[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 40 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1292-H1293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NEED FOR APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor; I do not come here
often, but I come with very deep concern. A majority of the majority
party Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the
Judiciary sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. The
letter that we sent was pursuant to section 592(g) of title 28, United
States Code, that she apply for the appointment of an independent
counsel to investigate the following matters:
{time} 1245
The illegal contributions to the Democratic National Committee in
connection with the 1996 elections.
No. 2, the attempted influence of the 1996 elections by foreign
countries, foreign corporations, or persons representing such entities;
and, No. 3, the improper fundraising conduct or practices by
administration officials, the
[[Page H1293]]
Democratic National Committee, or individuals working on behalf of the
committee in connection with the 1996 elections.
We believe that section 591(c) of the Independent Counsel Act
necessitates that Attorney General Janet Reno seek the appointment of
independent counsel in reference to the matters which I just listed.
Accordingly, per section 591(c), the Attorney General has been
authorized to initiate the preliminary investigation which is defined
by the act and is distinct from the Department's current investigations
into the matters.
We also believe that it is very clear that the matters referred to
are an obvious political conflict of interest for the Attorney General
and other political appointees within the Department of Justice.
I am well aware that she has held at bay those of us who have been
asking for the appointment of special counsel by saying that there is
not sufficient credible evidence. I am not so certain how much more
credible evidence she needs.
Often the Washington Post it seems gets cited here on the House
floor, not by Republicans but by Democrats on the House floor, and here
we have now Bob Woodward, who gained national attention with regard to
President Nixon some years ago, is now talking about allegations that
the White House supplied top secret intelligence information to the
Democratic National Committee to keep a Latvian businessman with
alleged ties to organized crime, international crime, from attending a
$25,000 fundraiser with President Clinton.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe anyone in this country has a problem
with the National Security Agency advising the President with regard to
an individual, whether they should or should not be at a Presidential
dinner. It is part of their job. What is distressing, though, is when
the National Security Agency leaks top secret, classified information
to political operatives, that being that our intelligence architecture
was monitoring the international calls of this alleged organized crime
individual and syndicate, and the fact that that intelligence was
leaked to someone who did not have a right to know, who did not have a
security clearance, is a breach of our security at the highest levels
within the White House.
Why was that done? It was information that was leaked and it was done
under this guise, under the pressures of political fundraising. As a
matter of fact, to quote out of this article, I guess quoting whomever
Bob Woodward is using for his intelligence to write this article, he
quotes a White House senior official that the information that was
leaked was top secret and it further demonstrates the total
politicalization of all intelligence and White House operations,
anything and everything was done in the name of fundraising at the
White House.
Mr. Speaker, the reason that the Committee on the Judiciary had asked
for the special counsel deals with the outright admissions by the Vice
President, Al Gore, and Ms. Margaret Williams having admitted engaging
in fundraising activities, the propriety of which is being questioned
by many within the White House itself. I have heard in their defense
even the Vice President would say, well, there is no controlling legal
authority, some kind of a lawyerly type of language that only lawyers
can understand. But when you pull out Title XVIII of the U.S. Code it
is very clear, and it being very clear for people that anywhere can
understand in America, that fundraising activity is not permitted in
Federal buildings.
So whether it is out of my congressional office, whether it is out of
a senatorial office, whether it is a Cabinet member or the President of
the United States, it is wrong, and Janet Reno as the Attorney General
of the United States, we seek your appointment with due speed.
____________________