[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   SENTELLE PANEL FAILED TO MEET ITS OWN STANDARD TO ACT IMPARTIALLY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I sent a letter to Chief Justice 
Rehnquist asking that a new panel be appointed to determine whether the 
Sentelle panel, first, met its own ``perceptions standard'' by removing 
Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr., and appointing Kenneth W. Starr 
and, second, whether the judicial function of the panel has been 
tainted by political influence.

  Mr. Speaker, when the three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
replaced Fiske with Kenneth W. Starr it stated that it was not their 
``intent to impugn the integrity of the Attorney General's appointee, 
but rather to reflect the intent of the act that the actor be protected 
against perceptions of conflict. (T)he court therefore deems it in the 
best interest of the appearance of independence contemplated by the act 
that a person not affiliated with the incumbent administration be 
appointed.''
  Notwithstanding their own stated purpose for removing Mr. Fiske, the 
Sentelle panel has failed to meet its own standard and to act 
impartially.
  In fact, they appointed an opponent of the incumbent administration.
  At a minimum, the objective of instilling public confidence in the 
process by avoiding any appearance of partiality has not been achieved. 
At worst, it could be concluded that partisan politics played a 
significant role in the panel's decision.
  Mr. Speaker, the Independent Counsel Act was enacted over 15 years 
ago in the wake of Watergate, following revelations of abuses and 
illegal activity by Nixon administration officials. The stated purpose 
of Congress was to establish a statutory scheme by which a special 
prosecutor outside the Department of Justice could be appointed to 
investigate and, if necessary, prosecute violations of criminal law by 
high-ranking executive branch officials. What was sought was a person 
free from divided loyalties and of actual and perceived conflicts of 
interest.
  A second point and just as important, Mr. Speaker, is that the law 
established a process by which a rather unique legal entity--a three 
judge panel--would be set up with the sole function of selecting the 
independent counsel. It is arguable that the process is as important, 
if not more so, than the individual who is selected to serve as 
independent counsel.
  For, it is that panel which is entrusted with, First, ensuring that 
public confidence is maintained; second, insulating the decision from 
political influence; third, making an unbiased judgment as to who can 
best carry out the mandate of the law fairly; and finally with fourth, 
acting with judiciousness.

  The appointment of the three-judge panel was a further safeguard to 
make sure that, First, the public officials who are investigated are 
treated equally and fairly under the law and second, that the 
investigations of public officials be done by an individual whose 
judgment would inspire public confidence.
  It almost goes without saying that even though the Sentelle panel is 
a rather unique creature of law, it is subject to the rules of judicial 
conduct governing officials of the court.
  For example, statutory mandates and ethical guidelines require judges 
to recuse themselves from participation in cases where they may have 
special relationships with the parties or issues in a given case--or 
where there is a real or even apparent conflict of interest. It is not 
so much an act of questioning the integrity of the judge, as it is a 
matter of enhancing the public's confidence in the integrity of the 
decision.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was for this purpose that the Sentelle panel 
stated that it was removing Mr. Fiske and installing Mr. Starr. Yet, we 
know that very serious questions have been raised about contacts that 
occurred between Judge Sentelle and Senator Faircloth, a leading critic 
of the administration and of Mr. Fiske, at a pivotal time during the 
panel's determination of who should serve as independent counsel.
  Mr. Speaker, Bruce Fein, a conservative constitutional scholar who is 
no friend of President Clinton's, concluded in yesterday's Washington 
Times that ``appearances are critical, especially in proceedings 
bristling with partisan ramifications. The Faircloth lunch, even if 
only trivialities were discussed, should have prompted Judge Sentelle's 
recusal.'' (Washington Times, August 16, 1994)
  Mr. Speaker, in light of Mr. Starr's well-known political positions 
as well as the panel's means of selecting him, any conclusions that Mr. 
Starr may come up with will be questioned and the panel's stated intent 
to build confidence in the investigation will be undermined.
  Both the process and the newly independent counsel are engulfed in a 
cloud of suspicion and cannot meet the level of public trust that are 
critical to such an important legal mandate as investigating the 
President of the United States.

                          ____________________