[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10873-S10875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONGRESS' RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING THE REFERRAL FROM KENNETH STARR

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about 
the responsibility of Congress considering the referral from Kenneth 
Starr.
  I am deeply concerned about how this is unfolding. This process is 
fast losing credibility. It is enough off track that the national 
interest, which should be our paramount concern, is suffering. It is 
enough off track that our institutions of government--the Congress, the 
Presidency, and the Constitution itself--may suffer damage that will 
linger long after we are all gone from the scene. The way we handle 
this responsibility, the character of our own institution is also at 
stake.
  America, look where we are. The President has misused his office. 
Kenneth Starr is leaving in his wake a body of debris that will bring 
down the entire independent counsel law. And now that this matter is on 
our doorstep, we in the Congress increasingly risk, through our 
actions, undermining the public's faith and trust in our own 
institution of our own national government.
  In these early stages of this inquiry into the actions of the 
President of the

[[Page S10874]]

United States, it is time we ask whether we, ourselves, are on the 
verge of becoming not part of the solution but, instead, part of the 
problem, by harming our national interests and further eroding the 
public's confidence in their government.
  Should we be disappointed and offended and angered by the President's 
conduct? Certainly we should be. As a father, a husband, as an 
American, and as someone who knows this President and supports the good 
he has done for the Nation, I am appalled and saddened by this episode.
  These are difficult days in Washington and they are difficult days 
for the Nation. But this is a time when the Congress must rise above 
partisanship and look beyond short-term political objectives. We must 
consider what best serves the common good of the American people.
  Four tenets must guide Congress' proper handling of the referral from 
Mr. Starr: We should put the national interests first in all of our 
considerations. Secondly, proceedings should be structured and enjoined 
to be as bipartisan as possible. Third, we must be fair. And fourth, we 
must move toward resolving this controversy as promptly as possible.
  Early statements by the House leadership point in the right 
direction, but these have been overtaken by events and actions. I have 
noted on many other occasions my respect for Henry Hyde, chairman of 
the House Judiciary Committee, and John Conyers, ranking Democratic 
member of that committee. These two distinguished leaders have the 
wisdom and experience to work together for the good of the country and 
to construct a fair, bipartisan process. It does not augur well for 
such a process, however, that unilateral decisions and party-line votes 
already have become the norm, and the House has paid little attention 
to ensuring fairness in its initial decisions and actions.
  The past several weeks have not been reassuring. The other body has 
yet to determine what rules and procedures should govern their actions, 
how our traditional notions of due process and fundamental fairness 
will be guaranteed, and how to prevent this process from degenerating 
into a partisan exercise. The House only now is beginning to examine 
the precedence and bipartisan actions of the House Judiciary Committee 
that considered the impeachment of President Nixon. In effect, they 
have put the cart before the horse.
  Perhaps the meeting yesterday involving the House leadership will 
yield some progress. It is time for leaders in the House and the 
Senate, leaders from both parties, people of good will who put the 
national interests first, to reconsider how this matter is being 
handled and where it is headed.
  A partisan train seems to be rolling out of the House station in a 
decidedly political direction. Perhaps it is too much to hope that 
Members, in the midst of reelection efforts, would view this matter 
through any prism other than their own campaigns or prospects for 
majority control in the Congress and the presidential election in 2000. 
The public is wondering whether this Congress can do anything serious 
now that election season is upon us.
  Congress risks undermining the public's trust in our institutions of 
our national government. We must consider what best serves the common 
good of the American people and our national interests. This is a time 
when Congress must rise above partisanship and look beyond short-term 
political objectives.
  Like Dwight Eisenhower before him, my friend and former colleague 
Senator Dole used his Farewell Address to the Senate in 1996 to warn of 
an impending danger to the Nation. He chose to speak about a 
fundamental lesson he learned in his years in Washington: that people 
of both parties must work together. He reminded Senators that we 
represent all our constituents--Republicans, Democrats, and 
independents.
  On any consideration of proceedings to inquire into the possible 
impeachment of the President of the United States, as on matters of 
such overriding significance as the declaration of war or amending the 
Constitution, all Members of Congress must be mindful of the Nation's 
interests and the potential for harm that can be caused by pursuing 
narrow partisan goals.
  We have already seen personal criticism of the President while he was 
overseas on a trip to Russia and Ireland. On Monday, the videotape of 
the President's appearance before one of the Starr grand juries was 
broadcast over the airwaves, even while the President of the United 
States was making a major address before the United Nations on 
international terrorism--one of the greatest current threats to our 
Nation's security and to stability around the world. These rash acts 
harm the Nation and they harm the international standing of the United 
States. Such actions may help the political fortunes of some in 
Congress, but they ignore the precedent of past Congresses where 
criticisms of the President were put on hold during those periods when 
he represents the United States in issues with other countries.
  The national interest would not be served by a divided House 
membership proceeding to punt this matter to the Senate while they 
crossed their fingers and hoped for the Senate to bail them out of an 
ill-considered finding. The national interest should not be hostage to 
months of meandering through an undefined partisan process that leads 
inexorably to impasse. A lengthy, partisan impeachment inquest would 
serve no national purpose but only lead to a year of balkanized 
polarization that would poison a generation of relationships across the 
aisle in Congress and even across the Nation.
  A fundamental lesson I learned as a practicing lawyer and that was 
reinforced when I served as the State's Attorney for Chittenden County, 
in my work as a U.S. Senator, as a member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and now as its ranking member, is that fairness in a process 
is critical to the result of that process. The process must be fair for 
the American people to find it credible. If it is not fair, the 
American people will not find it credible.
  One measure of a prosecutor's fairness is fulfilling the duty to 
disclose exculpatory evidence. That aspect of fairness has 
constitutional implication in criminal matters. Now, weeks after the 
allegations have saturated the public media, we find buried in the 
thousands of pages of documents, transcripts and appendices that Ms. 
Lewinsky, the principal witness upon whom Mr. Starr relies for his 
charges, volunteered at the conclusion of her testimony before the 
grand jury that ``no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised 
a job for my silence.'' Neither Mr. Starr, nor the lawyers working for 
him, felt any duty of fairness to ask this critical question. It was 
left to an anonymous juror who felt an obligation to the real issue at 
the heart of this matter.
  One measure of the credibility of the House's proceedings will be 
whether it achieves the balance and fairness that so far has been 
lacking in the work of Mr. Starr's office.
  An independent counsel does not have the checks and the 
accountability that enforce judgment and discretion in other 
prosecutors in this country. Wielding that enormous authority, 
therefore, it is incumbent upon an independent counsel to discipline 
himself with discretion and judgment. Unfortunately, in this matter, it 
is by this juncture quite clear that the report from Mr. Starr is an 
advocate's brief, intended to persuade, rather than the balanced 
presentation that should be the hallmark of such a somber exercise.
  And, again, this makes it all the more important that the House 
exercise independent judgment and provide the balance and fairness that 
is lacking from the work of a zealous band of prosecutors.
  I am concerned that the same House that is charged with this awesome 
responsibility is the body that is being asked to hold the Attorney 
General of the United States in contempt for having sought to protect 
the investigative process in connection with the ongoing campaign 
finance investigation.
  I participated in a lengthy meeting with Senator Hatch, Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
Burton, Mr. Waxman, and the Attorney General on this matter on 
September 2. The Attorney General extensively consulted with us in a 
sincere effort to allow congressional oversight without compromising 
the ongoing investigation. In spite of the efforts she

[[Page S10875]]

made to satisfy any legitimate congressional oversight interest, and 
despite the lack of any basis to charge contemptuous conduct, the House 
persists in its efforts to pressure and sanction.
  This effort and the lack of balance it signals do not bode well for 
the House's other tasks.
  I recall, as well, that it was not too many months ago in this same 
Congress that Republican leaders in the House were urging that 
impeachment be used as a device to intimidate federal judges when they 
rendered decisions that a Republican Member did not like. Impeachment 
should not be used as a partisan, ideological bludgeon in any context. 
That is not the proper use of this important constitutional authority. 
Such comments, at a minimum, complicate the task at hand.
  Nor is it reassuring to read accounts of meetings, on the other side 
of the aisle, in this body, where partisan litmus tests on this matter 
are being applied to those chairing committees in the Senate.
  There are few matters of such possible significance that may come 
before Congress as the matter of a President's fitness to serve.
  The people of the United States elected William Jefferson Clinton to 
the Presidency in 1992 and reelected him in 1996. He and the Vice 
President are the only people serving anywhere in the Nation in any 
office who were elected by the entire country.
  Under our Constitution, the Senate is charged with the ultimate 
responsibility to act as the jury in connection with any charges that 
the House were to deem worthy of impeachment.
  Never in our history as a country has the Senate convicted a 
President of an impeachable offense. Only in the tumultuous times 
following the Civil War has the Senate been through the ordeal of a 
Presidential impeachment trial.
  Mr. President, I am honored to have been elected by the people of 
Vermont to serve as their United States Senator. In our history, only 
20 other Vermonters have had the privilege to hold the seat I now have 
representing our State. I am proud to serve as the ranking Democrat on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee. I appreciate my limited role in the 
Senate and in our government. I cannot take lightly being asked to 
judge whether a President, elected by the people of the United States, 
ought to be removed from office by an act of the Congress of the United 
States.
  Now, the search for blame is a practiced congressional skill. It 
always bears fruit--sometimes bitter fruit. But the acceptance of our 
own solemn responsibility is more difficult. We must discharge our 
duties by serving the national interest, not by appealing to partisan 
or even public passions.
  Let our actions not compound the Nation's anguish, harm the common 
good, nor further shake the public's faith in our institutions of self-
government. These institutions have served this country well for over 
200 years, in accordance with our Constitution, which has been a 
guidepost for that time. Our Constitution has survived because good men 
and women have stood up when needed to make sure it survives.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I yield back the remainder of my 
time.

                          ____________________