[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S625-S628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a letter I have written on this day to Attorney 
General Janet Reno.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                February 11, 1998.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of 
         Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: As a member of the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee, which is charged with conducting 
     oversight of the Department of Justice and the Office of the 
     Independent Counsel (``OIC''), I believe public confidence in 
     our system of justice must be maintained. I therefore 
     respectfully request that you conduct a formal inquiry of 
     Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to determine whether he 
     should be removed or disciplined for repeated failures to 
     report and avoid conflicts of interest pursuant to the powers 
     vested in the Attorney General by the Ethics in Government 
     Act (``The Act''), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591, et seq.
       Recent events involving the Independent Counsel's probe are 
     further evidence of Mr. Starr's entanglements that cast a 
     cloud over his ability to conduct an investigation 
     objectively. Over the course of his entire investigation, Mr. 
     Starr, in his continuing work as a partner at the law firm of 
     Kirkland & Ellis and as Independent Counsel, has embraced 
     (and been embraced by) persons and interests that seek to 
     undermine the President as part of their political agenda. He 
     has continually turned a blind eye to his own conflicts of 
     interest at his law firm, to the conflicts engendered by the 
     actions of his clients, and to benefactors that seek to 
     discredit the President for partisan political gain. A person 
     of Mr. Starr's numerous conflicts of interest cannot carry 
     out the even-handed and fair-minded, independent 
     investigation contemplated by the Act. Moreover, the evidence 
     that has surfaced thus far regarding the expansion of Mr. 
     Starr's jurisdiction into these matters raises serious 
     concerns about the OIC's collusion with the Paula Jones legal 
     team in an effort to unfairly and illegally trap the 
     President.
       This possible misconduct demands an immediate investigation 
     by the Department to determine if Mr. Starr remains 
     sufficiently ``independent'' to continue to serve in his 
     current position.


   i. the ethics in government act requires the attorney general to 
       investigate alleged misconduct of the independent counsel

       The Independent Counsel statute provides the Attorney 
     General with jurisdiction to investigate alleged misconduct, 
     conflict of interest and other improprieties that would 
     render an Independent Counsel unfit to remain in office. 
     Specifically, under the statute, the Attorney General may 
     remove an Independent Counsel ``for good cause, physical 
     disability, or other condition that substantially impairs the 
     performance of such independent counsel's duties.'' 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 596. The Supreme Court has suggested that a finding of 
     ``misconduct'' would most assuredly constitute ``good cause'' 
     under Section 596, and that ``good cause'' may impose no 
     greater threshold than that required to remove officers of 
     ``independent agencies.'' Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 
     692, n. 32 (1988).
       The Attorney General's removal authority and the 
     concomitant authority to investigate the independent counsel 
     to determine if there are grounds for removal are essential 
     to the continuing constitutional vitality of the Act. Indeed, 
     the Supreme Court's holding that the Act did not violate 
     separation of powers principles rested largely on the power 
     reserved to the Attorney General to remove the independent 
     counsel for ``good cause.'' Specifically, the court found 
     that the Attorney General's removal power rendered the 
     independent counsel an ``inferior officer,'' as required by 
     the Constitution, 487 U.S. at 671, and that such authority 
     ensured that undue powers had not been transferred to the 
     judicial branch under the Act. 487 U.S. at 656. Thus, 
     Morrison teaches that not only is the Attorney General 
     authorized to determine whether there are reasons to remove 
     the independent counsel, but that the Attorney General is 
     constitutionally obliged to do so.
       In addition, the Act expressly obligates the Independent 
     Counsel to follow, to the fullest extent possible, the 
     standards of conduct prescribed by the Department of Justice. 
     See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 594(f) (An Independent Counsel ``shall, 
     except to the extent that to do so would be inconsistent with 
     the purposes of this chapter, comply with the written and 
     other established policies of the Department of Justice 
     respecting enforcement of the criminal laws''). Accordingly, 
     independent of your removal authority, the Department's 
     Office of Professional Responsibility (``OPR'') has 
     jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct by the 
     Independent Counsel and his staff or potential conflicts of 
     interest that would disqualify him from serving as 
     independent counsel. See Department of Justice Manual (``DOJ 
     Manual''), Section 1-2112 (Supp. 1990) (Office of 
     Professional Responsibility ``oversees investigation of 
     allegations of misconduct by Department employees''). Against 
     the backdrop of this clear constitutional and statutory 
     mandate, I request that you initiate a formal inquiry into 
     the following matters.


   II. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: MR. STARR HAS CONSISTENTLY IGNORED THE 
    CONFLICTS RELATED TO HIS WORK, HIS CLIENTS, AND HIS BENEFACTORS

       Mr. Starr's decision not to devote his full attention to 
     his obligations as Independent Counsel in a matter involving 
     the President of the United States has made inevitable the 
     ensuing appearances of impropriety and actual conflicts of 
     interest. His own ethics consultant, Samuel Dash, formerly 
     Chief Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, noted that 
     Starr's decision to continue representing private clients 
     while investigating the President has ``an odor to it.'' 
     ``How Independent is the Counsel,'' The New Yorker, April 22, 
     1996. The seriousness of these conflicts (and the odor) is 
     evident by the direct involvement that his clients and others 
     to whom he is financially dependent have assumed in Mr. 
     Starr's investigation.
       The Act makes clear that during an Independent Counsel's 
     Tenure, neither the counsel, nor any person in a law firm 
     that the counsel is associated with ``may represent in any 
     matter any person involved in any investigation or 
     prosecution under this chapter.'' 28 U.S.C. Sec. 594(j)(l)(i) 
     and (ii). Mr. Starr, however, has violated both the spirit 
     and letter of the statute through his own work and work of 
     his law firm, as well as the actions of his clients and 
     future benefactors.

 A. The Expansion of the Investigation Into Matters In The Paula Jones 
 Case Places Mr. Staff In Violation Of the Act's Conflict of Interest 
                               Provisions

       Mr. Starr, as a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis 
     and just prior to his appointment as Independent Counsel, 
     actually provided legal advice in connection with the Paula 
     Jones litigation. ``Mr. Starr's Conflicts,'' New York Times, 
     March 31, 1996. While the fact that he has been involved with 
     that litigation prior to becoming Independent Counsel 
     certainly gave his appointment the appearance of impropriety 
     in violation of the spirit of the Act, now that his 
     investigation has fully inserted itself into the Paula Jones 
     matter, concerns about his former representation certainly 
     are magnified and call into question his role as an 
     ``independent'' counsel in Paula Jones-related matters.
       Of far greater gravity are the press reports and other 
     information suggesting past and present representation by 
     Kirkland & Ellis of other individuals connected to the Paula 
     Jones civil litigation. See ``More Subpoenas and Angry Talk 
     in Starr's Probe,'' Chicago Tribune, January 31, 1998; 
     ``Starr Furor Lands at Firm's Door,'' Legal Times, February 
     9, 1998. Mr. Starr's potential breach of his duty to inform 
     you of any association between his firm and persons involved 
     in the Paula Jones matter, as well as the possible breach of 
     the Act's statutory conflict of interest standards, should be 
     the subject of investigation. Evidence that is discovered as 
     the result of the current subpoena directed to Kirkland & 
     Ellis for Paula Jones-related documents will undoubtedly shed 
     light on whether Mr. Starr is in violation of the conflict of 
     interest standards under the Act.

[[Page S626]]

     Chicago Tribune, January 31, 1998. Kirkland & Ellis's 
     reported opposition to the subpoena is a significant 
     indication of a violation of the Act. ``Chicago lawyer's role 
     in Jones suite examined,'' Chicago Tribune, February 11, 
     1998. The firm's internal investigation apparently uncovered 
     work done by one of its partners on Jones-related matters. 
     This discovery subsequently was confirmed by one of Ms. 
     Jones' former lawyers. Id. If, in fact, Mr. Starr failed 
     to report the association of his law firm and such a 
     conflict exists, that would undoubtably be grounds for his 
     removal.
       Mr. Starr, unfortunately, has failed in the past to report 
     such direct conflicts of interest. While he was investigating 
     the Resolution Trust Corporation and its supervision of 
     Madison Guaranty, Kirkland & Ellis was being sued by the RTC 
     for misconduct. ``Who Judges Prosecutor's Ethics? He does,'' 
     Newsday, January 30, 1998. Despite his membership on the 
     firm's management committee, Mr. Starr professed ignorance of 
     the suit in which the RTC sued Kirkland & Ellis for one 
     million dollars. The New Yorker, P. 63. Mr. Starr's lip-
     service to his ethical obligations without any apparent 
     willingness to address the conflict of interest issues that 
     have arisen demands that the Attorney General conduct an 
     investigation to determine whether he should be removed.

   B. Mr. Starr's Client, The Bradley Foundation, Has Been Active In 
 Efforts To Discredit The President In Matters Directly Affecting The 
                             Investigation

       The ties of Mr. Starr and his firm to persons and interest 
     groups adverse to the President are not limited to the Paula 
     Jones case. Indeed, in addition to his own personal 
     involvement with the Paula Jones case, Mr. Starr represented 
     the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in an effort to uphold 
     Wisconsin's experimental school-choice program after he was 
     appointed Independent Counsel. The New Yorker, April 22, 
     1996, p. 59. Mr. Starr's position in that case was in direct 
     opposition to the Administration. In addition to retaining 
     Mr. Starr, the Bradley Foundation gives money to the 
     President's ``most virulent critics,'' including the American 
     Spectator, a publication obsessed with impugning the 
     character of the President and First Lady, as well as the 
     Landmark Legal Foundation and National Empowerment 
     Television. Id.
       The Bradley Foundation acknowledged freely that Mr. Starr's 
     role was based in significant part on his long-standing 
     ideological beliefs. Id. At 60. One noted ethics expert 
     concluded that it was ``unwise for Starr to take Bradley 
     money, given Bradley's funding of beneficiaries who are 
     ideological enemies of the president he is investigating.'' 
     ``Gov. Hires Ken Starr To Defend Plan,'' The National Law 
     Journal, December 18, 1995, p. A5. In these instances where 
     his private client is engaged in a highly politicized, 
     personalized and acrimonious public policy debate with the 
     President, Mr. Starr cannot possibly operate as an impartial 
     investigator. This is particularly true when his private 
     client is funding efforts devoted to publicizing Mr. Starr's 
     investigation and related matters in an attempt to discredit 
     the President and his political agenda.

  C. Mr. Scaife, Mr. Starr's Benefactor At Pepperdine, Has Funded The 
   ``Arkansas Project''--A Clandestine Effort To Attack The President

       The question whether Mr. Starr labors under a conflict of 
     interest in light of his ongoing relationship with Pepperdine 
     University and Richard Scaife, a well-documented political 
     opponent of the President's, was prompted by reports that 
     Mr. Scaife has underwritten the faculty position that 
     waits for Mr. Starr at Pepperdine University upon the 
     expiration of his tenure as Independent Counsel. 
     Washington Post, ``Starr Warriors,'' February 3, 1989. 
     According to recent media reports, Mr. Scaife and his tax-
     exempt foundations are at the center of a secretive 
     operation, coordinated with the American Spectator, called 
     the ``Arkansas Project.'' See New York Observer, ``Richard 
     Scaife Paid for Dirt on Clinton in Arkansas Project,'' 
     February 4, 1998.
       The ``Arkansas Project'' reportedly involved Mr. Scaife 
     funneling more than $2.4 million from his tax-exempt 
     501(c)(3) foundations to the American Spectator over the last 
     four years ``to pay former F.B.I. agents and private 
     detectives to unearth negative material on the Clintons and 
     their associates.'' Id. Indeed, the project apparently paid 
     former state trooper L.D. Brown--the source of a number of 
     allegations against the President investigated by the Office 
     of Independent Counsel--as a ``researcher.'' Id. Mr. Starr's 
     apparent failure to inquire into the financial motivations 
     that may have prompted these allegations makes his 
     investigation a ``patsy'' for the Arkansas Project, if not 
     actually complicit in its goal to undermine the President.
       Even more troubling, David Hale, Mr. Starr's alleged chief 
     witness against the President, is linked to Mr. Scaife. The 
     Arkansas Project was apparently run by Stephen Boynton, a 
     Virginia lawyer and close friend of David Hale, the convicted 
     felon that Mr. Starr considers his prize witness against the 
     President. Recently, after his office argued to reduce Mr. 
     Hale's 28 month sentence to time served, abated his $10,000 
     fine and asked the court to vacate the order that Mr. Hale 
     provide restitution of $2 million for defrauding the Small 
     Business Administration. Mr. Starr praised Mr. Hale saying 
     ``This [investigation] would be over if everyone had been as 
     cooperative as David Hale, had told the truth.'' Federal News 
     Service, February 6, 1998. Mr. Hale's previous record, 
     however, involved lying to a federal judge at his sentencing. 
     ``The Real Blood Sport: the Whitewater Scandal Machine,'' 
     Washington Monthly, May 1, 1996. Fortunately for Mr. Hale, 
     his personal attorney is Theodore Olson, a board member of 
     the American Spectator Education Foundation, Inc., and former 
     law partner of Mr. Starr. Id.
       The only conclusion is that Mr. Starr is inextricably 
     intertwined with persons whose primary objective appears to 
     be to discredit the President. While these allegations have 
     previously been brought to the Department's attention, Mr. 
     Starr's relationship with Mr. Scaife and others in the 
     Arkansas Project combined with the information about the 
     extent of Mr. Scaife's extraordinary expenditure of resources 
     (in apparent violation of federal tax law) to discredit the 
     President in parallel with Mr. Starr's investigation 
     seriously undermine any contention that Mr. Starr is without 
     a conflict of interest.


  iii. evidence of oic collusion with paula jones legal team warrants 
                            further inquiry

       The sequence of events leading up to the President's 
     deposition and certain media accounts raises serious concerns 
     that the OIC coordinated its investigation with the Paula 
     Jones legal team and, in fact, may have played a role in the 
     preparation of questions for the President's deposition. 
     Such collusion, even if indirect, would constitute 
     misconduct of the highest order and provides grounds for 
     Mr. Starr's removal.
       As you may be aware, press reports indicated that on 
     January 12, 1998, Ms. Tripp contacted the OIC and provided 
     them with tapes of conversations that she had unlawfully 
     captured between herself and Ms. Lewinsky, Time, February 9, 
     1998. Then, the next day, January 13, the OIC equipped Ms. 
     Tripp with a wire and taped a conversation between herself 
     and Ms. Lewinsky. On January 16, Ms. Tripp again lured Ms. 
     Lewinsky into a meeting with her. At that time, she was 
     approached by FBI agents and OIC prosecutors. Id. According 
     to press reports, she was held for several hours, threatened 
     with prosecution and offered immunity if she agreed to a 
     debriefing at that time. Id. According to her current 
     attorney, the immunity offer was contingent upon her 
     agreement not to contact her attorney in the Paula Jones 
     matter, Frank Carter. Time, February 16, 1998. That same day, 
     the Special Division (the court empowered to appoint an 
     independent counsel) expanded Mr. Starr's jurisdictional 
     mandate to cover the allegations related to Ms. Lewinsky.
       Simply, the timing of events leading up to the President's 
     deposition provides substantial reason to be concerned about 
     possible coordination between the OIC and the Paula Jones 
     team. But there is more. According to media reports, Ms. 
     Tripp briefed the Jones legal team not only on the 
     conversations that she recorded, but also on the OIC-directed 
     monitoring of her conversation with Ms. Lewinsky. Wall Street 
     Journal, February 9, 1998. This draws the OIC one step closer 
     to the Jones civil litigation efforts. Moreover, the OIC's 
     delay in seeking approval to expand its jurisdiction further 
     heightens concerns over the OIC's coordination with the 
     plaintiffs in the Paula Jones matter. Specifically, in 
     seeking immediate approval of his expanded jurisdiction, Mr. 
     Starr apparently expressed concern that impending press 
     reports would scuttle his efforts to obtain evidence against 
     Mr. Vernon Jordan and perhaps the President. See Washington 
     Post, January 31, 1998. But it appears that Mr. Starr knew 
     about the impending press coverage well before he brought the 
     new allegations to your attention. His delay may be 
     suggestive of an effort to maintain the secrecy of the new 
     allegations until after the deposition of the President.
       The alleged entanglement of the OIC with persons or 
     organizations singularly devoted to the demise of the 
     President implicate bedrock constitutional principles of due 
     process and fair play. Indeed, ``[f]undamental fairness is a 
     core component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 
     Amendment.'' United States v. Barger, 931 F.2nd 359 (6th Cir. 
     1991); United States v. Brown, 635 F.2d 1207, 1212 (6th Cir. 
     1980). Any collusion between the OIC and the Paula Jones 
     legal team, for example, casts serious doubt on the propriety 
     of any investigation into the President's alleged statements 
     regarding Ms. Lewinsky during his civil deposition. 
     Specifically, the government may not, consistent with due 
     process, deliberately use a judicial proceeding for ``the 
     primary purpose of obtaining testimony from [a witness] in 
     order to prosecute him late for perjury.'' United States v. 
     Chen, 933 F.Supp 1264, 1268 (D.N.J. 1986).
       There is little doubt that a primary purpose of the 
     deposition questions regarding Ms. Lewinsky was to trick the 
     President. In fact, press reports make clear that ``the goal 
     of the Jones' team was to catch Mr. Clinton in a lie . . . 
     Their detailed questions went well beyond simply whether 
     there was a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and into 
     other matters that could be independently verified.'' Wall 
     Street Journal, February 9, 1998. Given that, as noted above, 
     Linda Tripp was feeding information to the Paula Jones' 
     lawyers about her conversations with Ms. Lewinsky, including 
     the conversation recorded by the FBI, see Wall Street 
     Journal, February 9, 1998, there is reason to suspect that 
     the OIC may have assisted or played a role in the formation 
     of questions asked by

[[Page S627]]

     Ms. Jones lawyers regarding Ms. Lewinsky. In addition, the 
     evidence suggests that Mr. Starr deliberately delayed seeking 
     your approval to expand his jurisdiction for improper 
     purposes. Specifically, the delay appears to have been a 
     calculated effort to conceal his expanded authority from the 
     President prior to the deposition. Such conduct raises the 
     specter that an unlawful ``trap'' may have been laid against 
     the President.
       In a similar vein, if the OIC was in fact assisting the 
     Paula Jones legal team in any capacity, such conduct may also 
     be inconsistent with the due process protections that 
     preclude the government from using civil discovery to obtain 
     information for a contemplated criminal action. See e.g. 
     United States v. Nebel, 856 F. Supp. 392 (M.D. Tenn. 1993). 
     In light of fundamental constitutional concerns implicated by 
     the Independent Counsel's conduct, justice demands that you 
     initiate an inquiry to ensure that the Independent Counsel's 
     investigation has comported with basic rules of fairness and 
     decency. The President, as do others in this investigation, 
     deserves the same protections that shield all other Americans 
     from arbitrary and unlawful government conduct. Indeed, 
     particularly where, as here, a prosecutor has been given 
     virtually unfettered authority to investigate almost every 
     dimension of a person's life, we must be particularly 
     vigilant in guarding against abuses of that authority. You 
     thus have both a statutory and constitutional obligation to 
     determine whether the Independent Counsel has acted properly 
     in investigating the President.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert G. Torricelli,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to make myself clear at the 
outset. I rise today with no portfolio for President Clinton. I do not 
pretend to know the details of either the Whitewater case or matters 
pertaining to Paula Jones, with a series of other legal issues now, 
involving the Office of Independent Counsel, the Justice Department and 
President Clinton's private attorneys. Those issues are not my purpose 
today.
  Like most Americans, I have watched events of recent weeks with some 
curiosity and with a deep sense of regret. I rise today for a different 
purpose. I want to talk about justice--not the justice of the 
individual in these cases but the administration of justice by the 
Government itself. I do so from the perspective of a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, recognizing that under the Ethics in Government 
Act it is the responsibility of the Attorney General to investigate 
alleged misconduct, conflicts of interest and other improprieties of 
the Office of Independent Counsel. This institution, through the 
Judiciary Committee, has a responsibility of oversight, both of the 
Office of Independent Counsel and the Attorney General herself as she 
implements the act.
  My purpose, then, in this capacity, is to review a series of legal 
and ethical issues that pose a challenge to the integrity of the Office 
of Independent Counsel and whether or not it is being administered and 
the responsibility of the Attorney General to oversee its activities.
  Within recent days, we have learned details of a series of deliberate 
leaks of grand jury material--not on a few occasions, not on one or two 
items, but virtually volumes of material impugning the character of 
individuals--that may undermine aspects of the investigation. Some of 
these leaks have been characterized as unfortunate. Some, perhaps, 
inevitable, as part of the process. They may be these things. But they 
are also something else. They represent a Federal felony. It is against 
the law. In this case, a potential violation of the law by members of 
the Justice Department or in their employment themselves.
  David Kendall, President Clinton's lawyer, has detailed some of these 
leaks in a 15-page correspondence, virtually identifying volumes of 
material where some of the most reputable publications in America--
including the New York Times, the Washington Post --indicate that this 
material comes from ``sources in Starr's office;'' ``Starr's 
investigators expect;'' ``sources familiar with the probe''--hardly 
masking the Government prosecutor's contravention of Federal statutes, 
punishable both by fines and jail terms, for leaking grand jury 
material.
  I believe that the standard for such abuse was set by former Attorney 
General Thornburgh who, in the matter of Congressman Gray and the 
leaking of grand jury material, required that his associates, those 
familiar with grand jury material, were not simply investigated but 
polygraphed, with a clear or implied threat that any failure to comply 
or to pass the polygraph would mean their immediate dismissal.
  Indeed, as much of America has heard about the grand jury leaks, it 
has tended to mask several other perhaps more serious ethical problems 
that must also be addressed by the Attorney General and are outlined in 
my correspondence being sent to the Attorney General on this date.
  Just prior to his appointment as independent counsel, Mr. Starr was 
retained by the Independent Women's Forum to write an amicus brief in 
the matter of the civil complaint being brought by Paula Jones. The 
Independent Women's Forum is funded by a Richard Scaife of 
Pennsylvania. In the furtherance of these responsibilities it is not 
clear how much or whether, indeed, Mr. Starr was compensated, but it is 
clear that his firm and he were engaged in this activity, including 
researching a brief, contacting those attorneys, then representing 
Paula Jones. They were actively engaged.
  Reports as recent as 3 months ago indicate that individuals at Mr. 
Starr's firm with whom Mr. Starr is still associated have continued to 
assist Paula Jones in her legal defense team. This morning in the 
Chicago Tribune it is further alleged by that publication that Mr. 
Starr's firm--where this financial relationship continues between Mr. 
Starr and his partners--has continued to provide assistance to Paula 
Jones' defense team, even while the investigation of President Clinton 
under the authority of the Attorney General was expanded to include 
matters relating to the civil complaint by Paula Jones.

  Mr. President, the Office of Professional Responsibility, under the 
direction of Attorney General Reno, needs to review these serious 
lapses of ethical conduct and these transparent conflicts of interest. 
It is left with little or no choice. If there is to be any confidence 
in the administration of the Office of Independent Counsel, and if the 
American people are to believe the result of this investigation and 
whatever recommendations result, the Office of Professional 
Responsibility will need to definitively establish whether, indeed, 
there are conflicts of interest, as are being alleged.
  Indeed, I know of no authority in the canons of ethics of the 
profession, the operating procedures and rules of ethics of the Justice 
Department, that would permit an attorney in any capacity, no less an 
Office of Independent Counsel, investigating any American, no less the 
President of the United States, to operate with ethical standards that 
allow he or his associates within a single case dealing with the same 
litigants to do work for such clearly conflicting interests.
  Third, while serving as independent counsel for the Government, Mr. 
Starr's law firm has received and continues to receive retainers and 
legal payments from corporations, including Philip Morris and Brown & 
Williamson, potentially of millions of dollars, that not only have an 
interest but an extraordinary financial interest in the defeat of 
President Clinton's initiatives and whose interests are directly 
impacted by his political viability.
  Mr. Starr's continuing to draw income, a year ago in excess of $1 
million in personal compensation, while in the employment of the U.S. 
Government to investigate matters relating to President Clinton, is not 
only unsound judgment but as clear a conflict of interest between those 
of the private attorneys, the private parties that he has sworn to 
defend and the interests of the U.S. Government that he has similarly 
sworn to pursue. Both cannot be his master.
  Attorney General Reno is left with the question of what other 
interests have continued to pay compensation to Mr. Starr, what other 
clients and what kind of judgment has been exercised.
  Making this all the more urgent, indeed feeding suspicion, is a 
fourth point that in some ways may be the most troubling. Richard 
Scaife, who earlier in this affair was funding research into the Paula 
Jones case, appears again as a part of Mr. Starr's performance of his 
responsibilities. Mr. Scaife has provided $600,000 per year, 
approximately $2.5 million, to fund something that is known as the 
Arkansas project. The Arkansas project is a tax free 501(c)3 
organization under the Tax Code of the United States. It indeed has 
funded this money through the American Spectator magazine.

[[Page S628]]

  The purpose, apparently as outlined in an article in the New York 
Observer, written by Joe Conason last week, has resulted in the 
establishment of a relationship with David Hale, the principal witness 
used by Mr. Starr against President Clinton, in the Whitewater case and 
a State trooper, former State Arkansas Trooper L.D. Brown. It appears 
that the American Spectator established a relationship of unknown 
financial or other reward to secure the cooperation of each individual 
in the writing of the articles.
  The changing of the testimony of these witnesses, critical to Mr. 
Starr's work, and when those changes occurred and their relationship 
with the Arkansas project, becomes an important matter for the Justice 
Department. It would appear on its face that is at least reason to 
explore whether the improper use of tax-free foundation funding through 
this publication with the intention of influencing potential Federal 
witnesses did not constitute Federal witness tampering. It is, however, 
an issue that must immediately be established.
  As a part of this aspect of the case requiring investigation, as Mr. 
Hale's legal representation by one Theodore Olson, who seemed to have 
guided Mr. Hale in his testimony in the Whitewater affair, who is also 
the counsel to the American Spectator funded by Mr. Scaife, who was 
also a former law partner of Mr. Starr.

  Mr. President, sometimes facts that are coincidental can paint a 
picture of conspiracy where it does not exist. There are coincidences, 
sometimes, of extraordinary scale. But the Attorney General would need 
to admit that there are events in this case that are peculiar indeed--
Mr. Scaife's funding of the American Spectator and its impact on 
Federal witnesses; Mr. Scaife's potential funding of Mr. Starr as a 
private attorney in the Paula Jones case; Mr. Scaife's funding of 
employment for Mr. Starr at Pepperdine University, where he was offered 
and initially accepted a teaching position in the law department.
  Coincidence? Perhaps. But as our former colleague, Senator Cohen once 
observed on this floor, ``The appearance of justice is as important as 
justice itself.''
  There are, in the coming weeks, important judgments to be made about 
the administration of justice with relation to the President of the 
United States. Those decisions will profoundly impact policy and the 
guidance of the U.S. Government. I have no knowledge and, therefore, no 
recommendation on the matters of how the case should be pursued. I am 
not here to distinguish falsehood from truth. I am here in the interest 
of justice.
  It would appear on the facts that there is something terribly 
troubling about the administration of the Office of the Independent 
Counsel. So in my correspondence of this day, I have asked Attorney 
General Reno to have the Office of Professional Responsibility inquire 
as to whether indeed there are conflicts of interest in the Paula Jones 
case and, indeed, whether it is factual that Mr. Starr was once engaged 
as a private litigant in that matter. If so, the result is clear--he 
must recuse himself and professional prosecutors must pursue the 
matter. Similarly, to establish whether funds, through the American 
Spectator, were improperly used with a result of tampering of 
witnesses. Finally, to conclude whether or not the operation of a 
private law practice, including the solicitation of clients and their 
funding, has compromised the operations of Mr. Starr in his pursuit of 
the various cases before his office.
  Mr. President, Members of this institution and of the respective 
parties have at various times praised or criticized the Attorney 
General in the performance of her responsibilities. Perhaps the fact 
that she has been criticized from all quarters for so many decisions is 
the best testament of her native integrity. Janet Reno is as capable an 
Attorney General as the United States has ever been fortunate enough to 
have in that office. I leave these judgments with her, knowing of her 
high integrity, her understanding of the importance of these cases, the 
profound impact on the administration of the U.S. Government and of 
justice itself, knowing that she will do with them what is right and 
proper.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________