While traveling through the Third District in recent

days, many constituents have approached me with questions

regarding the ongoing investigation of President Clinton

conducted by independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

While Judge Starr has been criticized by the

Administration for his performance as independent counsel, the legal

framework in which he is required to operate offers him few options in

conducting his investigation. As the investigation comes to a close

and the need for a congressional response draws nearer, it is vital

that Americans focus on the constitutional and statutory

guidelines governing the process.

Perhaps the most controversial and misunderstood aspect of

the process concerns the limits of the power and discretion of the

independent counsel. Independent counsel have very little

leeway with regard to the scope and targets of their

investigations. The law prescribes clear and

specific guidelines that the Justice Department and

independent counsel MUST follow throughout the investigative

process.

Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which

includes the "independent counsel statute," the Justice Department

is given the responsibility to investigate allegations of

misconduct by the President. Prosecution and trial of the President are

functions performed by the Congress as required by the Constitution.

If the President's Attorney General determines that an

independent counsel is warranted under the law, she applies to a

special division of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the appointment.

The special division composed of three federal judges appointed

for two-year terms by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

MUST appoint an independent counsel if requested by the

Attorney General; and the three judges of the special division, not

the independent counsel, define the scope of the counsel's

jurisdiction.

Once appointed, an independent counsel has the full

investigative and prosecutorial powers of the Attorney General and

the Department of Justice within the judicially assigned area of

jurisdiction. With very limited exceptions, any expansion of

jurisdiction must first be recommended by the Attorney General and

then approved by the federal court's special division.

The expansion of the Starr investigation to include

the Lewinsky matter is one example in which Attorney General

Janet Reno recommended and the special division approved an

expansion of investigative authority on the basis of specific and

credible evidence that additional crimes MAY have been committed.

This decision was not, as has been widely suggested, made by

Judge Starr, who does not have the legal authority to expand the

scope of his investigation.

Upon completion of an investigation, an independent

counsel is required by law (1) to report to Congress any "substantial

and credible information that may constitute grounds for

impeachment;" (2) to submit a report to the special division detailing

the process and conclusions of the investigation; and (3) to notify

the Attorney General of the completion of the investigation. The

independent counsel does not have the option of ending an

investigation without submitting a report, as some in the

Administration have suggested.

If an independent counsel's report to Congress contains

information that may constitute grounds for impeachment,

those charges are first considered in the House of Representatives,

usually in the form of an impeachment resolution.

Committee impeachment proceedings are not held to

determine whether or not an official should be removed from

office, but rather to determine if an accusation of misconduct, similar

to an indictment in the judicial system, should be reported to the

full House.

If an impeachment resolution is approved by the committee,

the full membership of the House then votes on the

resolution. Should the House vote to impeach, the matter must be

presented in the Senate for trial.

The Senate is then required to consider the merits of the

House resolution and determine, in the case of a conviction, what

punishment, if any, is justified.

Congress is currently awaiting Judge Starr's investigative

report, including the results of the four-year long investigation

of Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, and Monica Lewinsky.

Judge Starr has already achieved significant success,

winning 12 convictions (in comparison, the seven-year long,

$48.5 million Iran-Contra investigation resulted in only nine convictions).

Once received, sufficient time must be allowed to review

the report and determine if further Congressional action is

justified. The report is likely to be very long, addressing each of

the investigation's focuses.

Congress already has a full schedule of legislative

action scheduled for the final month of the 105th Congress (including

all 13 annual appropriations bills for fiscal year 1999, which must

be completed by Oct. 1), leaving limited time for Congress to

consider the results of a four-year investigation. Therefore,

deliberations may be continued into the next Congress.

When final consideration of this matter is undertaken,

the House will focus its review not on the President's private life,

but on his public behavior and Judge Starr's investigation into

possible official and legal wrongdoing.

I look forward to Congress' receiving Judge Starr's report

and resolving the matter at the earliest possible date so that

Congress can give its full attention to other issues vital to the

American people.

As always, I encourage you to visit our web site

"https://www.house.gov/maccollins" as a source of further

information about Congress and Georgia's Third District.

<!--##############