grand jury transcripts, historical precedents which I have here, which I would like to see included in the record, which might help a little bit on the confusion about what exactly we are going to review and how it is going to The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will appear in the record. [The information follows:] 4. 5. 3. 2. Congressional Use of Grand Jury Transcripts: 1 In 1811. a grand jury in Baldwin County in the Mississippi territory forwarded to the House a presentment specifying charges against Washington District Superior Court Judge Harry Toulmin for possible impeachment action. 3 Hind's Precedents of the House of Representatives § 2488 at 985, 986 (1907). In 1944, the House Committee on the Judiciary received grand jury material pertinent to its investigation into allegations of impeachable offenses committed by Judges Albert W Johnson and Albert L. Watson. Conduct of Albert W. Johnson and Albert L. Watson. United States District Judges. Middle District of Pennsylvania: Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary to Investigate the Official Conduct of United States District Court Judges Albert W. Johnson and Albert L. Watson, 79th Cong., 1" Sess. (1945). In 1974, the House Committee on the Judiciary received grand jury material pertinent to its investigation into allegations of impeachable offenses committed by President Richard Nixon. In re Report and Recommendation of June 5. 1972 Grand Jury Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives, 370 F. Supp. 1219 (D.D.C.), mandamus denied sub nom. Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1974). In 1987 the House Judiciary Committee received grand jury material regarding allegations of impeachable offenses committed by Judge Hastings. In re request for Access to Grand Jury Materials Grand Jury No. 81-1 (Miami), 833 F. 2d 1438 (1987). The House Judiciary Committee also received grand jury material during its The CHAIRMAN. And Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, did you have anyone else you wanted to bring to the table with you, or are you here alone? Ms. JACKSON-LEE. No, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Again, Ms. Lee, we want to welcome you to the committee. Your entire statement will appear in the record, as other Members have testified, without objection. And you may proceed. STATEMENT OF THE HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and first of all I thank you for your patience, which will probably be tested in the days and weeks to come. I think the complimentary words that were said were quite appropriate, and let me say how proud I am as a member of the Judiciary Committee to be able to serve with Chairman Hyde and certainly Ranking Member Conyers, who I guess claims a special privilege of having served on that very august body in 1974. You made an interesting point earlier in our discussion in commenting on Chairman Rodino by mentioning the fact that he did an outstanding job, and if you go through the transcripts or the media comments, he was viewed as a very ordinary person. The CHAIRMAN. In the beginning. Ms. JACKSON LEE. In the beginning, and wound up of course as a very extraordinarily person. Today I had a call from a local media outlet and they said, "A colleague of yours has seen the report." I was able very confidently to say, "I know they have not because the House has received it in a very secure and confidential manner, and in fact we will be discussing its distribution today." I felt good about that because that emphasized the direction in which we are going. And I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, to acknowledge the sobering and somber task we are about to undertake. Might I refer you to just a few words from Alexander Bickel, who commented in 1973, referring to Watergate: "In the presidency is embodied the continuity and indestructibility of the state. It is not possible for the government to function without a President, and the Constitution contemplates and provides for uninterrupted continuity in of fice." You are right. We have not reached any question about procedures. We are here talking about distribution. But I would like to refer us to the Watergate proceedings because we have alluded to it as being one that we can all be proud of. Certainly allegations dealing with breaking and entering and paying hush money are a concern to everyone, but I think those on the committee handled themselves with great dignity and respect. We might recall that the minority, which was the Republican Party at that time, even suggested in their debate, and Peter Rodino allowed them to debate it, that frankly we should not proceed or that we should ultimately make a decision if we view that a crime was committed but also that it had an impact on the governmental system. So I think what I am trying to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, is this whole question that there will always be disagreement. People come from different perspectives. This is a political body, I hope not driven by politics because we have a serious job to do. I say that not in a condescending manner or in trying to in any way suggest that the colleagues of mine who speak passionately do not have the right to do so. But this committee is a gateway, frankly, and you can offer a rule that respects the fact that we may not be able in this time to be driven by politics. Someone earlier said, as you were citing the web page and the dot coms, that we live in a highly technological society. I would only say to you, again with respect, that the Constitution was not written on the Internet, and that although we are in a different era we may bode well by the fact that our Founding Fathers were very careful in respecting the institution of government, the three branches of government, the need for a stable government, and certainly not in a kingly or queenly way the very high office of the President of the United States. With that then, Mr. Chairman, I think it is imperative that the President have the opportunity to formulate a response. I think it is imperative that the President has a right, now it is being suggested of the 2-day or 48-hour period, and I believe the American people would fully understand that we were not being political but we were being right. Let me add, if I might, that as I proceed, and very briefly I will cite the Watergate proceedings recognizing that we are not at the stage of making rules, but I frankly believe that we are wrongly directed in releasing the 445 pages. The Independent Counsel's report, while I am sure it is presented in a high or with a high degree of respect for the responsibility that the Independent Counsel has, is still only one side of the story. Albeit that we have heard so many comments by the media, the American public should have the right to hear both sides of the story. With that in mind, if we are to go the route of releasing the documents, and I have indicated my personal perspective on it and I will share why, I believe that the 48 hours, the 2 days, is imperative. The Watergate impeachment inquiry followed the same precedent. The Judiciary Committee received evidence in closed-door hearings for 7 weeks with the President's lawyer in the same room; again, under the majority of the Democrats and with the minority the Republicans, working, I would like to say, in a nonpartisan manner. This evidence included the material reported by the Watergate grand jury. And we have those concerns, those of us who have either practiced before grand juries or dealt with these issues. The materials received by the committee, Mr. Chairman, were not released to the public until the conclusion, conclusion of the 7-week evidentiary presentation. By then the White House had full knowledge of the material being considered by the committee. Also in the Watergate proceeding subpoenas were issued jointly by the Chairman and Ranking Member, and if either declined to act, by the other acting alone; except that if either declined to act, he or she well, in this instance two he's-would refer the matter to the full committee for a vote. More importantly, the President's lawyer was required to be provided with copies of all materials presented to the committee, invited to attend presentations of evidence and to submit additional suggestions for witnesses to be interviewed or materials to be reviewed and to respond to evidentiary presentations. The rules further provided that the President and his counsel shall be invited to attend all hearings, including any held under executive session. Twenty-four hours advance notice was required, and both the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member were granted access to all times-at all times with committee materials. I lay that groundwork recognizing that we have not yet defined or established the rules under which we may proceed, and also that we have not moved to the point of an impeachment inquiry. We are receiving a report. The CHAIRMAN. Would you repeat the first part of that again, because you make a very cogent point that your committee has not yet met to lay out the parameters of their own investigation. Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is correct, I understand that, but I am using that as a backdrop for my advocacy that the President have 48 hours to be able to review the 445 pages. And in fact I have already made my personal comment that I am very concerned about the release of these documents to the public in any event, because I think the public would understand that because of the somberness and the importance of the responsibility that we have, that it would not be covering up; it would be to have this particular task that we have to be maintained with the greatest of integrity. I want to add a couple of other points, Mr. Chairman, if I can. I have said here that I would like to see us think along the lines of the Watergate proceedings because I don't think that the House wants to deny the President-and I would like us to separate the President, President Clinton, from the institution of the presidency-the same right that has been and continues to be enjoyed by our own Members, who receive information when charges are filed against them by the House Ethics Committee. For example, the Speaker was permitted to review the charges filed by the committee before it issued its public report. The President, the institution of the presidency, should be afforded the same right. Also the Ethics rules require that the subject of any investigation will have not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote to review alleged violations and a copy of the statement of the alleged violations that the committee intends to adopt, together with all evidence it intends to use to prove these charges. The President, again the institution of the presidency, should not receive any less due process than any Member of Congress. It is clearly important that we respect the fact that our own Independent Counsel has acknowledged the potentiality of damaging materials against private or independent or individual citizens that we could find in the 2,000 pages and the 17 boxes and the appendices. Frankly, with all due respect to my colleagues and anyone who comes to this committee to offer an amendment, it is this committee that can carve out the vote or the resolution that we will vote on tomorrow. Frankly, I believe we are doing absolutely the wrong |