[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON MR. STARR

  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer, I would not like to be in 
Kenneth Starr's shoes. His sudden appearance to investigate the 
President raises more genuine appearance questions than those which 
were said to have disposed of Robert Fiske.
  Mr. Fiske was an appointee of the Attorney General, and for that 
reason, and only that reason, his replacement was understandable. Mr. 
Starr is an appointee of a court, but he brings openly partisan baggage 
that makes clear that courts can have highly imperfect and tainted 
judgment on these matters as well.
  Mr. Starr's appearance of impartiality is not aided by his attachment 
to the Paula Jones lawsuit, his foregone Senate race, and his absence 
of criminal law experience. However, after $2 million and 6 months of 
work by Mr. Fiske, replacing Mr. Starr would bring only more confusion, 
expense, and delay.
  Getting on with it without fear, favor, and, I might add, redundancy 
is in order. The burden of proof now is on Mr. Starr. It is a heavy 
burden, indeed.

                          ____________________