[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 118 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 INDEPENDENT COUNSEL KENNETH STARR IS NOT INDEPENDENT AND SHOULD STEP 
                                  DOWN

                                 ______


                          HON. STEPHEN L. NEAL

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, August 19, 1994

  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, most of us on the Democratic 
side of the aisle who voted to reenact the Independent Counsel Act did 
so out of conviction that no one--not even the President of the United 
States--is above the law. We have learned through history that we 
cannot always depend on the executive branch of Government to hold 
itself accountable, especially when high Government officials are the 
subject of investigation. To solve this problem and preserve our 
commitment to equal justice for all, we created the position of 
Independent Counsel, an impartial investigator, who would be beyond the 
control of the governing administration.
  Mr. Speaker, the appointment of Mr. Kenneth Starr to replace Mr. 
Robert Fiske in the Whitewater investigation makes a mockery of the 
Independent Counsel Act and does much damage to the credibility of our 
judicial system, which must be above partisan politics. In no way do I 
wish to impugn the integrity of Mr. Starr. Indeed, I have heard much 
praise for his intelligence and fairness. But Mr. Starr is not an 
appropriate choice to succeed Mr. Fiske. In no way can he be 
characterized as independent, and I am very concerned about his ability 
to remain impartial. Surely, Mr. Starr should be able to see that his 
involvement hopelessly flaws this investigation. He should do the right 
thing and step down as independent counsel.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fiske seemed to be conducting his investigation in a 
purely independent and professional manner. However, the judicial panel 
empowered with appointing the independent counsel, concluded that 
because Mr. Fiske was appointed by the Attorney General, his 
independence could be challenged. They said this appointment gave the 
appearance of a lack of independence. Fair enough. Oddly, very oddly, 
the same judges, so concerned about appearances, turned a blind eye to 
Mr. Starr's partisan political activities and how Mr. Starr might 
personally benefit from the election of a Republican administration.
  After all, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Starr was a high Government official in 
two Republican administration. He was appointed by President Reagan to 
the U.S. Court of Appeals. And most recently, he served as President 
Bush's Solicitor General. We learned from Roll Call that Mr. Starr 
contributed $5,000 to Republican candidates in this cycle alone and 
that he is currently serving as cochair for Republican candidate for 
Congress, Kyle McSlarrow. Moreover, it has been widely reported that 
Mr. Starr harbors political ambitions, and seriously considered 
entering the current race to represent Virginia in the U.S. Senate. 
Significantly, Mr. Starr is considered a likely candidate, if there is 
a Republican administration, for a seat on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. Court. The August 15, 1994, issue of Time magazine reports that 
Mr. Starr ``speaks wishfully of Dan Quayle's political future.'' 
Apparently expressing hope for a Quayle Presidency, Mr. Starr is quoted 
in Time as saying that ``If President Quayle asked me to become the 
Solicitor General again, I'd do it.'' Therefore, the perception that he 
might be unduly partisan in the conduct of an investigation against a 
Democratic President is not unreasonable.

  In fact, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Starr would be under enormous pressure to 
conduct his investigation of President Clinton in a partisan manner. 
Consider what happened to Mr. Fiske, a staunch Republican who was 
President Bush's nominee for Deputy Attorney General. When Fiske failed 
to find any law violated by the White House in the Washington phase of 
his investigation, he was severely criticized, his integrity impugned, 
and his independence challenged by some of the same Republicans who 
were profuse in their praise for Mr. Fiske when he was first appointed.
  If Mr. Starr fails to come up with some charge against the President, 
surely he would do so at his political peril. It is doubtful, Mr. 
Speaker, that he would get his old job back at the Justice Department. 
And, he could certainly forget about a seat on the Supreme Court under 
a Republican administration. Mr. Starr would be persona non grata in 
the Republican Party. And, undoubtedly, his reputation would be smeared 
by some of the same Republicans now praising his virtues.
  Mr. Speaker, another aspect of this appointment is somewhat 
troubling, and that is the role of some Republican Members of Congress 
and their political operatives--including Floyd Brown, who produced the 
notorious Willie Horton ads during the Bush campaign--in prodding the 
judicial panel headed by Judge David B. Sentelle, a protege of Senator 
Jesse Helms, to replace Mr. Fiske. Indeed, a Washington Post article 
last week reported that Senator Lauch Faircloth and Judge Sentelle were 
seen together shortly after the Independent Counsel Act was enacted. 
The article implied that they might have been discussing the 
appointment of an independent counsel. Of course if that were true, it 
would constitute a serious violation of the judicial code of ethical 
standards by Judge Sentelle. However, the Senator and the judge have 
denied that they discussed the matter. I accept their explanation 
without reservation. Mr. Faircloth is a fellow North Carolinian and I 
believe him to be a man of his word. But, Mr. Speaker, we are talking 
about appearances--perceptions. The purpose of the Independent Counsel 
Act is to assure the American people that an investigation of the 
President of the United States will be conducted impartially--its 
findings not tainted by partisan politics. The independent counsel not 
only must be independent and impartial, he must be perceived to be 
independent and impartial. This meeting between the Senator, a severe 
critic of the administration, who had called for Mr. Fiske to be 
replaced, and his friend, the lead judge of the judicial panel that 
selects the independent counsel, fatally compromises the judge's 
perceived independence. The Washington Post and other publications are 
running these stories because of the perception that Judge Sentelle has 
a conflict of interest. Judge Sentelle should rescue himself from 
further involvement in picking an independent counsel. I would hope 
that the Chief Justice would consider reconstituting the three-judge 
panel to select a new, nonpartisan independent counsel.

  Again, regarding Mr. Starr, I accept the judgment of others, who know 
him, that Mr. Starr is a man of principle. Nevertheless, his 
independence is not above reproach. It is too much to ask the American 
people, who do not know Mr. Starr on a personal level, to disregard the 
fact that Mr. Starr is a highly partisan, politically ambitious 
Republican, who would be under enormous pressure from his party's 
leadership to bring a charge of wrongdoing against President Clinton. 
His report could not be believed. If Mr. Fiske was not the right person 
for the job of independent counsel, surely Mr. Starr does not fit the 
bill, either. If for no other reason than concern for his own political 
future, Mr. Starr should reconsider accepting this thankless job. The 
Republican Party will not reward him for his fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge Mr. Starr who as our Solicitor 
General was charged with defending our laws before the courts, to force 
the judicial panel that chose him to comply with the spirit of the 
Independent Counsel Act by declining appointment to this post.
  Mr. Speaker, a word or two needs to be said about the inconsistency 
in the position of some of my Republican friends
  Mr. Fiske was appointed special counsel by the Attorney General only 
because Republicans had blocked Congress from reenacting the 
independent counsel law, as an act of petty revenge for the 
investigations of independent prosecutors of crimes committed by 
officials of the last two Republican administrations. For these 
Republicans now to impugn the integrity of Mr. Fiske, a former 
Republican-appointed U.S. attorney, by rejoicing in the appointment of 
Mr. Starr is akin to the child who murders both parents and then pleads 
for mercy because he is an orphan.
  Moreover, their current swipes at Mr. Fiske stand in contrast to 
their praise for Mr. Fiske at the time of his appointment. Senator 
D'Amato, for example, is now one of Mr. Fiske's harshest critics. Yet, 
only a few months ago, the Senator described Mr. Fiske as ``uniquely 
qualified for this position * * * a man of uncompromising integrity.''
  Senator Dole, in an extraordinary demonstration of a selective memory 
lapse, praised the ouster of Mr. Fiske, with the remark that Congress 
was ``taking orders from an unelected bureaucrat appointed by the 
Attorney General,'' after having praised Fiske in January, when he said 
that ``people who know him think he is extremely well-qualified, is 
independent.''
  Mr. Speaker, these statements speak volumes about what is really 
going on here. The Republican leadership is not interested in an 
impartial review of Whitewater. The truth is not what they are seeking. 
They view the Whitewater investigation as an opportunity to undermine 
President Clinton, who enjoyed enormous success in his first year in 
office. Shocked that the President's economic programs have worked 
beyond all expectations, the Republican Party has adopted a strategy of 
blocking further legislative victories, relying on personal attacks to 
undermine his support and cripple his effectiveness. Their eye is on 
one thing only--capturing the White House and the Congress. This is 
about partisan politics, pure and simple.
  Mr. Speaker, please forgive my cynicism, but if any independent 
counsel delivers a report exonerating President Clinton, the Republican 
leadership will cry ``cover up,'' no matter who is the independent 
counsel.
  Mr. Speaker, Independent Counsel Starr is an active Republican 
partisan who stands to gain personally should a Republican be elected 
President. His independence is hopelessly compromised. If he were to 
bring a charge against the President or anyone else in the White House, 
there would always be the suspicion that it was a politically motivated 
fabrication.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I call on Mr. Starr to do the right thing and 
step down. And, Judge Sentelle, whose political affiliation fatally 
compromises his independence, should recuse himself from participating 
in the process of choosing an independence counsel.