continued

CONYERS: We're keeping our very distinguished witnesses here much longer than we had anticipated. We also have a number of members who have flight schedules that require us -- and I hope that you and the members will indulge those of us who will not be able to stay long that we dispose of this.

We have an expedited process which I think will be quite brief and dispositive. And let me -- could I make that motion at this point?

HYDE: Please.

CONYERS: I appreciate it.

HYDE: Please.

CONYERS: I move that the committee now meet to consider the scheduled subpoenas, and I further move that the debate on such motion be confined to 15 minutes for each side. And that...

HYDE: Is there any objection?

Hearing no objection, so ordered. And I would advise the next panel -- first of all, I'm very grateful for your patience and understanding -- this will take about a half hour that we're going to do now.

CONYERS: Or less.

HYDE: Or less. Then, we'll take maybe 15 or 20 minutes for luncheon and then we'll be back. So I would suggest if you get back in one hour, the panel, we'll be ready for you and we'll try to plow through on it. And I apologize for the inconvenience.

These witnesses are free to go.

CONYERS: Could we have the motion read.

HYDE: Yes.

No, we're not going to do executive. We're going to go right into this.

I recognize -- I recognize Mr. McCollum for the purposes of a motion.

MCCOLLUM: Mr. Chairman, I have motions at the desk which I ask to be considered en bloc. I move that the committee authorize the issuance of the following subpoenas.

Number one -- a subpoena duces tecum to Attorney General Janet Reno...

FRANK: Mr. Chairman, point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Could we ask people if they want to stay, stay; if they want to leave, leave? We do want to focus on this so those people who are frozen in indecision have got to come to a decision -- either sit down or get out.

(UNKNOWN): Quietly.

MCCOLLUM: I'm -- having assumed the chair, I will recognize you, Mr. Frank, as having made a salient comment and I would like to continue the motions as they are being distributed.

The following subpoenas are in these motions or proposed for them.

A subpoena duces tecum to Attorney General Janet Reno for the following documents -- one, memorandum from Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis J. Freeh to the attorney general, dated November 24, 1997; interim report -- number two -- regarding the campaign finance investigation, dated July 16, 1998; along with an August 12, 1998 addendum submitted by the former head of the Campaign Finance Task Force, Charles LaBella and James DiSarno (ph), assistant director, FBI;...

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman...

MCCOLLUM: ... (OFF-MIKE) task force to the attorney general and the director of the FBI.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we consider it as read.

MCCOLLUM: If -- if I might, if you would withhold, I'm just summarizing, if I could.

(UNKNOWN): I will withhold.

MCCOLLUM: Number three -- memorandum from Lee J. Raddick (ph), chief, Public Integrity Section, and James K. Robinson, assistant attorney general, Criminal Division, dated August 5, 1998, reviewing the LaBella and DiSarno (ph) interim report; and number four, memorandum by James K. Robinson (ph), assistant attorney general, Criminal Division, dated August 25, 1998, analyzing the LaBella/DiSarno (ph) interim report.

The second subpoena is a subpoena duces tecum to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr for the following documents -- any and all files directly or indirectly concerning John Huang and included by limited to notes of interviews, memoranda of interviews, transcripts of depositions, grand jury transcripts, tape recordings, logs, immunity agreements, orders of immunity and/or proper letters.

And number three, a subpoena to appear at a deposition before the committee to the Honorable Louis Freeh, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and four, subpoenas to appear at a deposition before the committee to Charles LaBella.

I will now recognize myself to explain what we're doing with this process and it will be part of the time we're going to consume. Hopefully, I won't take five minutes.

I believe the committee has a duty to issue a subpoena duces tecum to Attorney General Reno in order to procure the memorandum of Charles LaBella and FBI Director Louis Freeh that concern the appointment of an independent counsel related to campaign finance abuses.

Mr. LaBella is the former chief of the Justice Department task force charged with investigating violations of campaign finance laws.

Attorney General Reno has custody over the documents, and can order the production of the memoranda to the committee.

We seek to depose Mr. LaBella and FBI Director Freeh to question them about the content and conclusions of the memoranda.

MCCOLLUM: Both Mr. LaBella and Mr. Freeh have recommended that Attorney General Reno appoint an independent counsel to investigate whether senior Clinton administration officials violated campaign finance laws.

This means that these well respected law enforcement officials believe there is substantial and credible evidence that senior executive branch officials may have violated the law. In fact, FBI Director Freeh has testified that the LaBella memorandum may point to illegal actions on the part of President Clinton.

By requesting these subpoenas we are following the dictates of H. Res. 581, which directs that this committee investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach President Clinton.

I believe it is our duty to examine any credible evidence that may indicate criminal wrongdoing by the president which, in turn, may constitute impeachable offenses.

I've heard the reflexive refrain from the other side that we are on a fishing expedition or making a desperate stab in the dark in order to get the president. That simply is not the case. This committee cannot turn away from information that the director of the FBI and others tell us may bear directly on the resolution under which we are operating.

Frankly, I hope that after we review the memoranda and talk to Messes. LaBella and Freeh that we can conclude that the president did not break the law or commit impeachable offenses in regard to any activity alleged in the memoranda. Regardless, it's our duty and it requires us to look into this.

Finally, I recommend the committee authorize and issue a subpoena to the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, to turn over to the committee all information in his possession related to John Huang. Given the testimony of the independent counsel before this committee, and given that any documents related to Mr. Huang may be relevant to allegations of obstruction of justice by the president, the committee would be remiss in its responsibility to investigate wrongdoing if it did not seek this information.

Numerous times the chair has stated that he would like to wrap up this inquiry -- I stated it. Chairman Hyde has stated it -- by the end of the year, and we're on a pace to do so. Our desire is to conclude this arduous task before us, and to move smoothly by issuing these four subpoenas and determining whether any information provided to the aids us in our duties.

CONYERS: Mr. Chairman.

MCCOLLUM: Mr. Conyers, I recognize you for five minutes...

CONYERS: Thank you.

MCCOLLUM: ... or such time as you may consume up to the time limit.

CONYERS: This is a request for one, two, three memorandums and an interim report from the attorney general's office, the FBI. And I'd just like to point out my objection to the committee's expanding -- again -- the scope of this impeachment inquiry by going on an open- ended fishing expedition and to campaign finance issues. This is not appropriate, nor is it correct, nor is it fair, nor is it relevant.

Instead of an impartial search for the truth, it's my worry that this is becoming an impeachment inquiry in search of a high crime.

First, there's no shred of evidence anywhere indicating that the president committed any violation of law, let alone a violation that would amount to an impeachable offense. There was absolutely no reference to any improprieties concerning campaign finance law in the resolution of inquiry, nor any reference to such matters in Mr. Starr's referral on September 9th, nor in his testimony before the committee on November 19th.

To be frank, in my view what appears to be happening is that the members of the majority, Republicans recognizing that there is little interest in moving forward on impeachment based on the limited matters set forth in the referral, are now seeking unilaterally to expand the inquiry without any basis in fact or law in a rather desperate attempt to breathe new life into a dying inquiry.

Ironically, this is exactly contrary to the repeated declarations of Chairman Henry Hyde that the committee have their hands full with the September 9th referral and have no interest in expanding the committee's inquiry.

Number two, expanding this inquiry at this date, this late date, makes a mockery because there's no time to seriously pursue any fact issues. The committee simply must stop asserting as facts the statements of prosecutors, whether it be Mr. Starr or Mr. LaBella, instead of considering actual evidence which we have not done to date.

(GAP)

JACKSON LEE: I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.

CONYERS: Let me suggest to her that, with a 15-minute limit we've got to recognize a senior member, perhaps one other person. If we could share the...

JACKSON LEE: I will be finishing up, Mr. Chairman, very quickly.

CONYERS: Thank you very much.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you -- that we've already heard from Mr. Starr that has nothing on Filegate, barely nothing on Whitewater, and certainly nothing on Travelgate. This series of inquiries are questioning the integrity of the attorney general, who's alreae integrity or the work of the committees in the Senate and the House. It is redundant.

And frankly, I don't know whether we could find the truth, Mr. Chairman, in four short weeks that you have committed to finishing this matter. I would simply say that fishing it is, but unfair it certainly is.

And we're not doing ourselves a service or the process of impeachment, the constitutional process of impeachment, by now going on a wild fishing expedition where we don't know where it will end up and whether or not the truth will be found or not. What we need to do is pass campaign finance reform laws and that's how we'll get to the end of the solution of what you're trying to do.

I hope we can vote these possible inquiries down and move on with the process.

HYDE: The gentleman from...

CONYERS: Can we reserve the time that was left from the five minutes.

HYDE: Sure.

CONYERS: Thank you.

HYDE: You surely may.

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

BARR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having served the last two years on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee -- with all due respect to the ranking member, who does not serve on that committee and as far as I know did not appear at any of the numerous hearings that we've had -- the gentleman would know had he done so that there is, indeed, a great deal of evidence contained in the memorandums that are the partial subject matter of the first motion by the chairman. That is the November 1997 memorandum authored by FBI Director Louis Freeh and the July 16, 1998, memorandum with addendum authored by Charles LaBella, who was appointed by the attorney general to review specifically the matters regarding campaign finance violations.

The fact of the matter is, almost a year ago, Director Freeh testified directly to this Congress through the Government Reform and Oversight Committee -- and while the ranking member may not like that committee, the fact of the matter is that when a person testifies before Congress, when they are sworn to do so before a Congressional committee, they are indeed speaking to the Congress and one cannot, I don't think, discount their testimony under oath simply because one doesn't like who the chairman of the committee is before which they may be testifying.

The fact of the matter is that the director of the FBI testified nearly a year ago that, pursuant to the independent counsel statute which requires -- requires -- the appointment of an independent counsel if there is substantial and credible evidence that a covered person, in other words the president or the vice president of the United States, may have violated federal criminal laws.

The director of the FBI stated, in his opinion, that that portion of the independent counsel statute regarding those covered persons mandates the appointment of an independent counsel to review these matters.

With regard to Charles LaBella and the later memo, he reached the same conclusion. I think it is very, very relevant, Mr. Chairman, both pursuant to general rules of the House as well as to the specific charge to this committee to conduct an inquiry of impeachment not limited simply to the work of the independent counsel, Mr. Starr.

I think it is entirely relevant that we subpoena these particular documents. They could not be more relevant to issues involving violations of federal law by the president and vice president. And I would therefore urge colleagues -- if they are indeed interested in a search for the truth -- to support these motions.

If they are indeed not interested in a search for the truth, then they may wish to either abstain or vote no.

And I yield back.

CONYERS: Mr. Chairman, controlling the time on our side, I would yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Robert Scott, one minutes.

SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just had a couple of questions for the ranking member.

First, were you consulted with the expansion of time and about these subpoenas? And second, are you aware of any precedence of congressional subpoenas being issued for memos soliciting opinions from senior officials when they are advising Cabinet members?

This seems to be a fairly delicate area to get into because you would expect the senior officials to give candid responses to the Cabinet official, and if these memos are going to be subject to subpoena, that would certainly have a chilling effect on their candor.

And third, following that up, do we have specific probable cause or any reason to believe that this information is actually going to be there after two committees have already gone through this material?

CONYERS: I thank the gentleman. For probable cause, I've listened as carefully as I could to the two statements that have been made by the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee on crime. I haven't heard any and I haven't known about any before now.

You are quite right; there has been no notice. These were formed and framed today. They have not been in existence very long. And the sensitivity of the senior officials being brought here, if you read the Washington Post as I have, we're talking about 6(e) material.

And for the attorney gener There is no precedent. There's no precedent without a 6(e) order.

Could I yield a minute to the member of the committee that I once chaired, Mr. Barrett, the gentleman from Wisconsin?

BARRETT: Thank you. Very, very briefly, I'm at a loss as to why we are expanding the jurisdiction of this committee. If this were new material that we needed to resolve in connection with the impeachment inquiry against the president of the United States prior to the end of this year, I could understand it. All of this is material and this is an issue, as Mr. Barr has pointed out, that has been covered in the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

That is a committee that spent $7 million in the last two years investigating different issues. It has conducted over 150 depositions and issued over 1,200 subpoenas. That is an active committee. I don't see any reason for us to duplicate what they are doing and yet to see any tie between that and the impeachment inquiry against the president of the United States.

CONYERS: I thank a member of that committee.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt for a minute.

DELAHUNT: OK. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. I just would associate myself with the remarks of my friend, Mr. Barrett. But I'd like to pose a question either to the chair or the chair of the subcommittee.

Is there in your possession or does any member of the staff or any member have new evidence, new evidence of wrongdoing which would serve as a predicate for a reconsideration as to whether a subpoena either duces tecum or a subpoena for the person should issue.

I read something -- I think it was in the Boston Globe this morning -- something about a mystery witness? Is there a mystery witness?

CONYERS: I can tell you from my perspective that neither I or our staff have any...

DELAHUNT: No, but I directed that question to the chairman, Mr. Hyde.

HYDE: If there is a mystery witness, it's a mystery to me.

CONYERS: OK.

DELAHUNT: Thank you.

CONYERS: OK. I recognize Barney Frank from Massachusetts.

FRANK: We are indeed in the wild goose chase. We're not just in the wild goose chase. We're in the wild good chase of the week. Last week's was Kathleen Willey. This week's was unrelated perjury. Next week's is presumably campaign finance.

I am struck by the lack of collegiality implicit in this. Our next door neighbor, the chairman of government affairs, has been investigating this it seems for a very, very long time with an intensity all his own. And nothing has come of it.

My understanding was that that committee had the right to refer something to us and they chose not to do it. So we have decided that we're not going to allow for the possibility that the gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of that committee, is covering up for Bill Clinton. We're going to go get that information.

(LAUGHTER)

Let me make a statement which I am totally confident of. There isn't anybody in this room who thinks that this will avail us anything. What we have, I think, is this situation.

People in the most conservative wing of the Republican Party are terribly unhappy that all of this Clinton-hunting is coming to so little. Kenneth Starr disappointed them on several occasions. He disappointed them when he put an end to the notion that Vincent Foster was anything other than a tragic suicide.

Back | Next

Tuesday, December 1, 1998

• House panel expands impeachment probe
• FEC audit says Clinton, Dole campaigns owe taxpayers millions
• Georgia firm fined $1 million for illegal campaign contributions
• Espy trial goes to jury
• Sources: Craig Smith in line to head Gore 2000 campaign
• FCC fairness rule challenged
• Lott, unopposed, re-elected Senate majority leader
• Ashcroft, pondering White House run, stresses pragmatism
• News Analysis: How do you count Americans?
• Arkansas state senator charged in fatal accident
• Tom Hanks says he still supports president
• Indiana congressman robbed
• White House Christmas tree arrives
• Justices' voices to be transmitted

Transcript:
• House Judiciary Committee

ARCHIVES

Search CNN/AllPolitics by           Enter keyword(s)       go    help