The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H5134-H5135 on May 15, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor tonight to discuss the independence of Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr.
Six weeks ago, I wrote Mr. Starr a letter. I asked him to immediately take the necessary steps to assure the credibility of his position by eliminating even the appearance of conflicts of interest in his Whitewater investigation. Since that time, Mr. Starr has done nothing to rectify the situation. In face, he has not even responded.
At first, Mr. Speaker, I was surprised that Mr. Starr, who is such a highly successful attorney that he can pick and choose his clients, would decide to represent a tobacco company--a political foe of the President. However, as I began to take a closer look at Mr. Starr's career decisions, his representation of Brown & Williamson fits perfectly into a portfolio of controversial clients.
The archconservative Bradley Foundation, is another ideological client of the Independent Counsel. The Bradley Foundation hired Mr. Starr as a consultant and when Mr. Starr argued a school voucher case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Bradley Foundation provided a
$150,000 grant to pay State's legal fees. By defending the Wisconsin school voucher system, Mr. Starr argued directly against the Clinton administration's stance on an issue that could very well play a role in the 1996 Presidential election.
Mr. Speaker, the Bradley Foundation is one of this Nation's most conservative and partisan organizations. Each year the Bradley Foundation doles out $20 million to groups like the American Spectator, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Free Congress Foundation, and others who attack the President and First Lady in a highly political and often personal fashion.
We can conclude then, Mr. Speaker, that Independent Counsel Ken Starr's personal wealth--he made well over $1 million dollars last year--is quite dependent on a political clientele.
Let's now look at Mr. Starr's firm, Kirkland & Ellis, and its dealings with the Resolution Trust Corporation--the key Federal agency in the Whitewater investigation.
In May 1993, nearly a year before Starr's appointment as Independent Counsel, the RTC accused Kirkland & Ellis of professional misconduct in the negligent representation of the First America Savings Bank, a failed savings and loan association. After Mr. Starr was appointed Independent Counsel, Kirkland & Ellis paid the RTC $325,000 to settle the claim.
Starr, who, as senior partner serves on Kirkland & Ellis' management committee, claims he was unaware of his firm's negotiations with the RTC. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope Mr. Starr was blissfully unaware of this case. Because, during this same period, Mr. Starr as Independent Counsel in the Whitewater Investigation, was questioning some of the same RTC officials who were involved with the decision to sue his law firm. Again, a reasonable person would see the appearance, if not the existence, of a serious conflict of interest.
Mr. Starr's appearance problems neither begin nor end with Brown & Williamson or the RTC.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Justice Department has launched a number of grand jury investigations into possible criminal violations on the part of tobacco companies and their executives. According to the New York Times at least five grand juries have been convened. Department of Justice's probe of the tobacco industry represents the Department's largest investigation of the manufacturer of a consumer product under the Clinton administration.
However, while parents and health advocates overwhelmingly support the President's actions on curbing youth tobacco use, cigarette manufacturers, like Brown & Williamson, have retaliated with a massive political donation campaign to thwart the FDA's common sense regulations. Political donations by tobacco interests set new records last year. They gave $4 million in PAC and soft money to the two major political parties and various congressional candidates. Tellingly, Mr. Speaker, more than $3 million went to Republicans.
The Food and Drug Administration has proposed new regulations on tobacco advertising and marketing to children. President Clinton's leadership on the FDA's regulations has been historic. Never before has an American President so boldly stood up to Big Tobacco and not backed down.
Mr. Speaker, to say that tobacco companies, like Brown & Williamson, have a contentious relationship with the Clinton administration would be a gross understatement. Never before has the tobacco industry faced so many challenges in its dealings with the Federal Government. Let me just add, as an aside, that problems for the tobacco industry are victories for America's children.
The Castano suit is the largest class action suit in history. It has been filed on behalf of all addicted smokers in the United States against the tobacco industry. If successful, the Castano suit will cost Big Tobacco millions and millions of dollars.
I could not believe that the politically savvy Mr. Starr--a former Solicitor General in the Bush administration--would be so naive as to not see a serious problem in his dual role as lead attorney for Brown & Williamson and the Whitewater investigator.
I was unnerved, to say the least, Mr. Speaker, when I turned on my television set several weeks ago and saw Mr. Starr--not in Little Rock, AR, working on Whitewater--but in New Orleans. He was there acting as the Counsel of Record, in other words, the lead attorney, for the entire tobacco industry in the Castano class action suit.
For several years now, I have worked to hold Brown & Williamson, along with the rest of the tobacco industry, accountable for manipulating the level of nicotine in cigarettes, for targeting America's children in advertising, and for misleading the Congress, Federal agencies, and the American people when it comes to the dangers of tobacco products.
Unfortunately, here is what they are getting:
Mr. Starr, while purporting to oversee and lead the Whitewater Investigation, remains actively involved in an enormous private practice, over $1 million per year. Moreover, much of his private practice is dominated by ideological foes of the President.
For example, Mr. Starr is employed by Brown & Williamson--one of this Nation's largest tobacco companies. In fact, my interest in Mr. Starr's conflicts of interest stems from his work for Brown & Williamson.
Mr. Speaker, when the sitting President of the United States is under investigation, the public demands a fair and impartial investigator. I do not believe that is too much to ask. Currently, though, we have an Independent Counsel who seems to be the servant of several masters.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than this, the Congress deserves better than this, and the President deserves better than this.
Mr. Starr fails to recognize the political context of this Whitewater investigation. If he is to serve effectively as the Independent Counsel, it is imperative that he resolve problems his large, lucrative private practice creates. His unwillingness to address these questions will ultimately taint any resolution in this case.
Mr. Speaker, when a sitting President is the subject of any kind of investigation, the public demands a fair and impartial investigator. I do not believe that is too much to ask. Currently though we have an independent counsel who seems to serve several masters.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. The President deserves better. This Congress deserves better.
{time} 2000
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Starr needs to clear up this conflict of interest. You cannot serve two masters. He made a million dollars last year in private clients. Somebody who can conduct a politically charged investigation that involves potentially the President ought to be really independent. It is time, Mr. Starr. Answer these questions.
____________________
