[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 115 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                A FEW GOOD MEN WHO HAPPEN TO BE LAWYERS

                                 ______


                          HON. JAMES A. LEACH

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, August 16, 1994

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting precedential 
aspects of the new independent counsel designation is that the three 
judge panel that selected Judge Kenneth Starr ruled that, to avoid the 
appearance of partiality, it could not appoint Robert Fiske as 
independent counsel because he had originally been selected as special 
counsel for the same probe by the executive branch. As someone who has 
closely followed the Whitewater investigation, I would like to 
emphasize that the criteria of individual independence established by 
the judicial panel was a surprise to me. In my floor statement on 
passage of the independent counsel statute I indicated my high regard 
for Mr. Fiske and my assumption that most in the legislative branch 
presumed his reappointment. Nonetheless, the panel's decision appears 
rooted in a desire to underscore that the judicial branch is itself 
independent. As the panel noted, its decision was not intended to 
reflect on the personal integrity of Mr. Fiske or his philosophical or 
political leanings.
  What is missed in the hullabaloo of some in my party who doubted 
Robert Fiske and some in the Democratic Party who doubt his 
replacement, Kenneth Starr, is that the facts of the case, or cases, 
will speak for themselves and that the facts are being marshalled by a 
group of exceptional attorneys assembled by Mr. Fiske and a larger 
number of FBI agents provided by the Department of Justice. The top man 
has the responsibilities of organizing the probe and for leading 
prosecutorial efforts if appropriate. But I would be extremely 
doubtful, at least with regard to the Arkansas aspect of this 
investigation, that Mr. Starr will reach any substantial conclusions 
Mr. Fiske wouldn't have.
  It is key to understand that the issue isn't whether one counsel has 
a political background more liberal, moderate or conservative than the 
other. Nor whether one was well acquainted with the former White House 
counsel and the other with the chief judge of the ad hoc panel that 
named him. The issue is how qualified and how honorable the individuals 
chosen for the tasks assigned them are.
  In this regard, the reputations of Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr are 
each impeccable. Mr. Fiske is a former U.S. attorney with extensive 
prosecutorial experience; Mr. Starr, who like Archibald Cox was a 
former Solicitor General of the party out of power, has greater 
judicial experience. Each has an impressive background; each is of 
unimpeachable character.
  In his tenure in office, Mr. Fiske met his constitutional obligations 
well and faithfully. Mr. Starr can be expected to as well. Just as Mr. 
Fiske refused to be swayed by critics in the Republican Party on his 
judgment about the suicide of Vincent Foster, Mr. Starr is unlikely to 
be deterred from a straightforward assessment of the evidence by the 
comments of Democratic partisans or presidential lawyers.
  Good men and women can be expected to do a good job and to do so in 
such a way that accountability is provided for wrongdoing and 
reputations are protected for those who have not violated the law. The 
probe should continue without further second guessing of the motives of 
the individuals who have been given such heavy responsibility for such 
a sensitive investigation.
  In this regard, it is impressive how loyal the staff Mr. Fiske put 
together has been to him; but it would be tragic if, as is hinted, many 
feel obligated to resign due to the judicial panel's decision. This 
would be unfortunate because not only is continuity of effort at issue, 
but so is confidence in the independence and integrity of the probe. It 
is believed that much of the underlying investigatory effort related to 
the failure of Madison Guaranty has been completed and that decisions 
on how to proceed will soon be at hand. Hopefully the majority of the 
investigative team will remain to see the process completed.
  Finally, a note about the new White House counsel, Abner Mikva. While 
on a political spectrum Mr. Starr might be described as a conservative, 
Mr. Fiske a moderate, and Judge Mikva a liberal, each share 
extraordinary personal qualities that have garnered the respect of all 
who have worked with them. Of these, the only one I have come to know 
on a personal basis as a colleague is Abner Mikva. He is an individual 
who will bring to the White House intellect, integrity and, not 
inconsequentially, experience. Mr. Cutler, at personal sacrifice, 
helped stabilize the White House with his mature judgment and steadfast 
calm. Judge Mikva, who comes from the same D.C. Court of Appeals that 
Mr. Starr served on, can likewise be expected to bring it new strength.
  The Whitewater circumstance has unique thickets. Therefore, it is 
important that the American people have confidence they are served by 
people of integrity.
  It may be the fashion to make jokes about the legal profession, but 
these four attorneys--Robert Fiske, Kenneth Starr, Lloyd Cutler, and 
Abner Mikva--bring great credit to their profession. They ennoble 
public service.

                          ____________________