[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3175-S3178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INDEPENDENT COUNSEL DECISION

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to comment on the independent 
counsel decision of the Attorney General.
  The Attorney General's obligation is to follow the law. It is not to 
respond to political pressure from whatever source.
  Now, over the last weekend, there were some extraordinary attempts 
made by a number of House Republican leaders to literally scare the 
Attorney General into doing what they wanted. Both Speaker Gingrich and 
Majority Leader Armey said Sunday, in effect, that if the Attorney 
General did not seek an independent counsel, it is because she caved in 
to administration pressure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the April 14 article of the Washington 
Post, entitled ``Republicans Warn Reno on Independent Counsel,'' be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, those comments by the Speaker and the 
majority leader of the House constitute an attempt at political 
intimidation and coercion. Their message to the Attorney General was 
that if she doesn't seek the appointment of an independent counsel, she 
would run the risk of being brought before a congressional committee 
and that she would be investigated, she would be put under oath, as 
though she, somehow or other, is violating her oath.
  The statements by the Republican leaders in the House fly in the face 
of the very purpose of our independent counsel law. Now, this is a 
statute that we passed, on a bipartisan basis, to take politics out of 
criminal investigations of high-level officials. But the Speaker of the 
House and the majority leader of the House worked mighty hard to put 
politics right back into the law. Their threats to the Attorney 
General--and that is exactly what they were--to make her do what they 
want were inappropriate, and they jeopardize the very law that they are 
demanding she invoke.
  She is required and was required to follow the law, wherever it leads 
her, despite the clumsy efforts at political intimidation of the 
Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the House. Their 
comments and their efforts to intimidate and coerce her to reach a 
conclusion that they believe is the right conclusion are inappropriate; 
they undermine a very important law, and they put that law's usefulness 
into jeopardy.
  There are thresholds in the independent counsel law. The Attorney 
General has gone through, very carefully, in her letter to the Congress 
why it is she does not at this time seek the appointment of an 
independent counsel. She has gone through the evidence that she has and 
has indicated why the thresholds in the statute have not been met. She 
has done so carefully and professionally.
  I urge every Member of this body to read the Attorney General's 
letter to Senator Hatch before they join any partisan effort to attempt 
to undermine the purpose of the law and to partisanize it.
  Now, Senator Cohen and I worked mighty hard to reauthorize this law. 
We did it more than once. We did it because it holds out the hope that 
serious allegations against high-level officials can be dealt with on a 
nonpartisan basis. That hope is being dashed by the kind of excessive 
comments that the Speaker of the House and majority leader of the House 
engaged in last weekend when they engaged in threats and coercion, 
attempting to politically intimidate the Attorney General of the United 
States. She has not shown a reluctance to use the independent counsel 
statute when the threshold has been met. She is following the law to 
the best of her conscience and ability. She has done a professional 
job. I commend her for following the law and the public integrity 
section recommendation in her Department, rather than bowing to 
political pressure. I emphasize that she has not, and I believe will 
not, bow to political pressure from whatever source or whatever 
direction.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Attorney General's letter to Senator 
Hatch be printed in the Record at this time.

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 1997.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On March 13, 1997, you and nine other 
     majority party members of the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the United States Senate wrote to me requesting the 
     appointment of an independent counsel to investigate possible 
     fundraising violations in connection with the 1996 
     presidential campaign. You made that request pursuant to a 
     provision of the Independent Counsel Act, 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 592(g)(1), which provides that ``a majority of majority 
     party members [of the Committee on the Judiciary] * * * may 
     request in writing that the Attorney General apply for the 
     appointment of an independent counsel.'' The Act requires me 
     to respond within 30 days, setting forth the reasons for my 
     decision on each of the matters with respect to which your 
     request is made. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 592(g)(2).
       I am writing to inform you that I have not initiated a 
     ``preliminary investigations'' (as that term is defined in 
     the Independent Counsel Act) of any of the matters mentioned 
     in your letter. Rather, as you know, matters relating to 
     campaign financing in the 1996 Federal elections have been 
     under active investigation since November by a task force of 
     career Justice Department prosecutors and Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation (FBI) agents. This task force is pursuing the 
     investigation vigorously and diligently, and it will continue 
     to do so. I can assure you that I have given your views and 
     your arguments careful thought, but at this time, I am unable 
     to agree, based on the facts and the law, that an independent 
     counsel should be appointed to handle this investigation.
       1. The Independent Counsel Act:
       In order to explain my reasons, I would like to outline 
     briefly the relevant provisions of the Independent Counsel 
     Act. The Act can be invoked in two circumstances that are 
     relevant here:
       First, if there are sufficient allegations (as further 
     described below) of criminal activity by a covered person, 
     defined as the President and Vice President, cabinet 
     officers, certain other enumerated high Federal officials, or 
     certain specified officers of the President's election 
     campaign (not party officials), see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(b), I 
     must seek appointment of an independent counsel.

[[Page S3176]]

       Second, if there are sufficient allegations of criminal 
     activity by a person other than a covered person, and I 
     determine that ``an investigation or prosecution of [that] 
     person by the Department of Justice may result in a personal, 
     financial or political conflict of interest,'' see 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 591(c)(1), I may seek appointment of an independent 
     counsel.
       In either case, I must follow a two-step process to 
     determine whether the allegations are sufficient. First, I 
     must determine whether the allegations are sufficiently 
     specific and credible to constitute grounds to investigate 
     whether an individual may have violated Federal criminal law. 
     28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(d). If so, the Department commences a 
     ``preliminary investigation'' for up to 90 days (which can be 
     extended an additional 60 days upon a showing of good cause). 
     28 U.S.C. Sec. 592(a). If, at the conclusion of this 
     ``preliminary investigation,'' I determine that further 
     investigation of the matters is warranted, I must seek an 
     independent counsel.
       Certain important features of the Act are critical to my 
     decision in this case:
       First, the Act sets forth the only circumstances in which I 
     may seek an independent counsel pursuant to its provisions. I 
     may not invoke its procedures unless the statutory 
     requirements are met.
       Second, the Act does not permit or require me to commence a 
     preliminary investigation unless there is specific and 
     credible evidence that a crime may have been committed. In 
     your letter, you suggest that it is not the responsibility of 
     the Department of Justice to determine whether a particular 
     set of facts suggests a potential Federal crime, but that 
     such legal determinations should be left to an independent 
     counsel. I do not agree. Under the Independent Counsel 
     Act, it is the Department's obligation to determine in the 
     first instance whether particular conduct potentially 
     falls within the scope of a particular criminal statute 
     such that criminal investigation is warranted. If it is 
     our conclusion that the alleged conduct is not criminal, 
     then there is no basis for appointment of an independent 
     counsel, because there would be no specific and credible 
     allegation of a violation of criminal law. See 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 592(a)(1).
       Third, there is an important difference between the 
     mandatory and discretionary provisions of the Act. Once I 
     have received specific and credible allegations of criminal 
     conduct by a covered person, I must commence a preliminary 
     investigation and, if further investigation is warranted at 
     the end of the preliminary investigation, seek appointment of 
     an independent counsel. If, on the other hand, I receive 
     specific and credible evidence that a person not covered by 
     the mandatory provisions of the Act has committed a crime, 
     and I determine that a conflict of interest exists with 
     respect to the investigation of that person, I may--but need 
     not--commence a preliminary investigation pursuant to the 
     provisions of the Act. This provision gives me the 
     flexibility to decide whether, overall, the national interest 
     would be best served by appointment of an independent counsel 
     in such a case, or whether it would be better for the 
     Department of Justice to continue a vigorous investigation of 
     the matter.
       Fourth, even this discretionary provision is not available 
     unless I find a conflict of interest of the sort contemplated 
     by the Act. The Congress has made it very clear that this 
     provision should be invoked only in certain narrow 
     circumstances. Under the Act, I must conclude that there is a 
     potential for an actual conflict of interest, rather than 
     merely an appearance of a conflict of interest. The Congress 
     expressly adopted this higher standard to ensure that the 
     provision would not be invoked unnecessarily. See 128 Cong. 
     Rec. H 9507 (daily ed. December 13, 1982) (statement of Rep. 
     Hall). Moreover, I must find that there is the potential for 
     such an actual conflict with respect to the investigation of 
     a particular person, not merely with respect to the overall 
     matter. Indeed, when the Act was reauthorized in 1994, 
     Congress considered a proposal for a more flexible standard 
     for invoking the discretionary clause, which would have 
     permitted its use to refer any ``matter'' to an Independent 
     Counsel when the purposes of the Act would be served.
       Congress rejected this suggestion, explaining that such a 
     standard would ``substantially lower the threshold for use of 
     the general discretionary provision.'' H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 
     511, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 9 (1994).
       2. Covered Persons--The Mandatory Provisions of the Act:
       Let me now turn to the specific allegations in your letter. 
     You assert that there are ``new questions of possible 
     wrongdoing by senior White House officials themselves,'' and 
     you identify a number of particular types of conduct in 
     support of this claim. While all of the specific issues you 
     mention are under review or active investigation by the task 
     force, at this time we have no specific, credible evidence 
     that any covered White House official may have committed a 
     Federal crime in respect of any of these issues. 
     Nevertheless, I will discuss separately each area that you 
     raise.
       a. Fundraising on Federal Property. First, you suggest that 
     ``federal officials may have illegally solicited and/or 
     received contributions on federal property.'' The conduct you 
     describe could be a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 607. We are 
     aware of a number of allegations of this sort; all are being 
     evaluated, and where appropriate, investigations have been 
     commenced. The Department takes allegations of political 
     fundraising by Federal employees on Federal property 
     seriously, and in appropriate cases would not hesitate to 
     prosecute such matters. Indeed, the Public Integrity Section, 
     which is overseeing the work of the campaign financing task 
     force, recently obtained a number of guilty pleas from 
     individuals who were soliciting and accepting political 
     contributions within the Department of Agriculture.
       The analysis of a potential section 607 violation is a 
     fact-specific inquiry. A number of different factors must be 
     considered when reviewing allegations that this law may have 
     been violated:
       First, the law specifically applies only to contributions 
     as technically defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     (FECA)--funds commonly referred to as ``hard money.'' The 
     statute originally applied broadly to any political 
     fundraising, but in 1979, over the objection of the 
     Department of Justice, Congress narrowed the scope of section 
     607 to render it applicable only to FECA contributions. 
     Before concluding that section 607 may have been violated, we 
     must have evidence that a particular solicitation involved a 
     ``contribution'' within the definition of the FECA.
       Second, there are private areas of the White House that, as 
     a general rule, fall outside the scope of the statute, 
     because of the statutory requirement that the particular 
     solicitation occur in an area ``occupied in the discharge of 
     official duties.'' 3 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 31 (1979). The 
     distinction recognizes that while the Federal Government 
     provides a residence to the President, similar to the housing 
     that it might provide to foreign service officers, this 
     residence is still the personal home of an individual within 
     which restrictions that might validly apply to the Federal 
     workplace should not be imposed. Before we can conclude that 
     section 607 may have been violated, we must have evidence 
     that fundraising took place in locations covered by the 
     provisions of the statute.
       Thus, while you express concerns about the possibility of 
     ``specific solicitation . . . made by federal officials at 
     the numerous White House overnights, coffees, and other 
     similar events,'' we do not at this time have any specific 
     and credible evidence of any such solicitation by any covered 
     person that may constitute a violation of section 607.
       We do not suggest, of course, that our consideration of 
     information concerning fundraising on Federal property is 
     limited to whether the conduct constituted a violation only 
     of section 607. However, at this point in time, we have no 
     specific and credible evidence to suggest that any crime was 
     committed by any covered person in connection with these 
     allegations.
       b. Misuse of Government Resources. You next assert that 
     Government property and employees may have been used 
     illegally to further campaign interests--conduct which might, 
     in some circumstances, constitute a theft or conversion of 
     Government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 651. 
     Again, we are actively investigating allegations that such 
     misconduct may have occurred. However, we are unaware at this 
     time of any evidence that any covered person participated in 
     any such activity, other than use of Government property that 
     is permitted under Federal law, such as the reports that the 
     Vice President used a Government telephone, charging the 
     calls to a nongovernment credit card. Federal regulations 
     permit such incidental use of Government property for 
     otherwise lawful personal purposes. See, e.g., 5 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 2635.704; 41 C.F.R. Sec. 201-21.601 (personal long 
     distance telephone calls). Thus, for example, allegations 
     that a Government telephone or telefacsimile machine may have 
     been used on a few occasions by a covered person for personal 
     purposes does not amount to an allegation of a Federal crime. 
     To the extent that there are allegations warranting 
     investigation that individuals not covered by the Independent 
     Counsel Act diverted Government resources, it is my 
     conclusion, as I explain below, that there is at present no 
     conflict of interest for the Department of Justice to 
     investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute those involved in 
     any such activity.
       c. Foreign Efforts to Influence U.S. Policy. You next cite 
     reports suggesting the possibility that foreign contributions 
     may have been made in hopes of influencing American policy 
     decisions. These allegations are under active investigation 
     by the task force. The facts known at this time, however, do 
     not indicate the criminal involvement of any covered person 
     in such conduct.
       It is neither unique nor unprecedented or the Department to 
     receive information that foreign interests might be seeking 
     to infuse money into American political campaigns. That was 
     precisely the scenario that underlay the criminal 
     investigations, prosecutions and congressional hearings 
     during the late 1970s involving allegations that a Korean 
     businessman was making illegal campaign contributions, among 
     other things, to Members of Congress to curry congressional 
     support for the Government of South Korea. In a more recent 
     example, in 1996 an individual was prosecuted and convicted 
     for funneling Indian Government funds into Federal elections 
     through the cover of a political action committee.
       Absent specific and credible evidence of complicity by a 
     covered person, it has never been suggested that the mere 
     allegation that a foreign government may have been trying to 
     provide funds to Federal campaigns should warrant appointment 
     of an independent counsel. Nor can it be the case that an 
     independent counsel is required to investigate because 
     campaign contributors or

[[Page S3177]]

     those who donated to political parties believed their 
     largesse would influence policy or achieve access. The 
     Department of Justice routinely handles such allegations, and 
     because of its experience in reviewing and investigating 
     these sensitive matters, embracing, among other things, 
     issues of national security, is particularly well-equipped to 
     do so.
       d. Coordination of Campaign Fundraising and Expenditures. 
     You also suggest that the ``close coordination by the White 
     House over the raising and spending of `soft'--and 
     purportedly independent--DNC funds violated Federal election 
     laws, and/or had the legal effect of rendering those funds 
     subject to campaign finance limitations they otherwise would 
     not be subject to.'' We believe this statement misapprehends 
     the law. The FECA does not prohibit the coordination of 
     fundraising or expenditures between a party and its 
     candidates for office. Indeed, the Federal Election 
     Commission (FEC), the body charged by Congress with 
     primary responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the 
     FECA, has historically assumed coordination between a 
     candidate and his or her political party.
       Of course, coordinated expenditures may be unlawful under 
     the FECA if they are made with funds from prohibited sources, 
     if they were misreported, or if they exceed applicable 
     expenditure limits. However, we presently lack specific and 
     credible evidence suggesting that any covered person 
     participated in any such violations, if they occurred.
       With respect to coordinated media advertisements by 
     political parties (an area that has received much attention 
     of late), the proper characterization of a particular 
     expenditure depends not on the degree of coordination, but 
     rather on the content of the message. Indeed, just last year 
     the FEC and the Department of Justice took this position in a 
     brief filed before the Supreme Court, in a case decided on 
     other grounds. See generally, Brief for the Respondent, 
     Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, (S. 
     Ct. No. 95-489) at 2-3, 18 n.15, 23-24. In this connection, 
     the FEC has concluded that party media advertisements that 
     focus on ``national legislative activity'' and that do not 
     contain an ``electioneering message'' may be financed, in 
     part, using ``soft'' money, i.e., money that does not comply 
     with FECA's contribution limits. FEC Advisory Op. 1995-25, 2 
     Fed. Elec. Camp. Fin. Guide (CCH) para. 6162, at 12,109-
     12,110 (August 24, 1995); FEC Advisory Op. 1985-14, 2 Fed. 
     Elec. Camp. Fin. Guide (CCH) para. 5819, at 11,185-11,186 
     (May 30, 1985). Moreover, such advertisements are not subject 
     to any applicable limitations on coordinated Expenditures by 
     the party on behalf of its candidates. AO 1985-14 at 11-185-
     11,186.
       We recognize that there are allegations that both 
     presidential candidates and both national political parties 
     engaged in a concerted effort to take full advantage of every 
     funding option available to them under the law, to craft 
     advertisements that took advantage of the lesser regulation 
     applicable to legislative issue advertising, and to raise 
     large quantities of soft political funding to finance these 
     ventures. However, at the present time, we lack specific and 
     credible evidence suggesting that these activities violated 
     the FECA. Moreover, even assuming that, after a thorough 
     investigation, the FEC were to conclude that regulatory 
     violations occurred, we presently lack specific and credible 
     evidence suggesting that any covered person participated in 
     any such violations.
       3. Conflict of Interest--The Discretionary Provisions of 
     the Act:
       In urging me to conclude that the investigation poses the 
     type of potential conflict of interest contemplated by the 
     Act, you rely heavily on my testimony before the Senate 
     Committee on Government Affairs in 1993 in support of 
     reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act. I stand by 
     those views and continue to support the overall concept 
     underlying the Act. My decisions pursuant to the Act have 
     been, I believe, fully consistent with those views.
       The remarks you quote from my testimony should be 
     interpreted within the context of the statutory language I 
     was discussing. When, for example, I referred to the need for 
     the Act to deal with the inherent conflict of interest when 
     the Department of Justice investigates ``high-level Executive 
     Branch officials,'' I was referring to persons covered under 
     the mandatory provisions of the Act. With respect to the 
     conflict of interest provision, my testimony expressed the 
     conviction that the Act ``would in no way preempt this 
     Department's authority to investigate public corruption,'' 
     and that the Department was clearly capable of ``vigorous 
     investigation of wrongdoing by public officials, whatever 
     allegiance or stripes they may wear. I will vigorously defend 
     and continue this tradition.'' While I endorsed the concept 
     of the discretionary clause to deal with unforeseeable 
     situations, I strongly emphasized that ``it is part of the 
     Attorney General's job to make difficult decisions in tough 
     cases. I have no intention of abdicating that 
     responsibility[.]'' These principles continue to guide my 
     decisionmaking today.
       There are times when reliance on the discretionary clause 
     is appropriate, and indeed, as you point out, I have done so 
     myself on a few occasions. However, in each of those cases, I 
     considered the particular factual context in which the 
     allegations against those persons arose and the history of 
     the matter. Moreover, even after finding the existence of a 
     potential conflict, I must consider whether under all the 
     circumstances discretionary appointment of an independent 
     counsel is appropriate. In each case, therefore, the final 
     decision has been an exercise of my discretion, as provided 
     for under the Act.
       I have undertaken the same examination here. Based on the 
     facts as we know them now, I have not concluded that any 
     conflict of interest would ensure from our vigorous and 
     thorough investigation of the allegations contained in your 
     letter.
       Your letter relies upon press reports, certain documents 
     and various public statements which you assert demonstrate 
     that ``officials at the highest level of the White House were 
     involved in formulating, coordinating and implementing the 
     [Democratic National Committee's (DNC's)] fundraising efforts 
     for the 1996 presidential campaign.'' You suggest that a 
     thorough investigation of ``fundraising improprieties'' will 
     therefore necessarily include an inquiry into the ``knowledge 
     and/or complicity of very senior White House officials,'' and 
     that the Department of Justice would therefore have a 
     conflict of interest investigating these allegations.
       To the extent that ``improprieties'' comprise crimes, they 
     are being thoroughly investigated by the agents and 
     prosecutors assigned to the task force. Should that 
     investigation develop at any time specific and credible 
     evidence that any covered person may have committed a crime, 
     the Act will be triggered, and I will fulfill my 
     responsibilities under the Act. In addition, should that 
     investigation develop specific and credible evidence that a 
     crime may have been committed by a ``very senior'' White 
     House official who is not covered by the Act, I will decide 
     whether investigation of that person by the Department might 
     result in a conflict of interest, and, if so, whether the 
     discretionary clause should be invoked. Until then, however, 
     the mere fact that employees of the White House and the DNC 
     worked closely together in the course of President Clinton's 
     reelection campaign does not warrant appointment of an 
     independent counsel. As I have stated above, the Department 
     has a long history of investigating allegations of criminal 
     activity by high-ranking Government officials without fear or 
     favor, and will do so in this case.
       I also do not accept the suggestion that there will be 
     widespread public distrust of the actions and conclusions of 
     the Department if it continues to investigate this matter, 
     creating a conflict of interest warranting the appointment of 
     an independent counsel. First, unless I find that the 
     investigation of a particular person against whom specific 
     and credible allegations have been made would pose a 
     conflict, I have no authority to utilize the procedures of 
     the Act. Moreover, I have confidence that the career 
     professionals in the Department will investigate this matter 
     in a fashion that will satisfy the American people that 
     justice has been done.
       Finally, even were I to determine that a conflict of 
     interest of the sort contemplated by the statute exists in 
     this case--and as noted above I do not find such a conflict 
     at this time--there would be a number of weighty 
     considerations that I would have to consider in determining 
     whether to exercise my discretion to seek an independent 
     counsel at this time. Because invocation of the conflict of 
     interest provision is discretionary, it would still be my 
     responsibility in that circumstance to weigh all the factors 
     and determine whether appointment of an independent counsel 
     would best serve the national interest. If in the future this 
     investigation reveals evidence indicating that a conflict of 
     interest exists, these factors will continue to weigh heavily 
     in my evaluation of whether or not to invoke the 
     discretionary provisions of the Act.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       I assure you, once again, that allegations of violations of 
     Federal criminal law with respect to campaign financing in 
     the course of the 1996 Federal elections will be thoroughly 
     investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted. At this point 
     it appears to me that that task should be performed by the 
     Department of Justice and its career investigators and 
     prosecutors. I want to emphasize, however, that the task 
     force continues to receive new information (much has been 
     discovered even since I received your letter), and I will 
     continue to monitor the investigation closely in light of my 
     responsibilities under the Independent Counsel Act. Should 
     future developments make it appropriate to invoke the 
     procedures of the Act, I will do so without hesitation.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 14, 1997]

              Republicans Warn Reno on Independent Counsel

                           (By John E. Wang)

       House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said yesterday Attorney 
     General Janet Reno should be called before Congress to 
     testify under oath if she does not tell Congress today that 
     she will seek an independent counsel to investigate alleged 
     abuses in Democratic Party fund-raising.
       Gingrich declared he has no confidence in Reno as attorney 
     general and, when asked if she should resign, said: ``We'll 
     know tomorrow,'' the deadline for Reno to respond to a 
     request from congressional Republicans that she call for an 
     independent counsel in the matter.

[[Page S3178]]

       ``The evidence mounts every day of lawbreaking in this 
     administration,'' Gingrich said on ``Fox News Sunday.''
       ``If she can look at the day-after-day revelations about 
     this administration and not conclude it's time for an 
     independent counsel, how can any serious citizen have any 
     sense of faith in her judgment?''
       Late last week, the indications were that Reno would likely 
     not seek a counsel in the case, which is already being 
     investigated by career Justice Department prosecutors, but 
     aides emphasized no final decision had been made.
       If she decides not to ask a three-judge panel to name an 
     independent counsel, Gingrich said, Reno needs to explain her 
     decision. ``She needs to answer in public, she needs to 
     answer, I think, under oath,'' he said.
       Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) 
     said Reno ``becomes a major issue'' if she does not call for 
     an independent counsel.
       ``The conflict of interest, both apparent and real, it 
     seems to me, would necessitate her choosing an independent 
     counsel,'' he said on ABC's ``This Week.'' ``If she doesn't, 
     then I think there's going to be a swirl of criticism that's 
     going to be, I think, very much justified.''
       Justice Department spokesman Bert Brandenburg dismissed 
     such talk. ``Unfortunately, this has become a battle between 
     law and politics,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``The 
     Justice Department will adhere to the law.''
       Reno routinely asks the career prosecutors looking into the 
     matter whether any development requires the appointment of an 
     independent counsel, according to Brandenburg. So far, they 
     have not said that an independent counsel is indicated, he 
     said.
       The law says the attorney general must ask for an 
     independent counsel if there is specific, credible 
     information of criminal wrongdoing by top administration 
     officials--including the president, vice president and 
     Cabinet officers--the head of a president's election or 
     reelection campaign or anyone else for whom it would be a 
     conflict of interest for the Justice Department to 
     investigate.
       House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) 
     said an independent counsel was needed to maintain public 
     confidence in the investigation. ``In-house investigations, 
     as honorable as they might well be, don't sell the public on 
     the fact that they are independent,'' he said on ABC.
       While Hyde said he retains his confidence in Reno as 
     attorney general, Gingrich was sharply critical of her for 
     not telling White House officials the FBI suspected China was 
     planning to make illegal campaign contributions. Reno has 
     said she telephoned national security adviser Anthony Lake, 
     failed to reach him and never called back.
       ``If you're the top law enforcement officer of this country 
     . . . wouldn't you say to the White House, `Gee, the 
     president and the secretary of state ought to know we think 
     the Chinese communists may be trying to buy the American 
     election'?'' he said.
       House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) suggested 
     Reno is victim of the political pressures within the 
     administration.
       ``This is a person that would like to be professional and 
     responsible in their job, and that makes her out of place in 
     this administration,'' Armey said on CBS's ``Face the 
     Nation.'' ``She is in a hopeless situation. . . . If I were 
     Janet Reno, I would just say, `I can't function with people 
     that stand with these standards of conduct and behavior and 
     I'm leaving.' ''
       On another topic, Gingrich said the United States should 
     ``consider very seriously'' military action against ``certain 
     very high-value targets in Iran'' if there is strong evidence 
     linking a senior Iranian government official to a group of 
     Shiite Muslims suspected of bombing a U.S. military compound 
     in Saudi Arabia last year.
       ``We have to take whatever steps are necessary to convince 
     Iran that state-sponsored terrorism is not acceptable,'' he 
     said. ``The indirect killing of Americans is still an act of 
     war.''
       The Washington Post reported yesterday that intelligence 
     information indicates that Brig. Ahmad Sherifi, a senior 
     Iranian intelligence officer and a top official in Iran's 
     Revolutionary Guards, met roughly two years before the 
     bombing with a Saudi Shiite arrested March 18 in Canada. 
     According to Canadian court records, the man, Hani Abd Rahim 
     Sayegh, had fled Saudi Arabia shortly after the June 25 
     bombing that killed 19 U.S. servicemen and wounded more than 
     500 others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

                          ____________________