[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1817-S1819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                EXPANSION OF THE KEN STARR INVESTIGATION

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the calls for Mr. Ken Starr to end his investigation and to urge the 
public and the media to give Mr. Starr an opportunity to finish his 
work, to put the issue on the back burner, to accord the President the 
presumption of innocence, to accord the same presumption to Mr. Starr--
put the matter on the back burner so that we can focus on the pressing 
problems of Iraq, the budget, the highway bill and the other important 
matters to come before the Government.
  There has been much questioning of why Ken Starr has taken so long on 
the investigation of the Whitewater matter and how he has jurisdiction 
over the incident involving Ms. Monica Lewinsky. There has not been an 
explanation, to the best of my knowledge, as to the activities of Mr. 
Starr which have been expanded so substantially and the kind of delays 
which have necessarily been involved in the work of independent 
counsel, something that I understand, having been district attorney of 
Philadelphia and having run a number of grand jury investigations.
  People wonder why Mr. Starr has moved from Whitewater to Ms. 
Lewinsky. The fact of the matter is that he has done so at the specific 
request of Attorney General Reno. We know how circumspect Attorney 
General Reno has been with the appointment of independent counsel. But 
he was asked to do so because matters came to light which suggested a 
connection with the way that Mr. Webster Hubble was offered employment 
outside of the District of Columbia, arranged by a certain individual 
with a certain firm outside of Washington, DC, and then the same offer 
was made to Ms. Lewinsky. When these matters were called to the 
attention of Attorney General Reno, she asked Mr. Starr to expand his 
jurisdiction.
  But that was not the first call for the expansion of Ken Starr's 
jurisdiction. He was appointed as independent counsel on August 5, 
1994, to take over the investigation which had been conducted by 
independent counsel Robert Fiske which involved the Madison Guaranty 
Savings & Loan matter which resulted in the conviction of three 
individuals, including the former Governor of Arkansas, Governor 
Tucker, and all aspects, including the alleged multimillion dollar 
fraudulent bankruptcy engaged in, again, by former Governor Tucker and 
two other individuals.
  Mr. Starr's jurisdiction was then expanded on May 22 of 1996 to 
investigate possible violations of Federal criminal law concerning the 
firing of White House Travel Office employees, a major investigation.
  Then another expansion of Mr. Starr's jurisdiction occurred on June 
21, 1996, when he was asked to take over the investigation relating to 
matters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports for background 
investigations being turned over to the White House between December 
1993 and February 1994, another highly controversial and complex 
matter.
  A third occasion was brought about where, again, Mr. Starr was asked 
to expand his jurisdiction on October 25, 1996, to determine whether 
White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum had violated Federal law before 
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  A fourth expansion of Mr. Starr's jurisdiction occurred on January 29 
when he was asked to take a look at the issue as to whether Ms. Monica 
Lewinsky had suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated 
witnesses or otherwise violated Federal law.
  If you take a look at just one item on the agenda of what Mr. Starr 
has had, and that is the investigation of former Governor Jim Guy 
Tucker, that matter occurred on his jurisdiction on September 2, 1994, 
when the Department of Justice confirmed Mr. Starr's jurisdiction.
  On June 7, 1995, the Little Rock grand jury returned a three-count 
indictment against Governor Tucker.
  On September 5, 1995, the district court dismissed the indictment.
  Then it was not until December 12, 1995, that Mr. Starr argued the 
matter before the eighth circuit asking that the indictment be 
reinstated and that the judge be removed.
  On March 5, 1996, the Eighth Circuit reinstated the indictment and 
dismissed the judge.
  Between March and October of 1996, Governor Tucker and two other 
defendants took appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, 
which were not denied until October 7, 1996.

[[Page S1818]]

  On October 22, the case was assigned to another judge. The trial date 
was set on October 21 and an application for continuance was filed by 
Governor Tucker on October 31, and it was granted until March 17.
  Because of the limitation of time, I ask unanimous consent that the 
full chronology be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the chronology was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Tucker I Chronology

       August 31, 1994--Judge Starr writes letter of referral to 
     Attorney General Reno seeking confirmation of jurisdiction 
     over the Tucker I investigation.
       September 2, 1994--Acting Assistant Attorney General John 
     C. Keeney writes Judge Starr confirming jurisdiction.
       June 7, 1995--Little Rock grand jury returns a 3-count 
     indictment against Governor Tucker.
       September 5, 1995--District Judge Henry Woods dismisses the 
     30-count indictment on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
       December 12, 1995--Judge Starr argues before Eighth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals seeking reversal of the dismissal and 
     recusal of Judge Woods for bias.
       March 15, 1996--Eighth Circuit panel unanimously reverses 
     Judge Woods' dismissal, orders reinstatement of indictment, 
     and removes Judge Woods from the case.
       March-October 1996--Governor Tucker and the two co-
     defendants file petitions for rehearing (unsuccessfully) and 
     then petitions for certiorari in the United States Supreme 
     Court.
       October 7, 1996--Supreme Court denies certiorari, and 
     remands the case to the District Court in Little Rock for 
     trial.
       October 22, 1996--Case reassigned to Chief U.S. District 
     Judge Stephen M. Reasoner.
       October 24, 1996--Trial is set for December 2, 1996.
       October 31, 1996--Governor Tucker files a Motion for 
     Continuance of December 2, 1996 Trial on health grounds.
       November 14, 1996--District Court enters order postponing 
     Governor Tucker's trial and setting new trial date of March 
     17, 1997.
       December 25, 1996--Governor Tucker gets liver transplant.
       January 31, 1997--Governor Tucker files a second Motion for 
     Continuance of trial.
       February 11, 1997--District Court enters Order continuing 
     trial date to September 22, 1997.
       June 4, 1997--Governor Tucker files third Motion for 
     Continuance of trial date.
       July 22, 1997--District Court enters order granting 
     Governor Tucker's further continuance, continuing trial date 
     yet again.
       August 15, 1997--Court denies Haley severance motion to 
     grant Marks' continuance. Trial for all three defendants is 
     set for March 9, 1998.
       August 26, 1997--William Marks pleads guilty, signs 
     cooperating agreement, begins cooperation with the United 
     States.
       November 6, 1997--Anticipating a fourth Motion for 
     Continuance by Governor Tucker, OIC files a Motion to Retain 
     or Advance Trial Date.
       December 6, 1997--District Court enters Order setting firm 
     trial date of February 23, 1998, and suggesting no further 
     continuances will be granted.
       February 20, 1998--Governor Tucker and co-defendant Haley 
     plead guilty, sign cooperative agreements.

  Mr. SPECTER. The long and short of this, Mr. President, is that from 
September 2, 1994, until February 20, 1998, the case involving former 
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was pending with a whole series of complex legal 
maneuvers, until on February 20 of this year, former Governor Tucker 
entered a guilty plea and signed cooperative agreements.
  Without taking a look at the specifics, it is hard to see why Mr. 
Starr has taken so long. But this is just one item on the agenda, and 
the chronology shows why so much of the delay has occurred.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the chronology as to Ms. 
Susan McDougal be printed in the Record showing exhaustive applications 
from August 17, 1995, until March 9, 1998, involving the immunity grant 
and the refusal of that witness to testify.
  There being no objection, the chronology was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Susan McDougal Chronology

       August 17, 1995--A federal grand jury in Little Rock 
     returns a 21-count indictment charging Susan McDougal, James 
     McDougal and Governor Jim Guy Tucker with fraud-related 
     charges.
       March 4, 1996--The trial of Susan McDougal, James McDougal 
     and Governor Tucker begins before U.S. District Judge George 
     Howard, Jr.
       May 28, 1996--The trial jury finds Susan McDougal guilty of 
     three counts: (1) Mail Fraud; Aiding & Abetting 
     Misapplication of SBIC Funds; (2) Aiding & Abetting False 
     Entry in SBIC Records; (3) Aiding & Abetting False Statement 
     on an SBIC Loan Application.
       August 20, 1996--Judge Howard sentences Ms. McDougal to: 24 
     months BOP; $5,000 fine, $300,000 restitution, community 
     service, and $200 special assessment.
       September 3, 1996--United States District Judge Susan 
     Webber Wright, who handles Grand Jury matters in the 
     district, enters an order granting Ms. McDougal immunity and 
     ordering her to testify before the Grand Jury.
       September 4, 1996--Ms. Dougal appears before a Federal 
     Grand Jury in Little Rock, Arkansas, and refuses to testify.
       September 6, 1996--Judge Wright orders Ms. McDougal held in 
     contempt for her refusal to testify before a Grand Jury. 
     Judge Wright orders Ms. McDougal to be detained until she 
     agrees to testify or until eighteen months has passed.
       September 9, 1996--By arrangement with Judge Wright, Ms. 
     McDougal surrenders to the U.S. Marshal to begin her civil 
     incarceration.
       September 19, 1996--Judge Wright denies Ms. McDougal's 
     Motion to Vacate Civil Contempt.
       September 23, 1996--President Clinton interviewed on PBS-
     TV's ``News Hour'' by Jim Lehrer about possible pardon for 
     Susan McDougal. (See page 8 of ``News Hour'' transcript)
       October 3, 1996--Susan McDougal waives her right to oral 
     argument in the matter of Judge Wright's contempt Order.
       October 9, 1996--The United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Eighth Circuit (Bowman, Loken, and Hansen) affirms Judge 
     Wright's contempt Order.
       November 14, 1996--Judge Wright denies Ms. McDougal's 
     second Motion to Vacate Civil Contempt.
       February 14, 1997--OIC writes Counsel to the President 
     Charles Ruff, requesting that the President publicly urge 
     Susan McDougal to testify before the grand jury in Little 
     Rock. (See Chronology of Correspondence with White House on 
     Susan McDougal's Refusal to Testify Before the Grand Jury)
       June 30, 1997--Judge Wright denies Ms. McDougal's third 
     Motion to Vacate Civil Contempt.
       July 18, 1997--Judge Wright denies Ms. McDougal's motion 
     for reconsideration of the Court's June 30, 1997 Order.
       February 23, 1998--The United States Court of Appeals for 
     the Eighth Circuit (McMillian, Gibson, and Beam) affirms Ms. 
     McDougal's May 28, 1996 conviction.
       March 9, 1998--Ms. McDougal's confinement for civil 
     contempt expires, and she begins serving the 24-month fraud 
     sentence previously imposed by Judge Howard on August 20, 
     1996.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there have been frequent 
misunderstandings, as matters have been reported, one as recently as 
Senator Lott's--our distinguished majority leader--comments over the 
weekend talk shows with his statement about Mr. Starr ending his 
investigation being taken entirely out of context, something that 
Senator Lott has explained.
  Several weeks ago, I made a comment that I thought Attorney General 
Reno erred in appointing Mr. Starr to the Lewinsky matter because the 
American public would not understand why he was on the President's 
personal affairs after having started on Whitewater. No criticism at 
all of Mr. Starr, but it was my view that Mr. Starr would become a 
lightning rod for the investigation, taking focus away from the real 
subjects of the investigations. My comments were interpreted to be 
critical of Mr. Starr, which they, in fact, were not.
  I think it is true that Mr. Starr has not run a perfect 
investigation, and I commented publicly that it is not easy in the 
course of one of these complex matters, again relating to my own 
experience in operating grand juries as district attorney, when he 
brought before the grand jury certain witnesses on obstruction-of-
justice charges, which seemed to me to be a misreading of the statute.
  But one thing that must be remembered is that the Attorney General of 
the United States, Janet Reno, has full authority to remove Mr. Starr 
or to limit his activities if she chooses to do so. In fact, her 
superior, the President of the United States, has the authority to 
order the removal of Mr. Starr, not saying he would do so in the light 
of our experience with the ``Saturday Night Massacre.'' But the 
Attorney General of the United States does supervise what is going on 
here and so does the three-judge court.
  Taken in its entirety, there is ample justification for the length of 
time which has been taken, and that if anybody other than Mr. Starr had 
been asked to take over the investigation relating to Ms. Monica 
Lewinsky on January 29, 1998, it would be hard to understand how 
anybody less than 2 months after that fact would be calling for him to 
terminate his investigation.

[[Page S1819]]

  So it is my hope that we will all take a deep breath, let Mr. Starr 
continue his investigation, put it on the back burner, take the 
pressure off the President, give him the presumption of innocence until 
the investigation is completed, and give Mr. Starr the similar 
presumption of propriety as to what he is doing so we can move forward 
to the very important business at hand in this country, including the 
ISTEA legislation.
  I note the hour of 10:45 has come. And ISTEA is the pending business 
which will occupy the country, much to the benefit of the country, 
contrasted with the matters relating to Mr. Starr and the President on 
that pending investigation.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________