[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19-S20]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            RESERVE JUDGMENT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
statements made earlier today by Senator Leahy concerning Independent 
Counsel Kenneth Starr. Senator Leahy has challenged Mr. Starr on a 
number of items, matters of very substantial concern.
  I telephoned Mr. Starr to find out what the facts were. Both Senator 
Leahy and I are on the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over 
the Department of Justice and also the independent counsel. Senator 
Leahy began his presentation by noting that he had spent nearly a 
decade as a prosecutor, and I have a similar background, actually a 
little longer than a decade, but about the same. Senator Leahy then 
commented about his concern about law enforcement being nonpartisan and 
nonideological, and on the facts. I most certainly agree with Senator 
Leahy on his assertions to that extent. Then Senator Leahy proceeded to 
criticize Mr. Starr for conducting a partisan investigation, for making 
leaks to the press, by coordinating the investigation with what is 
going on in the civil case involving Ms. Paula Jones, and charging that 
there was a sting operation to engage the President of the United 
States in secretly recorded conversations. All of these are obviously 
very serious accusations.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that the current controversy involving 
the President and Ms. Monica Lewinsky is something that ought to be put 
behind the country at the earliest possible time. I made public 
statements last week when the President was questioned about this 
matter, while Chairman Arafat was in his office, and said that I 
thought it inappropriate to have that question and bad practice for the 
President to respond to that question, and made public statements last 
week and over the weekend about what I consider to be an unwise media 
frenzy on this matter--that we all ought to wait and see what the facts 
are before coming to any conclusions, and in the interim the President 
ought to be permitted to carry out his duties because they are very, 
very important duties.
  I agree with what Senator Leahy said when he recited the issues of 
foreign policy, Iraq, the State of the Union, and the matters which the 
President has to deal with.
  There have been many reports in the press about what Mr. Starr did 
and how he got into this investigation and whether his activities were 
an inappropriate extension of what he had been authorized to do prior 
to the time he took his first steps on this matter involving Ms. Monica 
Lewinsky. Mr. Starr told me this afternoon in a telephone conversation 
that he did engage in a consensual monitoring in the eastern district 
of Virginia on a conversation with Ms. Linda Tripp and Ms. Monica 
Lewinsky. It was a consensual monitoring because it was consented to by 
Ms. Linda Tripp. Mr. Starr told me that Ms. Linda Tripp had been a 
witness on independent counsel matters in the past involving the White 
House Travel Office and Mr. Foster, and that the consensual monitoring 
was undertaken to corroborate what Ms. Linda Tripp had told Mr. Starr 
independently.
  Mr. Starr said it was an appropriate exercise of his existing 
jurisdiction because in his investigation involving Mr. Webster Hubble, 
Mr. Hubble's situation involved a matter where an individual was 
involved in providing job arrangements for Mr. Hubble outside the 
District of Columbia with a certain prospective employer. Mr. Starr 
said that the same person was involved in providing a job opportunity 
for Ms. Monica Lewinsky outside the District of Columbia with the same 
prospective employer and that this connection was sufficient for Mr. 
Starr to proceed with this consensual monitoring, which Mr. Starr 
pointed out was done professionally by the FBI and, as Mr. Starr 
described it, in a completely appropriate manner. Mr. Starr advised 
that he then took this matter to the Department of Justice after he had 
completed the consensual monitoring.

  Mr. President, I will not become involved here in what the factual 
allegations are, what Ms. Tripp said or what Ms. Lewinsky said, because 
the issue which concerns me and the thrust of what Senator Leahy 
complained about is the propriety of Mr. Starr's activity, and that 
need not involve the allegations and the substance. I think there has 
already been enough talk about that, in any event.
  Mr. Starr then advised that he took the tape recordings to the 
Department of Justice, met with the senior attorney and the public 
integrity section. There was a collaborative determination between the 
Department of Justice and independent counsel as to who should carry 
out the further investigation. Mr. Starr advised that the Attorney 
General then asked the special court of the District of Columbia 
Circuit to specifically enlarge Mr. Starr's jurisdiction so that he 
could proceed with this investigation.
  Now, we all know that Attorney General Reno has been very circumspect 
in the independent counsel issue as to appointment and as to extending 
jurisdiction--that has been a subject matter which has been talked 
about on this floor a great deal, to a substantial extent by this 
Senator. But the facts as Mr. Starr outlined them are that he proceeded 
in this way just as outlined, which is entirely appropriate because of 
the connection between what happened with Ms. Monica Lewinsky and what 
happened with Mr. Webster Hubble. That was obviously approved by 
Attorney General Reno when she then acted on information which Mr. 
Starr brought to her to request the special court of the District of 
Columbia Circuit to enlarge Mr. Starr's jurisdiction.
  I asked Mr. Starr further about the other statements which Senator 
Leahy had made. I now quote from the transcript:

       Senator Leahy: I look at the continuing and very selective 
     leaks and tactics employed by Mr. Starr's office over the 
     last few years and particularly over the last few days.

  I asked not only Mr. Starr about the leaks, which he emphatically 
denied, but also about the composition of the personnel who were 
handling this sensitive material, and Mr. Starr gave me some 
substantial detail about the attorneys who were on the matter in terms 
of their backgrounds and in terms of their professionalism, which Mr. 
Starr says is the effort made and he thinks is always the effort made, 
to avoid the leaks. We all know in Washington, DC, or for that matter, 
any place, the difficulty of establishing leaks, but if someone makes a 
contention, as Senator Leahy does, as to leaks, the question is, what 
is the proof of those leaks.
  Mr. Starr made an emphatic denial regarding the leaks, and spoke of 
the professionalism of the people that have the confidential 
information.
  Senator Leahy went on to say earlier today, ``I have seen reports of 
two weekends ago that he,'' referring to Mr. Starr, ``was intent on 
conducting a sting operation to engage the President of the United 
States in secretly recorded conversations. Have we sunk this low, Mr. 
President, that we would do things like this?"
  I asked Mr. Starr about that, and he emphatically denied it. I, too, 
have seen press reports about the proposed sting operation, but I think 
it is very important that as we accord the President the presumption of 
innocence and as we look for proof before coming to any judgments about 
anyone, that the same thing apply to Mr. Kenneth Starr, the independent 
counsel, and that a serious accusation about the sting operation ought 
to have some authentication and verification before it

[[Page S20]]

is made on the floor of the U.S. Senate. At least that is my opinion.
  Senator Leahy went on earlier today saying, ``I have seen 
complaints,'' he is referring to Mr. Starr, ``he sought to curse a 
young woman''--I asked Kenneth Starr about that, and again he denied it 
in absolute terms--``and threatened her mother and father if she did 
not cooperate.'' Again, Mr. Starr denied that in absolute terms.
  Senator Leahy then went on to say, ``Mr. Starr's office seems oddly 
coordinated to aid the civil lawsuit against the President involving 
the Miss Paula Jones case.'' Again I asked Mr. Starr about that, and it 
has been denied.

  Mr. President, I make these comments after talking to Kenneth Starr, 
particularly to state for the record exactly how Mr. Starr got into 
this matter on the consensual monitoring. A consensual monitoring under 
Virginia law is appropriate when one party to the conversation agrees 
to it so that in the action by Mr. Starr and the FBI agents in 
recording the conversation of Ms. Monica Lewinsky and Ms. Linda Tripp, 
where Ms. Linda Tripp has consented to it--that was a lawful consensual 
monitoring--and as explained by Mr. Starr, the nexus or connection 
justifying his conduct was because the same person had suggested 
providing a job opportunity for Ms. Monica Lewinsky with the same 
employer who had made similar activity with respect to Mr. Webster 
Hubble.
  It would be my hope that as this matter proceeds, that there would be 
a toning down of the decibel level and a real effort made to find out 
what the facts are before accusations are made against anybody. I think 
that applies to President Clinton, as I said so last week and over the 
weekend, and applies to Mr. Starr, and there has been a concern 
expressed that there is now an orchestrated effort made to discredit 
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. I do not know whether that is true 
or not. There have been a number of statements coming out, but whatever 
the charges and accusations that were made against anybody--President 
Clinton, Independent Counsel Starr, anyone--they ought to be backed up 
by the facts and not a recitation of something that appeared in the 
newspaper where we know of the questionable reliability of what appears 
in the press.
  The real issue here is not necessarily what Mr. Starr has done but 
what the underlying facts are on the substantive matter at issue. If 
Mr. Starr has acted in an inappropriate manner, that can be reviewed at 
some time. When you deal with issues such as those involved here, we 
are not looking at a respective criminal case where the admissible 
evidence is judged on certain standards. We are looking at a real 
determination to find what the facts are so that we can make a 
determination as to what ought to be done in this matter.
  It is my view that once the facts are asserted, there will be general 
agreement about what the conclusions ought to be. But it is not the 
Independent Counsel's conduct at issue here. I think the Independent 
Counsel ought to conduct himself in a manner which comports with the 
manner of decency. That is his job and responsibility. Also, I think 
that he is entitled not to be vilified in newspaper headlines or 
newspaper stories. But the facts ought to be ascertained. The facts as 
Mr. Starr outlines them to me justify the steps that he took. That is 
not my view alone; that is corroborated by what Attorney General Reno 
has done in the case.

  Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking 
recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________