[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6107-S6108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CITY OF SALINE, MI AND THE TOWN OF BRECON, 
                         WALES AS SISTER CITIES

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 30th 
anniversary of the successful partnership of the city of Saline, MI, 
and the town of Brecon, Wales in the Sister Cities Program.
  Thirty-years ago next month, under the People-to-People Program 
established by President Eisenhower, a bond was forged between these 
two communities. In the words of Saline Mayor Patrick J. Little, ``We 
have become one community separated by a large body of water. Over two 
generations have had the pleasure of learning about each other's 
culture.''
  To celebrate this occasion, next month approximately 50 members of 
the Brecon community will visit Saline, the highlight of which will be 
the first ever Celtic Festival on July 6. I would like to extend a warm 
welcome to our visitors from Brecon, and congratulate the citizens of 
both cities for their three decades of cooperation and 
friendship.


                   A CASE AGAINST INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  Mr. SIMON. Mr President, I supported the creation of the office of 
independent counsel and have voted for its reauthorization.
  I am now convinced that is the wrong way to solve this particular 
problem.
  My judgment is that we should look at the office of Attorney General 
with great care when a nomination is made. And if the nominee is too 
close, in any way, to the President, that nomination should be 
rejected.
  And if the nominee has been active in political life beyond the 
normal type of engagement, that should be weighed. Such a person should 
not automatically be rejected, but there should be ample evidence that 
the person will serve with honor.
  An ideal type of arrangement was when Ed Levi was chosen as Attorney 
General by President Gerald Ford. No one for a moment thought that the 
man who left as president of the University of Chicago to become 
Attorney General could be politically manipulated by the President, 
even if the President wanted to do that.
  My impression is that Janet Reno is made of the same stuff and that 
her appointment was a good appointment.
  When I was sounded out about John F. Kennedy appointing Bobby Kennedy 
as Attorney General I indicated to Bob Wallace, the Kennedy staff 
person who asked me about it, that I thought it was a mistake because 
the Attorney General should not be too close to the President. As it 
turned out, Bobby Kennedy did a good job as Attorney General, but as a 
precedent it was not good.
  In the same way, Ed Meese was much too close personally and 
politically to Ronald Reagan to serve the Nation as effectively as he 
might have as Attorney General.

[[Page S6108]]

  The Chicago Tribune had an editorial recently titled, ``A Case 
Against Independent Counsel.''
  Their conclusion is that we should simply do away with the law.
  I reluctantly believe their conclusion is correct.
  But it will be correct only to the extent that we assure the American 
public that the Attorney General is of an independent bent. It may even 
be that we should appoint an Attorney General for a period of 10 years, 
subject to removal from office under conditions that are carefully 
spelled out in the law prior to ending that 10-year period.
  But the Chicago Tribune editorial contains words that we should 
reflect on.
  Mr. President, I ask that the article from the Chicago Tribune be 
printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

                   A Case Against Independent Counsel

       Remember Sam Pierce?
       That's OK. Ronald Reagan didn't remember him either, even 
     when Pierce was serving in his cabinet as secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development. (Reagan once greeted him in a 
     receiving line as ``Mr. Mayor'').
       Pierce and Reagan have been gone from Washington for almost 
     eight years, but the effects of their presence continue to be 
     felt. In Pierce's case, they are felt less in policy than in 
     the work of an independent counsel, or special prosecutor, 
     who is said to be tidying up loose ends in a probe of abuses 
     and mismanagement in Pierce's agency during the Reagan years.
       As of the end of March, this investigation had resulted in 
     17 convictions of former high-level officials and the 
     associates to whom they steered contracts or directed favors. 
     The most prominent of those convicted was James Watt, the 
     blunt former secretary of the Interior in the Reagan 
     administration, who in January pleaded guilty to attempting 
     to mislead the grand jury in the HUD investigation. He was 
     sentenced to five years of probation, 500 hours of community 
     service and a $5,000 fine.
       To obtain these results, the independent counsel has run up 
     a tab of almost $21 million--an average of $1.2 million per 
     conviction. That's offset somewhat by the $2 million in fines 
     and $10 million in recovered HUD funds. But even so, the 
     pursuit of justice in the HUD case has been an extremely 
     costly affair.
       The HUD probe is not even the most expensive by an 
     independent counsel. Lawrence Walsh's Iran-contra 
     investigation cost more than $40 million. Kenneth Starr's 
     Whitewater probe bids fair to become the most expensive 
     ever--by one estimate it already has cost $25 million. 
     Altogether, special counsels have cost the taxpayers $100 
     million over the last 10 years.
       This mounting expense, for results whose value more and 
     more members of Congress consider dubious at best, has 
     inspired a questioning of the independent counsel law that 
     arguments from principle could not.
       The logic behind the law (formally, the Ethics in 
     Government Act) is simple and seems unassailable: When high-
     level officials in an administration are accused of serious 
     breaches of the public trust, it takes an independent 
     outsider to conduct a credible investigation. There is a 
     built-in conflict of interest that makes it impossible for 
     the normal Justice Department processes to work. Without a 
     law, the president cannot be counted on to permit an 
     independent investigation of his administration.
       The only problem with this logic is that in the long scope 
     of U.S. history, it has not been shown to be true. Most 
     Justice Department officials and prosecutors behave 
     honorably. In the one great historical instance in which the 
     Justice Department's integrity was in serious question--
     Watergate--overwhelming political pressure forced President 
     Richard Nixon to yield and accept an independent counsel.
       An independent counsel law is a source of permanent 
     temptation to political mischief. The Democrats in Congress 
     used it to bludgeon the Reagan and Bush administrations. 
     Now--after the Democrats insisted on renewing the law in Bill 
     Clinton's first year in office--the Republicans are using it 
     to bludgeon the Clinton administration. No fewer than four 
     independent counsels are at work investigating issues from 
     Whitewater to whether Henry Cisneros lied to the FBI about 
     how much money he gave his former mistress.
       As the figures on the HUD investigation suggest, 
     independent counsels operate with none of the budget 
     constraints that fetter ordinary prosecutors. And they can 
     pursue their quarry indefinitely, meaning that individuals 
     can remain under threat of prosecution for years, with 
     devastating effects on their families, fortunes, careers and 
     psyches. That's not fair.
       Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) each 
     have proposed legislation to reduce the powers of independent 
     counsels and make them more accountable to Congress.
       Better that they should simply do away with the law. As the 
     Nixon case demonstrates, when a president's behavior 
     threatens the very constitutional order, the public will 
     demand an independent counsel. Absent such an outrage, it's 
     best to let normal legal processes work.

                          ____________________