In light of recent events, Congress should review the validity of the special prosecutor. After the acquittal of the president, Kenneth Starr has become the scapegoat of the scandal. However, Starr himself is not solely the problem -- it is his position.

This June, the law that governs Starr's position -- the Independent Counsel Act -- will expire. Congress should not renew.

Since its induction in 1978, Democrats and Republicans have misused the special prosecutor or the threat of a special prosecutor.

During the '80s, powerful Democratic Congressmen made allegations against Reagan aides. The attorney general was forced to launch several independent counsel inquiries.

Former Reagan administration attorney Theodore Olson was investigated for charges that he failed to turn over notes of legal advice he gave to Environmental Protection Agency officials. The allegations were dropped, but Olsen and others became disillusioned with the Independent Counsel Act.

Recently, another independent counsel, Don Smaltz, took four years and $17 million investigating corruption charges against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. Starr spent more than $40 million investigating Clinton.

The act itself was a reaction to the Watergate scandal where Congress sought to remove the influence of the White House when members of the executive branch are investigated for wrongdoing.

The fact is the Independent Counsel Act is not necessary.

In extraordinary cases -- particularly there are allegations lodged against the president -- the attorney general is authorized to appoint a special prosecutor from outside the Justice Department.

This system was effective in the past. In 1973, Nixon was prosecuted by Houston attorney Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor named after the president fired Archibald Cox, the first Watergate special prosecutor.