[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]

 
                                 HAITI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].


                     whitewater independent counsel

  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in response to remarks made by my Democratic colleague from 
Maryland, who took to the floor to complain about the appointment of an 
independent counsel to investigate Whitewater matters. I wonder, with 
issues of health care and crime weighing so heavily on the Chamber at 
the moment, why it is that a Member would take time out to focus on 
Whitewater, to complain about the fact that it is being investigated by 
an independent counsel appointed by, not the Congress directly, but by 
judges, a panel of judges convened at the request of Attorney General 
Janet Reno under a law supported by the Clinton administration and 
recently passed by the Democratic Congress.
  I voted against the independent counsel law. I think the independent 
counsel law puts Congress and judges in the position of directing 
prosecutions, where we should not be. That is a violation of our notion 
of separation of powers. But the independent counsel law was urged upon 
us by the Clinton administration, by Janet Reno, and by the Democrats 
that control the Congress.
  A three-judge panel was convened at the request of Janet Reno. 
Instead of leaving Mr. Fiske in his position, which would have been the 
result if Janet Reno had not requested that a three-judge panel be 
convened, they chose to appoint someone who did not have Mr. Fiske's 
conflict of interests.

                              {time}  1840

  We know not only that Mr. Fiske was appointed by the Justice 
Department and that he had announced in recent weeks that his 
investigation was leading into the Justice Department and the Justice 
Department's own involvement in Whitewater, but also that Mr. Fiske 
contributed to Democratic candidates for Congress; that Mr. Fiske had a 
20-year relationship with Bernie Nussbaum, the White House counsel who, 
himself, had to resign as part of the Whitewater matters; that Mr. 
Fiske's clients had, in fact, borrowed money from Bill Clinton's State 
agency in Arkansas; and they had, in fact, sold land to the Whitewater 
Development Corp.
  Nobody seemed to complain about these rather obvious conflicts of 
interest at the time. But now that there is a truly independent counsel 
appointed by three judges, not by Janet Reno, we are told that this is 
a terrible thing.
  Who is this man Ken Starr? He was the Solicitor General of the United 
States. He was a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, approved 
unanimously by the U.S. Senate. In fact, he was selected just very 
recently by Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Ethics Committee to 
handle the very politically sensitive matter of going through the 
Packwood diaries. He was on Janet Reno's short list to be the special 
counsel, the position to which she named Mr. Fiske.
  Why is it that we are hearing complaints that now, he is somehow a 
partisan figure? Perhaps it is because there is concern that a truly 
independent counsel will get to the bottom of Whitewater. Perhaps there 
is some concern that the coverup in the House Whitewater hearings was 
not total and complete and that more of this might come out.
  I would hope that that is not the case, but it seems to me that it 
makes Congress look bad--and Congress already looks bad in its handling 
of Whitewater--to have Members of the body take to the floor and 
complain about the independent counsel who is just now beginning his 
work when, after all, he was appointed at the behest of the Attorney 
General who convened this three-judge panel.
  Frankly, I have no idea whether Judge Starr will be a tiger or a 
pussycat. I do know that there is no member of the American bar with 
better legal credentials, and no member of the bar with a better 
reputation for fairmindedness and unimpeachable integrity--so much so 
that the Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Ethics 
Committee unanimously named him to the extraordinarily sensitive task 
of reviewing the Packwood diaries. I could go on at length about his 
credentials--a clerkship for the Chief Justice, partnerships in two 
national law firms, the youngest judge ever appointed to the D.C. 
Circuit, the Nation's second highest court. And I could go on about his 
character--his work for his church and for charities, his devotion to 
his family, the fact that after 15 years in Washington, and a longer 
time than that at the pinnacle of his profession, he is known as a man 
with no enemies, and--until now--virtually no critics.
  But all that changed overnight when the court appointed Judge Starr 
to be the Whitewater independent counsel. Now we're told that Ken Starr 
is too partisan to serve because he is a prominent Republican lawyer 
who has contributed to political campaigns. Sounds a lot like Leon 
Jaworski--or Bob Fiske, who is, as the Clinton administration has 
reminded us ad nauseam, a very prominent Republican. And Mr. Fiske has 
given money to several political campaigns as well--including 
Democratic campaigns for, among others, the Republican Senate seat in 
New Hampshire. And, like Judge Starr, Mr. Fiske served in a key post in 
the Justice Department, during the Carter administration. Bob Fiske has 
yet another similarity with Judge Starr: they both were on the short 
list for special counsel that Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet 
Reno, put together in January. Judge Starr was nonpartisan enough for 
Janet Reno then; he is also nonpartisan enough for the Bill Clinton 
now. On Tuesday morning Lloyd Cutler said categorically that, and I 
quote, ``We have no reason to doubt the fair-mindedness of Ken Starr.'' 
The administration has said, and again I'm quoting, ``The President 
does not think that Starr should step aside.'' And Mr. Fiske himself 
has publicly stated, ``I can absolutely guarantee you nothing is 
endangered by the switch.'' Let me repeat that: Bob Fiske said that he 
could ``absolutely guarantee you nothing is endangered'' by Judge 
Starr's appointment. What do my Democratic colleagues know that Bob 
Fiske, Janet Reno, Lloyd Cutler, and the Clinton White House don't 
know? Why are they being more royalist than the King?
  Then there is the court that appointed Judge Starr. Mr. Speaker, I'm 
no fan of the way the Ethics in Government Act provides for appointing 
independent counsels, and I voted against the law in part on that 
basis.
  I think it is anomalous and in tension with the delicate balance 
created by our constitutional separation of powers. But the Clinton 
administration and the Democrats in Congress loved that law, and there 
was nothing about it they loved more than the way it allowed judges to 
pick the prosecutor. I could quote to you for hours from Democratic 
floor statements and committee reports calling that provision the 
linchpin of the bill; it was statements like that which led the court 
to find that continuing the Attorney General's appointee in office as 
independent counsel was contrary to the fundamental purpose of the law. 
But as soon as they reached that decision--as soon as an independent 
court actually had the temerity to appoint a truly, visibly independent 
prosecutor, the majority changed its mind.
  The cataract of vilification and uninformed abuse that has fallen on 
those judges, and on Judge Starr, is truly astounding. I will not try 
to answer every one of the laughable criticisms that have been made. I 
will only point out that the court that appointed Judge Starr was 
composed of both Democratic and Republican appointees, and that these 
judges unanimously agreed that Mr. Fiske needed to go, and that Judge 
Starr should replace him.
  The panel including Judge Butzner, appointed by President Kennedy to 
the district court and by President Johnson to the court of appeals, 
who has also served with distinction on the Judicial Ethics Commission. 
And Judge Butzner is no potted plant: he dissented from his colleagues' 
ruling on the Walsh report.
  The panel includes Judge Sneed, who taught at Texas, Cornell, 
Stanford, and Duke before being named to the Federal bench, where he 
has enjoyed an enviable reputation for scholarship and integrity. As 
for the chief judge of the panel, Judge Sentelle, who has been singled 
out for particularly offensive abuse, he has served as a Federal 
prosecutor, a State and Federal district court judge, and--like Judge 
Starr--a unanimously confirmed judge of the D.C. Circuit, the second 
highest court in the land. I have a copy of the letter that the 
American Bar Association sent the Senate, unanimously attesting to 
Judge Sentelle's outstanding credentials for the bench. It is signed by 
Robert Fiske, who also joined in the ABA's endorsement of Ken Starr for 
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The American people know why the Democratic Party has launched an 
indiscriminate smear campaign against four distinguished judges of both 
parties. They are aware that this is nothing but well-poisoning--an 
effort to discredit, in advance, whatever evidence of misconduct the 
independent counsel may unearth. It speaks volumes about my colleagues' 
confidence in their President that they feel this effort is needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I was asked on `'Crossfire'' the other night how I would 
feel if the shoe were on the other foot, and Jimmy Carter's Solicitor 
General had been appointed to serve as an independent counsel during 
the Reagan administration. I think it is a revealing parallel. There 
were Carter administration lawyers, as there are Bush administration 
lawyers, whose roles in Government involved an engagement in policy and 
politics that would make their appointment as independent counsels 
inappropriate. The Solicitor General is not one of them. The post has 
frequently been held by judges, or by people who went on to be judges. 
And it is known throughout the legal profession as a position of unique 
responsibility, untainted by partisanship. The Solicitor General during 
the Carter administration, the late Judge Wade McCree, was, like Ken 
Starr, a widely respected Federal judge who resigned from the bench to 
serve in that post. Like Judge Starr, he was known for his 
fairmindedness. And I can attest, as one who served in the Reagan White 
House, that neither I nor anyone I knew in the administration would 
have said or believed that such an appointment was inappropriate, or 
anything other than a faithful execution of the mandate of independence 
required by the law. I certainly do not believe that we would have 
unleashed against him, or the judges who appointed him, the shameful 
campaign of ill-informed abuse and invective that has been directed at 
Judge Kenneth Starr.

               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 10, 1994]

     Starr, Fiske Meet as Democrats Continue To Protest Appointment

                            (By Ruth Marcus)

       Kenneth W. Starr, the new independent counsel investigating 
     Whitewater, met in Little Rock, Ark., yesterday with his 
     predecessor, Robert B. Fiske Jr., as the Democratic outcry 
     over the appointment of a partisan Republican continued.
       As evidence that Starr's partisan ties make him a bad 
     choice to investigate Whitewater, one Democratic activist 
     yesterday cited Starr's $1,000 contribution to a candidate 
     for Texas lieutenant governor, Tex Lezar. Lezar has run 
     ``Whitewater update'' radio spots criticizing the Clinton 
     administration.
       In one spot, Lezar says Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger C. 
     Altman should resign, saying he ``is caught in the middle of 
     an apparent coverup by the Clinton administration.'' Lezar 
     and Starr are longtime friends who worked together in the 
     Reagan administration Justice Department before Starr was 
     appointed to the federal appeals court here. Starr made his 
     contribution to Lezar's campaign Feb. 14, before Lezar began 
     the Whitewater attacks, and Lezar said yesterday he did not 
     believe Starr was aware of the ads. James Carville, one of 
     President Clinton's closest political advisers, yesterday 
     called on Starr to withdraw from the investigation. ``I think 
     he should never have been appointed,'' Carville said.
       Referring to federal appeals court Judge David B. Sentelle, 
     who headed the panel that selected Starr, Carville said, 
     ``What is a political protege of [Sen.] Jesse Helms [R-N.C.] 
     doing appointing a potential senatorial candidate to a 
     position like that? * * * Partisan politics is driving this 
     whole thing.'' Starr had considered running for the 
     Republican Senate nomination in Virginia. One of the authors 
     of the new independent counsel law yesterday called on Starr 
     to withdraw or make a full disclosure of his political 
     activities to the court panel that appointed him Friday to 
     investigate Clinton and Whitewater.
       Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said the panel should explain 
     ``why it is that they've concluded that all of these 
     political activities on his [Starr's] part do not create the 
     very type of appearance problem which caused them'' to decide 
     not to reappoint Fiske.
       Fiske had been named special counsel by Attorney General 
     Janet Reno when the earlier independent counsel law expired. 
     After the law was revived, Reno asked the court to reappoint 
     Fiske under the law, but the court declined, citing the need 
     for the ``appearance of independence'' in an independent 
     counsel.
       Another Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), said Starr 
     should pledge not to enter electoral politics or to accept a 
     political appointment after serving as independent counsel. 
     ``Here's a man who is talking about running for the U.S. 
     Senate, who has always been named as a potential [Supreme 
     Court] appointee if there's a Republican administration, and 
     I think that if he's going to take this he ought to make it 
     very clear that in doing so he's forgoing political 
     ambitions.''
       Levin and the chief House sponsor of the independent 
     counsel legislation, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), said they 
     believed letters to the special panel that appoints 
     independent counsels should be public record.
       A group of Republican House members and a conservative 
     group headed by one of Clinton's chief political opponents 
     wrote the court to urge that Fiske not be reappointed. But 
     there is no indication of the letters in the court file on 
     the case, which contains only the four-page ruling naming 
     Starr. Under the independent counsel law, no information 
     about a case is released unless ordered by the special court 
     in charge of appointing the counsels. The appeals court 
     clerk, Ron Garvin, said Monday he was unaware of any letters. 
     Through a spokeswoman, Sentelle declined to make public any 
     letters sent to the court. ``The general rule should be that 
     if they're read they should be made part of the public 
     record,'' Levin said of the letters.
       ``This is a public matter,'' Frank said. ``This isn't some 
     private deal between these wackos and the judges * * *. This 
     is a pending case. I don't think you should be able to write 
     secret letters to judges about pending matters.'' Frank said 
     he did not believe Starr should step aside from the case.

  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I was going to speak about Haiti. I thought 
that it was very important that that timely response in response to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland be made.
  The situation in Haiti is still terrible. We are now having a 
situation of rebellion going on in Guantanamo, disorders. We have the 
military police officers; 20 of them have been hurt in a melee down 
there. We have economic refugees asking to be taken back to Haiti. We 
have got asylees in Haiti trying to get out of harm's way. They cannot 
because of the sanctions that we have put on in that country.
  We have taken a bad situation, and we have made it worse for true 
political asylees. We have made it worse for all Haitians, and we have 
certainly made it worse for the refugee problems which is now basically 
concentrated in a very miserable situation in Guantanamo.
  I wish I could stand here and say we did not predict this, but we did 
predict this. This is a very bad policy. And we have got now the next 
potential coming up of this invasion which today's Washington Post 
said, ``U.S. officials acknowledge that an invasion would be staged 
almost exclusively by U.S. troops.''
  That is absurd. There is no consensus for such an invasion. Even the 
United Nations is now trying to negotiate and sending an envoy to Haiti 
to negotiate a peaceful solution to the problem. This is the same 
United Nations that authorized anything we need to do to solve the 
problem in Haiti at our behest, at the United States behest so we could 
justify an invasion. Things are coming apart fast. We need a new policy 
in Haiti.

                          ____________________