[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11957-S11958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just had the opportunity to hear the 
remarks of the distinguished Senator from Michigan concerning the 
independent counsel.
  I must say that those remarks are troubling to me and I do not 
believe contribute to really the kind of bipartisan effort that we need 
to make here in this body with regard to the delicate problem of the 
President's troubles.
  It was raised under the pretension or the suggestion as part of an 
evaluation of the independent counsel but really amounted to, I think, 
an unfair restatement of many charges that have been made against the 
independent counsel, most of which I believe have already been 
answered, or could be answered pretty easily.
  I served as a prosecutor for a number of years, and I would like just 
to share some thoughts.
  I prosecuted a number of government officials. And it was my 
experience during that process that government officials, more than any 
other person I had the occasion to investigate, were the most 
aggressive and most impossible to the prosecutor. It is part of their 
team effort with their attorneys to attack the person who is out 
speaking the truth.
  It is not an easy job for this independent counsel to obtain the 
truth. These officials don't want it out. It is not their choice. It is 
not their preference, or their desire, that what they may have done is 
revealed, particularly if what they have done may involve perjury or 
some illegality.
  So it is not an easy thing to do. And when the independent counsel 
was charged with going out and finding the truth, he faced a systematic 
effort to

[[Page S11958]]

obfuscate that truth. I wish it weren't so, but that is what appears to 
be.
  So now when we get through this process--it took several years to 
finally get this information that we now have--we have Members of the 
other party wanting to come in here and attack the man who ultimately 
produced what appears to be the truth. At least I have not heard it 
substantially disputed. And he submitted a report. They said, ``Oh, 
well.'' Judge Sirica, he said, wanted to review the grand jury 
testimony. That was before the independent counsel law. That was an 
unprecedented thing, I suppose, for Judge Sirica to report grand jury 
testimony. There was no law.
  But now, under the independent counsel law, the independent counsel 
is required to submit the information that he finds to the Congress, to 
the House of Representatives. That is what his duty was--to find out 
the truth and to submit it. And it was not easy to find the truth. It 
often is not. It was particularly difficult with the clever people he 
was dealing with in this instance.
  So it just disturbs me, I must say. And if it is true, if he has so 
violated his oath, the Attorney General can remove him from office. If 
she has a basis for it, she ought to do it. And she will not be 
criticized by this Senator.

  So they say, ``Well, his duty is to prosecute fairly.'' Well, you 
don't prosecute until you get the truth. You don't prosecute until you 
get the facts. And his responsibility was to find those facts.
  They say graphic details were not necessary. Well, I am glad that we 
have some fastidious concern. I think we do have too much unhealthy sex 
and stuff in this country today. But we have a denial. We had a 
suggestion that, ``What I did was not really sex.''
  So I suppose the details of what the President may have done are 
relevant to whether or not he had sex or not, and I am certain that is 
why the independent counsel felt it was his obligation to do so. And 
his goal is to report that information.
  They say, ``Well, he shouldn't have suggested in his report that the 
President lied under oath.'' That is one of the words that was said he 
used. But he was required to report on matters that may lead to 
impeachment charges.
  So by nature his summary report was his opinion as to whether or not 
there was evidence accumulated sufficient to lead to impeachment. He is 
required to give his opinion and his summary of the evidence as to 
whether or not it required impeachment, and he concluded, based on all 
the studies, that the President lied under oath, apparently, and he put 
that in his report.
  I submit he was required to do so.
  Oh, they say, you didn't get all the exculpatory evidence, that that 
didn't all come out, and that she said, Miss Lewinsky said, ``No one 
ever asked me to lie.'' Well, I am not sure and therefore--but from 
what I read in the report, it would suggest to me that the Starr report 
didn't say anybody ever said she was asked to lie. The Starr report 
simply said that there were circumstances that led to that, apparently. 
But it did not use those words and he would not have been required to 
put forth her statement in that regard.
  So Judge Sirica's circumstances are not quite the same, is all I am 
saying. And I respect the distinguished Senator and his comments and 
his concern, and we ought to hold every public official accountable. We 
ought to scrutinize all of our behavior here and we ought to be 
prepared to stand the heat. I am sure Mr. Starr has got to stand the 
heat like everybody else if he is going to be in the kitchen. If you 
recall, we have a word in the criminal lexicon today called ``Sirica.'' 
And what happened was, if you will recall, some of those burglars who 
said, oh, this is just a two-bit burglary--do you remember that? Judge 
Sirica gave them the maximum sentence, the maximum ``John,'' and that 
is when they testified.
  So I am sure these things are tough for Miss Lewinsky or anyone else. 
She had a choice whether she was going to cooperate and tell the truth 
or continue to hold fast to her previous story, and it does appear that 
she did for a while adhere to one story and then changed it.
  So I don't believe the independent counsel has placed himself above 
the law. I don't believe he has abused his office. And I don't believe 
most of the other complaints that have been made about the independent 
counsel, once the full facts are out, are going to suggest any 
problems. No doubt, there are so many complex rules over the period of 
an investigation, somebody will say you should have done this under 
this circumstance and you should not have done this under that 
circumstance.
  Normally what happens is any evidence obtained from an improper 
source gets excluded from the trial and can't be used, but it doesn't 
undermine the overall integrity of the investigation if that was 
obtained properly.
  So I don't know what the end of this will all be. It would please me 
if things get settled and that is the end of it and this body isn't 
involved. I don't think we need to be debating these issues on this 
floor, and the only reason I have spoken on this floor fundamentally is 
because others have made statements related to those issues, so I felt 
I ought to suggest there might be another interpretation that could be 
given to those issues.
  So, to me, the issues are complex. The House is dealing with this 
matter. Let's let the House deal with it. Let's try to make sure we 
have a bipartisan effort, or a nonpartisan effort, that no partisanship 
should be involved in this. Let's let the process work its way. My 
understanding of the reputation of Judge Starr is it is very good, and 
it remains to be seen whether he committed any error. If he did, that 
will come out. That does not undermine the basic facts we are dealing 
with here.
  Mr. President, I thank this body for allowing me to make these 
comments. I have some other things I could say but I will not. I just 
believe that we need to be careful. Let's let the House do their 
business. They have had votes over there. It is their business, not our 
business. And I think we would be better off if we left it there. I 
thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Is there a limitation on time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not any limitation.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________