By REP. MAC COLLINS
3rd District U.S. Congress

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 "http://www.house.gov/maccollins" as a source of further information about Congress and Georgia's Third District.