[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S3195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        GENERAL RENO'S ACTIONS UNDER THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAW

  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, Attorney General Janet Reno's refusal 
to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Clinton 
administration's highly questionable fundraising activities is based 
upon a shocking misinterpretation of the history, purpose, and 
requirements of the independent counsel law.
  Ms. Reno states that the act ``does not permit'' invoking the 
independent counsel provisions unless there is ``specific and credible 
evidence that a crime may have been committed by'' a person covered by 
the law. In fact, the law requires that it be invoked whenever there is 
``information sufficient to constitute grounds to investigate'' whether 
any person covered by the law may have violated Federal law. In short, 
even though General Reno acknowledges that there are ``sufficient 
grounds to investigate,'' and even though that investigation is ongoing 
as I speak, she insists on controlling the investigation herself.
  There remains no conceivable room for doubt that the Clinton 
administration, the Clinton-Gore campaign, and the Democratic National 
Committee engaged in fundraising practices that must be investigated. 
Virtually every editorial page in the Nation, from the Wall Street 
Journal to the New York Times, have demanded an investigation. Indeed, 
even the highest officials at the DNC have acknowledged that their 
practices were questionable and have agreed to return over $3 million 
in contributions from foreign nationals, persons who gave contributions 
in the names of others, and contributions that may have come from 
foreign governments. And serious questions exist as to the use of 
Government property to solicit contributions and reward contributors.
  The Vice President has admitted that he made numerous telephone calls 
from his official office using a Clinton-Gore campaign card to raise 
funds for the purpose of furthering the Clinton-Gore reelection 
campaign. Several of the recipients of those calls said that they felt 
pressured to contribute because they had ongoing business with the 
Government. Other telephone call recipients perceived these calls as 
constituting a shakedown. When a charge was recently aired that a 
prominent Member of Congress had pressured a potential contributor, a 
Federal grand jury investigation was launched within days of the 
allegation. Shouldn't the Vice President, or the President, who had 
pointedly not denied making fundraising calls from his office, be 
investigated as well?
  The purpose of the independent counsel law is to entrust the 
investigation of these matters to someone who is not a subordinate of 
the official or officials being investigated. Yet General Reno refuses 
to invoke the independent counsel law until she is satisfied that laws 
have, in fact, been broken. That decision is not hers to make. That 
interpretation stands the law on its head.
  It is impossible to defend the proposition, as the Attorney General 
attempts to do, that covered persons are not implicated in the 
investigation that she is presently conducting and which should be 
conducted by an independent person. Documents released by the White 
House prove conclusively that the fundraising by the President's 
reelection campaign and by the DNC was run, on a day-to-day, hands-on 
basis by the President, himself, and his direct subordinate, Deputy 
Chief of Staff Harold Ickes. The DNC took orders directly from the 
President through Mr. Ickes. And the President and the Vice President 
and the First Lady were directly and substantially involved in all 
fundraising activities by the Clinton-Gore campaign and by the DNC, 
which was raising not soft money, but money that was raised for the 
purpose and used directly to fuel the President's reelection drive.
  The Attorney General seems to feel that some of the laws implicated 
by these practices may not or should not be prosecuted. But that 
prosecutorial decision must not be made by someone who owes her 
position in Government to the official who may have possibly violated 
those laws. It does not answer this concern for the Attorney General to 
state that she is relying on career officials in the Department of 
Justice. As long as they are reporting to her, they are reporting to 
the President. She may not independently investigate the conduct of 
President Clinton any more than Attorney General Mitchell could 
investigate President Nixon or Attorney General Meese could investigate 
President Reagan.
  I am not prejudging the results of the investigation which must be 
conducted into these matters. But I know that the practices that must 
be investigated may have violated Federal criminal laws, and that those 
violations may have been encouraged, inspired, directed, or condoned by 
the President or his immediate subordinates. The people of the United 
States are entitled to a prompt, full, fair, and independent 
investigation of these matters, and that investigation cannot be 
controlled by a person who serves at the pleasure of the President.

                          ____________________