[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3082-H3083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, besides enjoying this past 
weekend with my constituents and my family, and conveying to the 
mothers of America a happy Mother's Day, I spent a lot of time 
interacting with the good people of the 18th Congressional District of 
Texas. Many, of course, talked about Medicare issues, housing issues, 
Social Security, but many stopped me and asked the question: Where will 
it end?
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues might be thinking that I am talking about 
Armageddon or some crisis being discussed on the floor of the House. I 
am actually talking about the misunderstood, misconstrued and wrong-
headed statute called the Independent Counsel.
  What do the names Ken Starr, Carol Elder Bruce, Donald Smaltz, David 
Barrett, Daniel Pearson, Curtis Van Kan, and an unnamed independent 
counsel that now still proceeds with the investigation of a HUD 
Secretary, that started in 1990, have in common? All are individuals 
that have been established or given authority by the statute, 
Independent Counsel.
  In fact, the recent appointment of an independent counsel to the 
Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, adds an additional wedge in what I 
perceive to be the system of justice and fairness and the understanding 
of the American people.

                              {time}  2030

  Even the Attorney General yesterday said, as she offered to appoint 
an independent counsel for Secretary Herman, there was really no 
evidence of the Secretary's involvement or participation in anything 
illegal.
  The question for the American people then, the common sense question, 
Mr. Speaker, why then an independent counsel? Most people in my 
district perceive this as a runaway threat to the fairness and justice 
that most Americans believe they are owed. Many people have made 
suggestions that this compares, this onslaught of independent counsels, 
this runaway process separate and apart from the U.S. Attorney's 
Department of Justice, seems to suggest there is no fairness in the 
judiciary or judicial process.
  Why? We have Susan McDougal, someone who is now incarcerated under 
the pretense of obstruction of justice. How can this be, Mr. Speaker? 
How can Kenneth Starr use his office to intimidate someone who has 
already indicated that they have no more information about Bill Clinton 
and Hillary Clinton, who has indicated that they are prepared to take 
the fifth amendment, but in fact they have no information? Many people 
question and wonder why a young woman like Susan McDougal, who has 
lived and grown up in Arkansas, who has paid her dues, who is a young 
businesswoman, who engaged in business activities in the early years 
when women were not known to be participating in some of the high 
finance; the allegations against her have already been tried, and now 
she is being shackled in courtrooms not because of something that she 
has personally done but because of something that is perceived that she 
may have information on some other matter.
  As a colleague and I were discussing, members both of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, we know what is wrong with the independent counsel 
statute. Is has no end. It has no beginning. This statute and this 
independent counsel can investigate anything. It is not a crime that 
they are investigating, Mr. Speaker. They are investigating your name. 
And so, for example, if today it is Whitewater and tomorrow it may be 
Monica Lewinsky, made up of course of facts that we do not really know, 
and tomorrow it may be the circus. So it is not the actual crime that 
is being investigated, it is not the issue whether someone burglarized 
something, someone stole something, or someone lied; it is moving from 
hither to thither.
  I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that the independent counsel statute 
must be assessed not because we want special privileges for anyone. 
Absolutely not. But we really must assess it to find out whether or not 
even the American people are asking whether this is the right kind of 
tool to bring justice and to oversee the process of government: Is it 
the kind of tool to avoid cover-ups?
  I would simply say, by the evidence and performance of those existing 
today, but in particular the habits and the performance of Mr. Starr, 
the intimidating of someone's mother, the trying to go into the White 
House bedrooms, the intimidating of close White House aides, violating 
the rights of the President to have confidential conversations and 
executive privilege, all of this suggests to me, Mr. Speaker, that we 
have got a problem with the independent counsel statute. And on behalf 
of the American people, I think it is key that we assess it fairly and 
objectively. Let us not go back to the McCarthy era, Mr. Speaker. Let 
us stand up for justice for all America.

[[Page H3083]]



                          ____________________