[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9385-S9386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NEED FOR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL IN CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING PROBE

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the competency and appearance of 
integrity, if not the integrity itself, of the Department of Justice 
was called into sharp question when Attorney General Reno, FBI Director 
Freeh, and CIA Director Tenet briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee 
last Wednesday and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on 
Thursday.
  In last week's briefing, the CIA Director advised that an individual, 
referred to here as ``X'', who had been identified in many news 
accounts as a major foreign contributor to political campaigns and 
campaign committees, has made significant contributions as part of a 
plan of the Government of China.
  The CIA Director further advised that the CIA obtained that 
information about ``X'' from the FBI, and it only put the FBI 
information on ``X'' together with the news reports on ``X'' after an 
analysis which was made following a request by Senator Bennett at the 
July 1997 FBI-CIA briefing of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  The FBI Director advised that the information about ``X'' had been in 
the FBI files since September or October of 1995 on one report and 
since January 1997 on a second report. The FBI Director advised that 
the Governmental Affairs Committee was not told about that information 
at the July 1997 briefing because the FBI did not know it had the 
information.
  These disclosures raise a fundamental question of whether the FBI 
deliberately withheld the information or was not competent enough to 
know what information it had in its own files. Either alternative is a 
strong indictment of the FBI.
  With the new information on ``X,'' the question is: Where do we go 
from here on dealings with the Department of Justice and the FBI?
  When the FBI Director said the FBI did not know the FBI had the 
information on ``X'' in its files, based on my extensive dealings with 
Director Freeh, I accept and believe that he personally did not know 
the FBI had the information in its files. Frankly, I am not so sure 
that others in the FBI did not know of the import of that data.
  This matter obviously adds fuel to the fire on recent questions about 
the FBI and Director Freeh's leadership of that agency. There are 
questions on many matters, including the FBI laboratory, the FBI's 
handling of the interrogation of Mr. Richard Jewel in the Atlanta pipe 
bombing case, the FBI allowing White House people to look at 
confidential personnel background files, and the FBI's handling of the 
Ruby Ridge incident after Judge Freeh became director, as well as 
before.

[[Page S9386]]

  But notwithstanding those matters, I believe that Director Freeh is 
doing his job about as well as it can be done with that giant agency 
which is ever-expanding and taking on new worldwide assignments. But I 
do believe that Director Freeh is going to have to find out what went 
wrong here, take corrective action, including punitive measures, if 
warranted, and establish procedures to protect against its recurrence.
  It is really not a very complicated matter. All that is required is 
an index of names like ``X'' who have connections with the Government 
of China and then to cross-check those names against people who have 
appeared in the news media as major contributors to candidates or 
campaign committees.
  When I refer to this context, it is obviously not intended to be a 
comment on any special group. It is hard to understand why that cross-
checking of a simple index was not done by the FBI. And it is even 
harder to understand why the Department of Justice investigators did 
not find out about it, if in fact they did not.
  In a context where the Attorney General has consistently refused to 
petition the court for appointment of an independent counsel, it may 
well be that either consciously or subconsciously, those under her 
command may be less inclined to pursue, vigorously, leads which may 
embarrass the administration. After all, the fundamental purpose of 
appointing independent counsel was to have someone in charge who was 
not allied with the administration, not beholden to the administration, 
and not motivated in any way to favor the administration.
  It is not unusual, as a matter of common experience, for subordinates 
to do what they think their superiors want whether or not they 
correctly speculate on their superior's wishes. Beyond giving a clear 
signal to all the subordinates, an independent counsel would be in a 
position to press hard on a continuing basis for people to make all 
searches and analyses which were not done here.
  Leadership and intensity establish a tone and purpose. From numerous 
indicators, that tone and purpose are not present in the current 
Department of Justice.
  The Attorney General said at last Thursday's briefing that she was 
``not comfortable now'' to discuss cooperation with the Governmental 
Affairs Committee but would ``want to sit down and talk with the 
Department of Justice task force.''
  There are two problems with her statement. First, she had ample time 
to discuss the matter with the task force since she had met with the 
Intelligence Committee the day before and certainly had some advanced 
knowledge prior to that meeting. Second, she has continually said she 
would be willing to consider our request, but consistently there has 
been no followup.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee was further advised at last 
Thursday's briefing that if in the future the Department of Justice 
found information like that on ``X'', they would ``very seriously 
consider and talk about bringing that information to the committee.'' 
That is palpably insufficient.
  An independent counsel should be appointed so that the individual can 
press to obtain all such information on a continuing basis and so that 
there is no doubt about the duty of all units in the Department of 
Justice, including the FBI and other governmental agencies, to follow 
the direction of the independent counsel.
  In short, Mr. President, we have a situation here where the FBI has 
information in its files since September or October 1995--almost 2 
years ago--and other information since January 1997. That information 
is very important in linking an individual who is reputed to be a major 
campaign contributor, as noted in many news accounts, with a plan of 
the Government of China. Yet, that information was not made available 
to the Governmental Affairs Committee, and on the representation of the 
FBI not even known to the FBI.
  It came to light only because the FBI provides that information to 
the CIA. And the CIA had done an independent analysis at the request of 
Senator Bennett. Absent that request by Senator Bennett, absent the 
independent analysis of the CIA, today, we would not have that 
important link as we seek to understand the puzzle, put together the 
pieces on the so-called dotted lines, and understand what is going on 
in this matter.
  If we had independent counsel vigorously pursuing these matters and a 
clear-cut understanding throughout the entire Department of Justice and 
all Federal agencies, then we would have a realistic opportunity to get 
to the bottom of whatever is going on and take the corrective action.
  This is another link that I suggest is a very, very powerful link in 
the chain of evidence and circumstances really demanding appointment of 
independent counsel.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________