[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         APPOINTMENT OF KENNETH STARR TO BE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to compliment Robert Fiske on the 
job that he did as special counsel in the pending Whitewater matter. 
Whatever may have led to his not being appointed independent counsel, 
no one doubts Mr. Fiske's integrity. And I do not think that Attorney 
General Reno made any errors whatsoever in his selection in the first 
place.

  Had Mr. Fiske served until the end of the investigation, I believe 
that his conclusions would have been accepted as impartial. I was 
surprised that he was not reappointed. It is not surprising at all that 
the court would choose Judge Kenneth Starr to replace him considering 
the qualities of Judge Kenneth Starr. And it is very appropriate that 
if Fiske is not considered the person to do the job, someone of the 
caliber of Judge Starr be appointed. He has a first-rate intellect. He 
has a very broad knowledge of the law. He has, as we know, fierce 
independence, integrity, and impartiality, and he has the respect of 
many of us in Congress.
  For example, I agree with the comments of my friend, Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts, that Judge Starr's appointment is a very solid one. I 
think that that speaks better than anything I can say, because Senator 
Kerry is of a different political ideology than I am. Judge Starr, I am 
sure, will do a first-class job as independent counsel.
  I disagree with the criticisms that some have raised about Judge 
Starr's appointment. Some of them are really, I think, transparently 
political in nature. For example, Judge Starr has been criticized 
because he was a solicitor general in a prior Republican 
administration, and he is also criticized because he lacks 
prosecutorial experience.
  Yet I think anyone would say that the model of a special prosecutor 
might come from the Watergate days. We would have to look at the person 
who was special prosecutor then, Archibald Cox. Cox, similar to Judge 
Starr, was not a prosecutor. He was also a solicitor general in the 
Kennedy administration, and he was a Harvard professor. No one, Mr. 
President, said at that time that this sort of background made 
Archibald Cox a political choice when he was chosen 20 years ago to be 
a special prosecutor. So, Mr. President, no one should say the same 
thing about Judge Starr either.
  I also disagree that the appointment is--as stated Friday, Saturday, 
and Sunday by people who disagree with it--an effort for Republicans to 
get revenge. First of all, under the law judges of the circuit courts 
of appeal make these appointments, not Republicans who are Members of 
Congress, or Republicans anyplace.
  The media have portrayed the selection of Judge Starr as ironic in 
light of the Republican opposition to the independent counsel law 
reauthorization. I suggest a look at that record. I am one who, as a 
Republican, supported the reauthorization of the independent counsel 
law. Numerous Republicans supported that reauthorization.
  Indeed, I wanted to go further than most of my colleagues did when we 
reauthorized that act: to make Congress subject to the independent 
counsel law in light of the political overtones that affect so many 
prosecutions of Members of Congress.
  Reauthorization of the independent prosecutor law was not a partisan 
matter and should not be treated as a partisan matter today.
  Those of us who supported this reenactment believe in accountability, 
believe in responsibility, and believe in fairness in the 
investigations of the questionable affairs of high-level Government 
officials. I know that Judge Starr embodies those values that those of 
us, both Republican and Democrat, sought when the independent counsel 
law was reauthorized here just a few months ago.
  It is said that there is no one so blind as one who will not see. It 
is also said that those who fail to heed the lessons of history are 
bound to repeat those earlier mistakes. Through its comments on Judge 
Starr's appointment, I feel the White House appears to be adding 
renewed validity to these wise sayings. By now, the White House should 
have learned that it should not interfere with investigations by 
independent entities.
  This administration has already sought to remove investigators that 
the White House viewed as hostile. The White House tried to interfere 
with the selection of former U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens as an attorney 
investigating possible civil claims against Madison Guaranty. Joshua 
Steiner's diary said that the White House and its aide George 
Stephanopoulous urged that Stephens be, in their words, ``gotten rid 
of.'' And the administration has tried to keep sympathetic regulators 
on matters in which the White House and its personnel have an interest.
  Certainly, the attempts to keep Roger Altman from recusing himself at 
the RTC are the prime examples of that. Indeed, the President's 
regulatory selections in Arkansas over matters in which he had a 
financial interest is one of the major reasons why Whitewater is being 
investigated in the very first place.
  So after a week in which Joshua Steiner, George Stephanopoulous, and 
Roger Altman testified before Congress, anyone would think, Mr. 
President, that the White House should keep mum on the subject of Judge 
Starr's appointment. Instead, the White House has directly or 
indirectly criticized that appointment.
  The President's lawyer, the famous Robert Bennett, thinks that--and 
these are his words ``If Starr found anything wrong, I don't think 
anybody could have any confidence in that.''
  I disagree strenuously with what Mr. Bennett said. If Judge Starr 
finds something wrong, that tells me that an objective person would 
find probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed.
  Indeed, the White House should be pleased with this appointment. 
Judge Starr was one of the people Attorney General Reno considered 
naming as a special counsel. White House counsel Lloyd Cutler stated 
over the weekend that any fair-minded person would find no one in the 
administration violated any criminal laws.
  If Judge Starr--and he is a fair-minded person--finds no violations, 
that is certainly going to put the Whitewater affair behind us, and 
completely behind the President.
  Mr. Bennett called on Judge Starr to withdraw. This may not be as 
sinister as what George Stephanopoulous had to say, that another person 
ought to be gotten rid of. But I think this comment by Mr. Bennett 
reflects the same old attitude at the White House. The White House 
seems to think that only administration-approved people should be 
allowed to investigate any of these matters. The independent counsel 
statute, as we all know, is premised on the opposite notion of 
accountability.
  Mr. Bennett also criticized Judge Starr because of his reported 
willingness to file a brief arguing that no one is above the law in the 
Paula Jones lawsuit against President Clinton, and that President 
Clinton should have to defend himself in the courts. Such a brief would 
have been offered in response to the President's immunity argument, an 
argument so obviously concocted that it changed on a weekly basis.
  But Judge Starr did not endorse Paula Jones' case, and he did not 
file such a brief. Even if he takes a particular view of the law, that 
does not mean that there is any conflict with the Whitewater 
investigation, because, Mr. President, as we know, these two matters 
are in no way connected--or at least as far as I know they are not.
  The Washington Post reports that Mr. Bennett would not have gone on 
the offensive without White House authorization. And Mr. Cutler and 
chief of staff Leon Panetta said that Judge Starr should not reopen the 
Washington phase of the investigation. Does the administration not 
realize what it is doing? Because as those of us who have supported the 
independent counsel statute know, it was passed to deliberately give 
the President no say whatsoever in the people who investigated high-
level executive officials. It does not matter whether there is a 
Republican President or a Democrat. That is the way the law should act.

  But here is the White House, criticizing Judge Starr's appointment 
and suggesting that the scope of the independent counsel's 
investigation be limited. By doing so, they narrow the flexibility that 
Judge Starr has.
  Judge Starr may have decided on his own not to reopen the Washington 
phase, or he may have decided that further investigation was warranted 
in light of the congressional testimony. But if the White House 
publicly calls on him not to reopen it, he is virtually compelled to 
reopen that phase to maintain his independence.
  Now let us look at that again. If the White House follows through and 
publicly calls on him not to reopen a segment of this investigation, I 
think Judge Starr must reopen because he must maintain his 
independence.
  Similarly unpersuasive and unhelpful are reports that the White House 
is concerned that Judge Starr's appointment will slow down the process. 
Once again, the White House is very inconsistent. The President's 
lawyer in the Paula Jones case has done everything possible to slow 
down the process of uncovering the truth in that case. What accounts 
for the different treatment of these two cases? One, they want to slow 
down, the Paula Jones case; the other one, the Whitewater affair, they 
want to speed up.
  In short, Mr. President, the appointment of Judge Starr is a superb 
one. The criticisms of his background are inconsistent.
  The efforts to try to have him withdraw or to narrow the scope of his 
investigation are truly mind boggling, and particularly so in light of 
what the White House has suffered as a result of similar attempts to 
influence investigations in the past.
  Judge Starr will do an excellent job. The White House should stop 
hounding him. The White House should let Judge Starr proceed as 
intended under the independent counsel law, a law set up to have an 
independent person free of political influence do the investigation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Simon pertaining to the introduction of S. 2370 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if no one else seeks the floor, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might inquire of the 
minority leader if he intends to speak for a while, in which case I 
will follow him.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will follow the Senator from Minnesota. I 
did not see the Senator from Minnesota on the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will say to my colleague, I am going to take 
probably about 10 to 15 minutes, if there is time. I will defer to the 
Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. If there is no objection, mine is about 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leaders' time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________