'' That is in the paper. Yet my colleagues are now urging me to tell our Members to release everything, thousands and thousands of pages. Explain to me one procedural method. How can 35 Members with at least one staffer each go through thousands and thousands of pages of documents? I ask in the comity that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I have pledged to work with, the friendship that the Speaker and I have enjoyed over these last 48 hours, that we please move away from this course of action. I urge that this resolution be defeated.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today on rollcall vote 420, I voted ``yes.'' I intended to vote ``no.''

Mr. CONYERS

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 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.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, with an eye toward this country's emerging all-embracing trade arrangement with our Latin American neighbors, as outlined in the recent second heads-of-government meeting at the Summit of the Americas in Chile, we in this country would do well to better familiarize ourselves with the true realities found in the rest of the hemisphere. We will then be in a better position to discharge our responsibility of expressing some words of caution or encouragement to our citizens and U.S.-based corporations that are considering whether to make investments throughout the region, including in Argentina. Over the last few years, Latin America undoubtedly has made genuine improvements in the fields of economic development as well as in its observance of minimal standards of human rights, but much work remains to be done regarding the region's respect for the rule of law. This was one of the main points made in a major article in the July 27th issues of the highly regarded British publication, The Financial Times, in which judicial corruption was listed as a major problem in Argentina today. Similar articles have indicated that problems stemming from a tainted judiciary are found throughout the region. We are familiar with the need to wage similar battles in the U.S. to achieve the observance of justice and tough human rights standards, so we cannot be smug over such matters. But we can and must be forthright in expressing our opinions when the well being of our fellow citizens may be at stake and the welfare of one of our neighbor's citizens is being flagrantly flouted. After all, the same judiciary that protects the human rights of its own citizens in Latin America also enforces commercial law respecting foreign investments. It is for this reason that, with alarm, we read reports issued by the OAS and USAID, as well as by the State Department, speaking about the inadequacies of the Latin American judiciaries, where the presence of corruption and venality is at times, almost beyond exaggeration, be it in Honduras--perhaps the worst case of a venal judiciary in the hemisphere, or Argentina (one of the worst). Without an honest judiciary there is no level playing field and no reliable rules of the game. The pseudo integrity of the Latin American court system is only rivaled in scope by the substitution of democratic form in place of substance in much of the region. This reality has to be of great concern to us. Argentina is a good example of may of these points. Despite Buenos Aires' continued claim that it is reforming its admittedly gangster- like judiciary into one that is less at the mercy of politics, cronyism, influence peddling and payoffs, and more into one that can fearlessly uphold and conform to the country's constitution, there are good reasons to believe that its court system is apparently taking serious steps backwards. This is the case in spite of the fact that Argentine justice officials have begun to put together the long promised ``Consejo de la Magistratura,'' which is a judicial oversight committee. Unfortunately, the brutal military dictatorship, which wiped out a generation of democratic leaders during Argentina's ``Dirty War'' and drove much of its intellectual class into exile, has left a malodorous legacy in the person of many of the judges it selected who still sit on the country's bench. For years, the judiciary has enjoyed a period of relative anonymity from the scrutiny its tawdry performance all but required, but today it is subject for close examination by the international community, including the aforementioned issue of The Financial Times. One example of the many instances of serious miscarriages of justice that have taken place in that country is provided by the bizarre case of the Buenos Aires Yoga School (BAYS), of which the following article from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs' distinguished biweekly publication, the Washington Report on the Hemisphere, provides a thorough critique. This includes outlandish tactics which that highly regarded Buenos Aires cultural and educational institution has had to endure at the hands of extremist and unprincipled elements of the Argentine judiciary. We all have heard stories concerning the continued legacy of corruption and disregard for constitutional guarantees that exists in Argentina. These have been compounded by the long tradition of virulent anti-Semitism in the country, as exemplified by the sanctuary that a succession of Argentine presidents provided to fleeing World War II war criminals of the Nazi era. Other examples of outrageous behavior on the part of local Argentine authorities have been the Keystone cop antics surrounding the farcical investigation of the bombings of two Jewish- related Buenos Aires facilities in the last few years, at a cost of over 100 lives. Last April, a delegation of our Hill colleagues went to Argentina, where they were diligent in promoting the cause of human rights, and in urging the local authorities to investigate the unresolved bombing of the AMIA, one of the two aforementioned wantonly destroyed Jewish facilities. We now have another opportunity to take action in helping to strengthen Argentine democracy. Unfortunately, as in this country we must face the fact that religious and racial persecution is found in many places in the Americas, representing a frontier that the international conscience must strive to conquer. Unequivocally, the facts surrounding the treatment of the Buenos Aries Yoga School reveal that this is one of a number of disturbing instances where injustice has been done: where the courts have served as a persecutor of the human spirit, rather than its defender. The reason that this highly regarded institution of scholars, professionals and others seeking an inner light has been singled our for threats, intimidation, sexual harassment and a campaign of terror largely is because many of its members are highly distinguished cultural, professional, and academic figures of Jewish background. COHA's article on the ordeal experienced by BAYS sheds some light on the tribulations that all those in this country who really care about democracy will have to be concerned about. I call upon my colleagues to carefully read the following article by the director of the Council of Hemispheric Affairs, Larry Birns, and COHA research associate, Anna M. Busch. Council on Hemispheric Affairs Argentina's Flawed Court, Corrupted Society By Larry Birns and Anna Busch After years of being held in contempt by most Argentines because of its lack of professionalism and absence of even elemental integrity, the Buenos Aires police force has begun the protracted task of cleansing its own Augean stable, easily among the hemisphere's most egregiously corrupted institutions. Last December, 2,000 of its personnel were terminated and almost 50,000 were implicated in some form of corrupt practices. The pressing need for massive restructuring in the police's selection and training procedures was highlighted by the alleged involvement of Buenos Aires' assistant police chief in the bombing of a Jewish community building, resulting in almost 100 deaths. Five years was then wasted on a scandalously farcical investigation. Although such facts have become widely known to the Argentine public, its sensibilities have been dulled by the hecatomb of corruption charges leveled from all directions at the government of President Carlos Menem. Merely one of hundreds of examples where Argentine justice is chronically denied or manipulated to serve the ends of cronyism and venality, is the fate of the Buenos Aires Yoga School (BAYS), a tiny entity devoted to pursuing education and philosophic studies, akin to New England's literary Athenaeum movement of a century ago. Although BAYS' ordeal has been hardly remarkable, it well illustrates the grevious condition of one of Argentina's basic institutions--its notoriously flawed court system. BAYS regards itself as an apolitical, non-religious, NGO. The Argentine government calls it a cult. The group has attracted a long list of tributes for its work in the fields of public health and in the war against drugs. In the arts, BAYS members also has made their mark through composing a number of major works, including an opera, a ballet, and a symphony, which have won plaudits worldwide. Nevertheless, the group has been greeted with singular hostility in Argentina. A motivating factor for the judiciary's prejudice against BAYS is the high percentage of Jews in its leadership as well as among its members (no small fact in a country which is anti-Semitic to its marrow). Legal proceedings against BAYS' members were initiated in 1993, and were accompanied by an unrelieved spate of hostile media coverage. The original trial judge was well-known for his neo-nazi ideology, redolent of that of the brutal military regime that had seized power in 1976, and which ruled for almost a decade through a level of violence unparalleled in Argentine history. The complaint against BAYS was entered as a counter suit to one filed by one of its own members, a 24-year-old student who accused her stepfather, a former employee of the military junta, of sexually molesting her. In turn, the stepfather charged that his stepdaughter was a victim of a cult which had ``corrupted'' her. The judge eventually recused himself, but only under pressure of his own imminent Senate impeachment on charges of having committed scores of illegal acts against BAYS. He imprisoned the innocent and demanded that children testify, but not in the presence of their parents or attorney, he questioned defendants for hundred-hour stints, carried out more than thirty illegal searches including raiding the offices of the defendant's attorneys, as well as authorizing the stealing of evidence. The judge, well known for his sleaziness and his sexual improprieties, also insisted at the time that he was removing himself from the case only because he had been ``bewitched'' by the group. He then handed it to a fellow right-winger. Although the new judge favored a more discreet approach, he could barely contain his personal antipathy toward BAYS, capriciously adding fraud and larceny to the existing charges. He also openly ignored a superior court's decision nullifying part of the case on the grounds that no convincing evidence against BAYS was established. Nevertheless, the judge refused to invalidate the previous illegal actions sanctioned by his predecessor, and proceeded to recklessly indict even more individuals, as well as ignoring that the statute of limitations had run out. BAYS' fate is illustrative of the corruption, bigotry and criminality that pervades every level of Argentina's court system and also infects its broader society. The nation's ill-reputed judiciary and police force are a liability for the nation's reputation abroad, which could hurt the country from fully benefiting from the opportunities afforded by the regional trade pact, Mercosur, as well as the FTAA, once enacted. Demonstrably, Argentina is far less along the democratic continuum than Presidents Menem and Clinton wrongfully insist it is. On the eve of the Santiago Summit, in his speech gave to the Chilean legislature, President Clinton stressed the theme of ``deepening'' democratic institutions (millions of dollars already have been allocated from abroad to reform Argentina's bedeviled judiciary). Argentina and other hemispheric nations desperately need that ``deepening'' to make credible the now pseudo-democratic nature of their institutions. It hasn't helped that Menem fosters political cynicism as his modus operandi, rather than providing genuine leadership or anything approaching a vision. His lack of class and his inability to comprehend strong ethical standards, has left the country without a moral compass. His readiness to participate in the cover up of a number of infamous cases, including the bombing of two Jewish entities, with heavy loss of life has emphasized the desperate need for reforming the region's deplorable court systems, beginning with Argentina's.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, anniversaries are typically a time for reflection--a time to think about where we came from and where we are going. Yesterday was the fourth anniversary of Mr. Starr's $40 million investigation of the President, and it is appropriate that we take a moment to reflect upon what the Independent Counsel has done over the years, and what he is doing now. Four years ago, Mr. Starr was appointed by the Special Division of the D.C. Circuit to look into allegations of wrongdoing involving an Arkansas land deal called Whitewater. While he did obtain several convictions and guilty pleas in that case, I think it is wrong that he has never publicly cleared either the President or First Lady. His role as Independent Counsel is not simply to charge wrongdoers with crimes, but to clear the innocent when the facts warrant it. When the Whitewater grand jury in Arkansas finished its business months ago without any further indictments, a duty arose to publicly clear the President and First Lady of the public smears that have been made against them. Two-and-a-half years ago, Mr. Starr turned his attention to the firing of the White House Travel Office, the so-called Travelgate matter. So far, we have not heard a peep from the Independent Counsel on Travelgate, even though it is widely reported that there has not been any grand jury activity on that front for some time. Once again, Mr. Starr has not admitted to the public that the President and First Lady were innocent of any wrongdoing. Two years ago, Mr. Starr's investigation expanded again, this time to whether White House staff may have misused confidential FBI files, the so-called Filegate matter. As with Travelgate, we have not heard anything from Mr. Starr on this topic, even though there does not seem to have been any grand jury activity in some time. But again, no steps have been taken to publicly clear anyone in the White House. Now, as we know, Mr. Starr is investigating the President's sex life. That is unheard of in the history of American politics. I think George McGovern said it best this week when he remarked that ``this whole Ken Starr shenanigan is a disgrace to the Republic. I find it almost impossible to believe that we have a publicly-paid sex policeman roving around this country.'' I couldn't have said it better. After four full years and $40 million, we are investigating things that are strictly the business of the President and the First Lady, and no one else. Mr. Starr, if you are going to send a report to Congress, send a report. But let's not drag this never-ending investigation on toward another unprecedented and unnecessary anniversary.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a truly exceptional citizen whose entire life was spent in service to his country. Colonel Nathaniel P. Ward, III, a native of Durand, Wisconsin, was born February 29, 1912. He attended Stout Institute, in Menomonie, Wisconsin before entering U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY, from which he graduated in 1934. Upon graduation, he married Evelyn Gardner of Hampton, Virginia. Prior to the outbreak of World War II, he served in company assignments with the Second Infantry at Fort Brady, Michigan; the 14th infantry in the Panama Canal Zone; and the 66th Tanks at Fort Benning Georgia. He served in the European and Asian-Pacific Theaters of Operation. While serving in Europe he took part in 4 major campaigns, including those of Normandy, Northern France, the North Appennines, and Rome- Arno. As Commander of the 637th Tank Destroyer Battalion in 1945 he participated in the Luzon Campaign which resulted in the liberation of the Philippine Islands. During the occupation of Japan, Colonel Ward was assigned to the staff of the 1st Cavalry Division and as a battalion commander. After tours in Canada and the Pentagon, Colonel Ward served in Vietnam as a senior advisor and Chief of Staff of the Military Assistance Advisory Group from 1958-60. Upon returning to the U.S., he assumed duties with the XXI U.S. Army Corps from which he retired in 1964. After his retirement from the U.S. Army, Colonel Ward and his wife Evelyn lived in Hampton, VA, where he was active in the Hampton Historical Society and the Lions Club for over thirty years. Colonel Ward's passions were his family, the U.S. Army--especially West Point--and the cavalry. He was extremely proud of his service in Vietnam. Two of the soldiers under his command, killed in 1959, were originally left off the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, DC, considered to have died before the conflict began. Through Colonel Ward's efforts, their names are now the first ones inscribed on the Wall. Colonel Ward served our country well, and made us proud. He passed away on April 3, 1998, and was buried with full honors at Arlington National Cemetery. He is survived by his devoted wife, Evelyn, his daughter Chartley Rose Ward and son Nathaniel P. Ward, IV, also retired from service in the U.S. Army, three grand children and a great- granddaughter.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, and Commerce Committee Ranking Member John Dingell, in introducing today the ``Protect American Jobs Through the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Amendments Act of 1998.'' This bill clarifies one of our most important U.S. antitrust laws in order to enshrine the principle that U.S. law reaches anti- competitive foreign cartels, acts, and conspiracies designed to unfairly exclude American products from overseas markets. The principal aim of my bill is to codify the U.S. Department of Justice's current and correct interpretation of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (``FTAIA'') which is embodied in footnote 62 of the International Antitrust Guidelines. The footnote makes it clear that there are no unnecessary jurisdictional or legal roadblocks to challenging anti- competitive acts and conspiracies that take place outside our borders. We live in an era of economic globalization. Today, America's prosperity depends, not just on vigorous competition within our territorial borders, but on free and fair access to markets in Japan, Europe, Africa, Latin America, China, Russia, and a host of other countries. Anti-competitive practices that block foreign markets to U.S. exporters are just as much a threat to the U.S. economy, as the purely domestic cartels and combinations that the Sherman Act sought to address at the turn of the century. The opening of global markets has advanced America's current economic prosperity, but it also poses fundamental challenges for U.S. antitrust laws. One example is the U.S. flat glass industry. For the better part of a decade, America's leading flat glass producers have been seeking access to the Japanese market, the biggest and richest in Asia. This isn't a situation where America doesn't have a good product. American companies are leaders in producing and selling high-quality innovative glass products around the world; and in fact, have succeeded in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, but not Japan. The fact is that securing distribution effective channels for American glass products has not proved to be a significant barrier to entry in any country but Japan. My bill aims to address this situation by making an important clarification in the U.S. antitrust laws that govern jurisdiction over foreign firms. It does not change U.S. antitrust law. Instead, it is designed to codify and clarify U.S. antitrust doctrine. Although most observers would agree that the FTAIA established conclusively that DOJ and U.S. firms have jurisdiction to bring an antitrust case against foreign firms engaged in anti-competitive conduct that harms U.S. exporters, enforcement officials misinterpreted the law and said so in a footnote to the International Antitrust Guidelines. That footnote-- Footnote 159--created a higher burden for U.S. exporters than Congress had intended by requiring that they show harm to U.S. consumers in order to get their day in court. This bill would ensure that the will of Congress and the plain meaning of the FTAIA could never again be misconstrued by the federal antitrust agencies, a foreign litigant or a U.S. court. In doing so, it would assist in breaking down anti-competitive foreign barriers to U.S. exports. While the correction to Footnote 159 was drafted by Assistant Attorney General Jim Rill in the Bush Administration, it has been fully endorsed by the Clinton Administration. I commend Assistant Attorney Generals Rill, Bingaman, and Klein for their strong leadership in strengthening international antitrust enforcement and for bringing cases under the authority of the FTAIA. By clarifying the jurisdictional requirements of the FTAIA, I hope to encourage the Department of Justice and injured industries to make any necessary use of this important power by challenging cartels, such as those blocking distribution of U.S. products in the U.S. courts, before U.S. juries, under U.S. law. My bill makes a simple and straightforward point. Anti-competitive foreign cartels and conspiracies are subject to the long-arm of U.S. antitrust law. Foreign producers can run . . . but they can't hide. The global economy may be a reality, but U.S. law applies fully to anti- competitive international cartels, combinations, and conspiracies. This bill already has the support of industry leaders, including Kodak, PP&G Industries, and Guardian International Corporation, and the National Association of Manufacturers. I look forward to working with other interested parties to bring U.S. law into a new era of international economic globalization, and to ensure that American firms and workers have a timely and effective remedy against those who engage in anti-competitive acts designed to exclude American products or services from the international marketplace.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put in the Record additional information about the serious problems that may have been created by Mr. Starr's recent revelations about the extent of his off- the-record contacts with the media and his justification for those contacts. The press coverage of this controversy seemed to have missed the forest for the trees by concentrating almost exclusively on whether Mr. Brill, in his interview with Mr. Starr, had produced conclusive evidence that Mr. Starr had violated the Federal law which prohibits the disclosure of materials related to a grand jury investigation. There is evidence that suggests that he may have done just that, and I am hopeful that the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno, and Judge Johnson, will take appropriate steps to credibly resolve these issues. More importantly, however, many of the leaks attributed to Mr. Starr's office raise two additional questions. Namely, whether they violate Department of Justice policy and whether they violate the Rules of Professional Ethics. What is the Department of Justice's policy? Well, it forbids government prosecutors from making any statement that will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a proceeding. Moreover, the guidelines specifically direct prosecutors to not discuss certain categories of information which are presumed to have the effect of prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding if released. These include whether or not the accused has offered to make a statement; it includes the results of any investigative tests; it includes any opinion as to the guilt of a witness or any opinion as to the possibility of a plea agreement. So the Rules of Professional Ethics for the District of Columbia prohibit almost exactly the same disclosures as the Department of Justice guidelines. Notwithstanding these guidelines, which are fairly clear, we have seen numerous press reports that contain exactly this type of information. It has been reported that Mr. Starr has won his legal fight to prevent President Clinton's lawyers from questioning him directly about numerous leaks that are alleged to have come from his office. It is not clear, it is unknown whether Mr. Starr claims some sort of privilege to prevent his direct interrogation, but his resistance is at odds with his public statements about the importance of truth. As the question of Office of the Special Counsel disclosures continues to be reviewed, we should all keep in mind that Mr. Starr's obligations go far beyond the legal requirements that he not disclose grand jury information. Any departure from those guidelines threatens to rob his investigation of credibility and also invites speculation about partisan motives.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this should not be too difficult. The amendment should be made in order because it reiterates that the independent counsel is included in the group of individuals covered under the McDade amendment, specifying that the definition of employee or other attorney acting under the authority of the Attorney General shall include the independent counsel. House rule XXI(2)(c) provides that, ``No amendment to a general appropriation shall be in order changing the existing law.'' This amendment does not change existing law; it is a perfecting amendment. My amendment does not create additional legislation nor does it extend the range of the term ``employee'' in the amendment. It simply reiterates the fact that under the current law, the independent counsel under Section 28 of the U.S. Code is appropriate. There are several supporting sources in current law supporting the clarification, 28 U.S.C. 594(a), 28 U.S.C. 596(a), and the Supreme Court decision in Morrison v. Olsen. We have all kinds of cases that I presume that the distinguished chairman and his able Parliamentarian have found. I urge that this perfecting amendment be considered in order.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CONYERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, all I ask my colleague: I have a preferential motion, and his is one to strike, that it go at the proper time. I mean what is the problem?

Mr. CONYERS. I say to my dear colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary from Indiana, we just want to make clear that the U.S. attorneys have one standard and the Conyers amendment wants that standard to include the independent counsel, whatever they may be named, right?

Mr. CONYERS. Right, okay. But you do not support it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because it goes to the heart of what the McDade provision is designed to do. I want all my friends on the other side of the aisle to understand that this just is an important part of fleshing out the concept that has been brought forward here. In fact, for those who support the McDade amendment, there should not be any trouble supporting this provision that really perfects it. Now, as we have seen, the present independent counsel, perhaps more than anyone else, should be subject to each and every stringent provision that is included in this measure. As a matter of fact, I presume that it is an accident that the measure was drafted so that this was left out. If anybody has any information to the contrary, I would sure like to know about it. Not only has the present independent counsel demonstrated a number of conflicts of interest in carrying out his duties, the person that he is investigating has been under investigation for almost 5 years, with hundreds of lawyers and investigators, with 17 congressional committees. Now, there have also been questions about the independent counsel having violated the First Amendment protections, the principles of fairness, and engaged in the use of coercive investigative techniques. Familiar, Mr. McDade? Sound familiar with your case? And trampled over important privileges between attorneys and their client. As a matter of fact, going into court saying the attorney-client does not even involve or affect the President of the United States, as well as between the Secret Service. A great idea. Let us have the President decide whether he wants to have his life protected, or talk about the issues in his job. For example, the independent counsel to whom I refer has chosen to continue representing clients, the tobacco interests; at one time, if not presently, the National Republican Party. How about knocking out the class action representation in the tobacco suits? He went into the Federal Circuit Court in person to knock out their certification of a class action suit, and guess what? He succeeded. I wonder why? So he has issued subpoenas to book stores, ``What is she reading?'' He subpoenaed a former staffer of mine who now works in the Drug Policy Office, who suggested that maybe Linda Tripp was violating the wiretap laws. He subpoenaed him. Remember that, Bob Wiener? Well, it goes on and on. The whole problem is that this provision, whether it is struck or kept, should not be examined without us including the independent counsel. Does anybody have any reasonable objection to that? We want to include all these prosecutors, all these Department of Justice types, but not the independent counsel, the one who is maybe doing more of this than anybody else that we know. He is under four investigations; the court, the Department of Justice, the D.C. Bar, and even he promised to have his own independent counsel office investigate the leaks. So, in all appropriateness, we ask that this perfecting amendment to my friend from Arkansas's amendment be included in their consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CONYERS. Continuing to reserve the right to object, Mr. Chairman, this is not about this bill or anything else. This is the rules of the House. A preferential, a perfecting, amendment has preference over a motion to strike. This is not just for my colleague's bill or this moment. That is the way the House runs. And to my good friend from Pennsylvania, his right to control time is in no way impeded or blocked by what I am doing. When it comes up, that will still be in order.

Mr. CONYERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, may I explain to the distinguished chairman and my friend from Pennsylvania that this is a preferential motion? It is a motion, a perfecting motion that takes precedence over a motion to strike, and it is not inconsistent with anything that any of my colleagues are trying to do. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his presentation. Right now we are debating this small provision, not the whole thrust of the measure. Do you not agree with me that there have been more than sufficient leaks under the independent counsel to include him in this measure?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr announced his decision to take an unpaid leave of absence from his partnership at the well known law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. This decision has been a long time in coming: Mr. Starr's work with his law firm was often a direct conflict of interest with his work as Independent Counsel. Mr. Starr had been earning up to one million per year and sometimes more for his services as a partner in the firm. Whether or not this steady source of income from private practice allowed him the luxury to drag on an investigation that is going into its fifth year and has cost American taxpayers more than forty million is a matter that is not entirely clear. In the meantime, Mr. Starr has taken on additional law clients and handled their legal matters notwithstanding criticism from some of his allies and even a few within the law firm who felt it more appropriate that he spend his time on his government responsibilities as Independent Counsel. This does not take into account the additional time he has devoted to academic teaching and public speaking appearances unrelated to either his private law practice or his governmental duties. It has also been observed that some of Mr. Starr's private representation has been in conflict with his duties as independent counsel. For example, his firm has represented the Republican party. He has also represented tobacco companies, an industry that the Clinton Administration has exposed for misleading and fraudulent tactics, and other corporations that have been in opposition to the Clinton administration policies or have been under scrutiny by federal agencies. In another instance, one or more of Mr. Starr's law partners has worked with the lawyers of Paula Jones. Notwithstanding the appearance of a potential conflict of interest, the law firm of which the Independent Counsel was a member took no dispositive action to remedy the situation. Even the legal ethics advisor to the Independent Counsel, Mr. Sam Dash, said that Mr. Starr's representation of private clients ``had an odor to it.'' Why would Mr. Starr leave his firm at this point in time as he moves into the fifth year of his prosecutorial responsibilities? Mr. Starr has explained that wrapping up the investigation will be a full-time job. This explanation may betray a failure on his part to understand that during the preceding four years, the investigation should always have been a full-time job. The beginning of his work should have been as important as the end of his work. It is certainly high time that Mr. Starr has resigned from private practice. It should have come much sooner. Perhaps now the investigation will proceed, and the American people will be able to put the controversies created by allegations of Mr. Starr's abuses and excesses behind them in the near future. Regardless of these reservations about Mr. Starr's belated departure from his private practice, we can assure him and our colleagues that whatever report he submits to Congress will be given a careful and non-political examination. The House Committee on the Judiciary is committed to discharging its responsibilities in a way that will satisfy every citizen of our seriousness and commitment to due process for both the President and the Independent Counsel.